Osama Bin Laden is dead!

OG_slinger wrote:

I thought I'd never say this, but I agree with Aetius.

Same here.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Bin Laden's even more of a monster than I thought. He made me agree with Aetius.

Even in death he haunts us. We lost the Amazing Race and now we're forming an Aetius phalanx of GWJ.

OG_slinger: I don't think I've given you any reason to get so hyperbolic that you should pose a question like that to me. Can we keep this discussion civil? Because I think it's obvious that my answer would be that there are more levels of intent than just "shooting at civilians" and "shooting at bad guys." There's also "shooting at bad guys while taking steps to make sure civilians don't get accidentally shot."

HopeChest wrote:

OG_slinger: I don't think I've given you any reason to get so hyperbolic that you should pose a question like that to me. Can we keep this discussion civil? Because I think it's obvious that my answer would be that there are more levels of intent than just "shooting at civilians" and "shooting at bad guys." There's also "shooting at bad guys while taking steps to make sure civilians don't get accidentally shot."

HopeChest wrote:

OG_slinger: I was watching Mob Wives last night, and those women were carrying on about how terrible it is that the Feds come and take away their husbands and leave crying children and weeping wives as if they'd been the victims of criminals themselves. I don't think you can always go by the reactions of loved ones when figuring out what is moral and just, and what isn't.

You tried to excuse us killing hundreds of thousands of people by implying they were all guilty of terrorism.

Aetius wrote:

The part you're missing here is that Bin Laden's stated aim was kill Americans - not civilians. He saw no difference between those in the Towers and those on the ground in Saudi Arabia or a hundred other countries ... just as we saw no difference between the innocent people we've extra-judiciously imprisoned, tortured, and killed, and him. He assumes he can order someone dead to fit his aims, and so do we. There isn't any manslaughter or first degree murder here, because there is no court, no jury, no trial, and no law - only an executioner. And we did it exactly the way he did it.

Suggesting that the civilians Bin Laden killed and the civilians that have died at our hands is the same is insulting. Bin Laden openly targeted civilians. Are you suggesting that the US military is engaging in an open campaign to kill Muslims? Sure there have been a LOT of innocent and unnecessary deaths but Apache's are not targeting housing complexes in an effort to instill fear. Suggesting they're the same thing is disgraceful.

The WH briefing just stated that it was not a stated "kill" mission. If they could have taken him alive they would have. Details are sketchy but it sounds like he was in a gunfight with SEALs (which is a bad idea btw). The ABC video clearly shows that his wall was breached (note the huge round hole) so they probably did a standard wall charge, threw some fb's and took the room.

There's also a lot of discussion by terrorism experts that this could mean the end of Al Qaeda. Experts have stated that there is a lot of dissension between cells and Bin Laden was the glue that held the organization together. Also, there are a lot of Islamic countries and Muslims who don't want anything to do with Bin Laden. I wouldn't overestimate the outrage.

We shouldn't speculate on what we think may have happened or forming judgements until we know all the facts. Per the WH briefing, there will be more information released as they deem fit but they're not compromising their intel or abilities.

OG_slinger wrote:

So now every Iraqi and Afghani we killed was actually a secret terrorist? Think again.

Or are you just saying that because we were shooting at the bad guys that it magically makes us blameless when we hit a civilian?

Not blameless, those are terrible mistakes, the fact that we didn't mean to do it doesn't bring anyone back to life afterwards. As a nation we do our best to avoid that though. The billions and billions and billions of unsustainable military spending that is arguably dragging down our entire economy is all for making more and more precise weaponry in order to minimize collateral damage.

However even though we make mistakes and need to take blame for them, that rightful blame does not include being put at the level of people who do those things on purpose.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

According to the press conference on Fox being given now by Brennan, the special forces were instructed to capture or kill Usama. They wanted to capture him alive, but suspected that he would resist to the death. So not quite an assassination.

Except reports have it that he was killed by a double tap the left side of his head...

That doesn't necessarily rule out shots fired at a resisting person. The "in the head" part is a little weird, but perhaps that is standard procedure when fighting combatants that are likely to be wearing body armor?

Although if you want to thoroughly parse Obama's speech you can find evidence that it was a hit:

Barack Obama wrote:

After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

Note the use of "after" as opposed to "during". That doesn't necessarily mean anything though, as he could also have been referring to the aftermath of the firefight in general.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

According to the press conference on Fox being given now by Brennan, the special forces were instructed to capture or kill Usama. They wanted to capture him alive, but suspected that he would resist to the death. So not quite an assassination.

Except reports have it that he was killed by a double tap the left side of his head...

So? Two quick shots to the head doesn't mean that it couldn't have been in action. Reportedly he was given the opportunity to surrender that he didn't take. None of us know besides the ones that were there.

Although now there's sites like Gizmodo reporting that Obama watched live via a helmet cam, so there might even be video. Not sure I trust Gizmodo on stuff like this, but it's not inconceivable.

OG_slinger wrote:
HopeChest wrote:

OG_slinger: I don't think I've given you any reason to get so hyperbolic that you should pose a question like that to me. Can we keep this discussion civil? Because I think it's obvious that my answer would be that there are more levels of intent than just "shooting at civilians" and "shooting at bad guys." There's also "shooting at bad guys while taking steps to make sure civilians don't get accidentally shot."

HopeChest wrote:

OG_slinger: I was watching Mob Wives last night, and those women were carrying on about how terrible it is that the Feds come and take away their husbands and leave crying children and weeping wives as if they'd been the victims of criminals themselves. I don't think you can always go by the reactions of loved ones when figuring out what is moral and just, and what isn't.

You tried to excuse us killing hundreds of thousands of people by implying they were all guilty of terrorism.

Of the people the US military has directly killed the vast majority have been terrorists or people trying to attack the US military.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

Bin Laden's even more of a monster than I thought. He made me agree with Aetius.

I can't remember if I read this in this thread or the other one (and I'm too lazy to go look for it so I'm going to paraphrase).

Yeah...still not sure why we have two threads.

Somebody said this was good because it showed that we would go to the ends of the Earth to catch somebody. I don't see how bankrupting our country every time somebody wrongs us isn't doing exactly what they want.

Remember that a little under a decade ago, bin Laden's stated goal was to bankrupt America and cause Al Qaeda to grow into a hydra. In those two situations, he's winning.

But he lost in a lot more damning ways. Democracy is slowly working its sticky fingers into Arab nations, supplanting American friendly dictators, and in most cases this is happening without the help of Al Qaeda, and some notable cases it's happening peacefully. He lost the will of the Arab people. There've been several reports saying that he won't get martyr status because...well, because Arabs just don't care about him in the face of enormous political upheavals across the Arab world.

I'm going to abstract this with some Tao Te Jing:

68
Compassion

Compassion is the finest weapon and best defence.
If you would establish harmony,
Compassion must surround you like a fortress.

Therefore,
A good soldier does not inspire fear;
A good fighter does not display aggression;
A good conqueror does not engage in battle;
A good leader does not exercise authority.

This is the value of unimportance;
This is how to win the cooperation of others;
This to how to build the same harmony that is in nature.

(Taken care of)

I just checked Facebook for the first time since last night. While there was one person asking why Obama was taking all of the credit (using this picture as proof that he's doing so), somebody's status was "Confused. Are we in Munchkinland?"

Bear wrote:

There's also a lot of discussion by terrorism experts that this could mean the end of Al Qaeda. Experts have stated that there is a lot of dissension between cells and Bin Laden was the glue that held the organization together. Also, there are a lot of Islamic countries and Muslims who don't want anything to do with Bin Laden. I wouldn't overestimate the outrage.

Saw some of that on CNN last night. Not sure who the expert was, but he was naming off some Al Qaeda personnel, and pointing out they didn't have the leadership of Bin Laden, or even some of the same goals or whatever. It's possible this could be a "cut off the head and the monster dies" situation. Time will tell, whether someone fills the void or the organization dies. As Obama phrased it multiple times in his speech, "war against Al Qaeda" instead of "war on terror." The war against Al Qaeda might be over.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I just checked Facebook for the first time since last night. While there was one person asking why Obama was taking all of the credit (using this picture as proof that he's doing so), somebody's status was "Confused. Are we in Munchkinland?"

I can see where somebody would say he's taking credit. A quick word count on the speech shows he used "I" 11 times in the speech about ordering actions and things that he did.

Not being an Obama fan, I still have no problem with that. It's a president's prerogative. They take more credit and blame than deserved for things that happen on their watch. He did a good thing by continuing the hunt and keeping the teams involved in the search. This take down is really affected by the action of the last three presidents to varying degrees.

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I just checked Facebook [...], somebody's status was "Confused. Are we in Munchkinland?"

More than one person in my feed had the status "Ding dong, the witch is dead", so I suppose that follows.

Hm, just watching CNN. Apparently Abbottabad is a center for Pakistani military, where soldiers train, and one of their main military supply areas. Lots of retired military living in the same neighborhood where the compound was.

Seems that either Pakistan's military intelligence is incompetent, or they knew where he was. Neither is very comforting.

Yonder wrote:

Of the people the US military has directly killed the vast majority have been terrorists or people trying to attack the US military.

Except we really don't have any proof of that and the US military purposely doesn't keep records about civilians they kill. That and we're still responsible for Iraq's little adventure in ethnic cleansing.

HopeChest wrote:

OG_slinger: That still doesn't mean you shouldn't treat me with civility.

How, exactly, was I being uncivil?

HopeChest wrote:

edit: I feel like I should add some substance to this response, so--I guess my question to you would be what does that prove, that the families of those we killed but did not intend to is the same as those we did and who were valid targets? I made a mistake in using that analogy that did not fit what you were asking because...I really wasn't sure what you were asking. I should have asked for clarification from you first.

We can't act like we're the good guys when we've actually done something orders of magnitude worse than 9/11 to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. What our intentions were don't matter. It's what we actually did that counts and that means there's far more innocent blood on our hands than Osama's.

edit: crossed in postings/edits.

edit: OG_slinger: what I meant was that in both cases, we went in and caused that suffering by loved ones while doing the "right" thing. In between your two posts, I think you forgot the original question you asked me.

No, every person we have killed is not a "secret terrorist" but that's not what you asked me about: you asked me about the reactions of loved ones to people killed as a consequence of us doing the "right" thing, which is what my comment was directed towards. That's the best sense I can make out of our exchange.

You were being uncivil by jumping to hyperbole so quickly, by asking me if I believe something is done by means of 'magic': clearly you had to know that I do not, and there's no reason to get snarky like that.

+++++

Okay, to get back to your latest post (we crossed in edits and postings) you still haven't shown me why the fact that the families grieve the same proves that intentions don't matter. They matter as far as the emotional reactions of loved ones, but, why is that evidence that what we are doing is necessarily wrong? Emotional reactions don't always makes sense: that's why they call them 'emotions' in the first place.

MannishBoy wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:

I just checked Facebook for the first time since last night. While there was one person asking why Obama was taking all of the credit (using this picture as proof that he's doing so), somebody's status was "Confused. Are we in Munchkinland?"

I can see where somebody would say he's taking credit. A quick word count on the speech shows he used "I" 11 times in the speech about ordering actions and things that he did.

Not being an Obama fan, I still have no problem with that. It's a president's prerogative. They take more credit and blame than deserved for things that happen on their watch. He did a good thing by continuing the hunt and keeping the teams involved in the search. This take down is really affected by the action of the last three presidents to varying degrees.

Yeah, Clinton and his supporters are still taking credit for the "boom" of the 90s. Forgetting that that boom was a bubble inflated by excess liquidity and that the bubble came crashing down years later. Oh well.

Right. Look at it from a broader historical perspective, it took Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations to put down a monster created by Carter and Reagan.

"Today we are reminded that as a nation there is nothing we can't do," Obama said of the news bound to lift his political standing and help define his presidency.

That's the kind of thing I'd say about a moon landing. It's always been pretty clear we know how to kill guys. That's pretty much what we're known for these days. I doubt anyone needed a reminder.

Funkenpants wrote:

That's the kind of thing I'd say about a moon landing. It's always been pretty clear we know how to kill guys. That's pretty much what we're known for these days. I doubt anyone needed a reminder.

In flipping around the channels last night, I heard somebody say that this was as big or bigger than the moon landing.

May have been Geraldo. Not sure, but that guy was nuts last night.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Right. Look at it from a broader historical perspective, it took Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations to put down a monster created by Carter and Reagan.

QFT.

Funkenpants wrote:

"Today we are reminded that as a nation there is nothing we can't do," Obama said of the news bound to lift his political standing and help define his presidency.

That's the kind of thing I'd say about a moon landing. It's always been pretty clear we know how to kill guys. That's pretty much what we're known for these days. I doubt anyone needed a reminder.

This is an especially poignant observation to make considering that this week (unless something else breaks) we will be launching the last shuttle mission, after which the United States will lose the ability to put a human into orbit.

Yonder wrote:

This is an especially poignant observation to make considering that this week (unless something else breaks) we will be launching the last shuttle mission, after which the United States will lose the ability to put a human into orbit.

The last trip for Endeavour, yes. Atlantis is supposed to be the last flight of a shuttle, scheduled for June 28th. Last I heard, at least.

Yeah, 2 flights left still, including this week.

ilduce620 wrote:
Yonder wrote:

This is an especially poignant observation to make considering that this week (unless something else breaks) we will be launching the last shuttle mission, after which the United States will lose the ability to put a human into orbit.

The last trip for Endeavour, yes. Atlantis is supposed to be the last flight of a shuttle, scheduled for June 28th. Last I heard, at least.

Whoops, you're right, how embarrassing.

Yonder wrote:
ilduce620 wrote:

The last trip for Endeavour, yes. Atlantis is supposed to be the last flight of a shuttle, scheduled for June 28th. Last I heard, at least.

Whoops, you're right, how embarrassing.

No kidding. Aren't you our local rocket scientist? You are supposed to know this stuff.

holy crap Limbaugh said something positive about the President:

"Ladies and gentleman, we need to open the program today by congratulating President Obama," he said. "President Obama has done something extremely effective, and when he does, this needs to be pointed out."

Though Limbaugh has openly criticized Obama as commander-in-chief in the past, he gushed about the president's competency following what he called the "assassination" of Osama bin Laden Sunday.

"You see the military wanted to go in there and bomb, like they always do…But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the special forces," he explained.

Yeah, he also said that he was contiuing Bush's policies, but it's something I never thought I would see.