bil Laden was killed

[Athena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

 

Evidently bin Laden was killed by US special forces in Pakistan and his body was dumped in the sea. I don't know. Sounds fishy to me.

[insane_alien]

yes, it does sound fishy.

 

I'm uncomfortable with this for a number of reasons:

 

1/ this smacks of assassination rather than an attempt to bring him to justice(jumping straight to execution is not justice)

 

2/ the way (some) americans are reacting (chants of USA, etc, etc,) seems a bit, well, insane. seriously, its just like the saber rattling in the middle east when they kill an american soldier that you guys were so disgusted by (i'm betting its the same people who were disgusted that are aber rattling today).

 

3/ its being passed on as if every terrorist is now dead and sunshine and kittens are raining from the sky and death and evil have been eliminated from the world.

 

it hasn't this is still reality and you killed one guy. fairly prominent figure head but not much more these days. if anything this is merely going to cause a breif upsurge in levels of terrorism before it settles back down into the norm again.

[ajb]

I think that disposing of the body (after taking samples for DNA comparison) quickly was important. Burial at sea means that there is no place on land to make a shrine or other place of pilgrimage. The last thing we need is a "terrorist's Mecca".

[john5746]

Kind of bothers me that his body was dumped. I was hoping they would grind him up and sell pieces on Ebay.

 

My sunglasses were knocked off by a flying kitten today. Life is good.

 

Seriously, how could someone not be happy about this?

[ydoaPs]

yes, it does sound fishy.

 

I'm uncomfortable with this for a number of reasons:

 

1/ this smacks of assassination rather than an attempt to bring him to justice(jumping straight to execution is not justice)

I was under the impression that the goal of the night was to capture him alive(since, you know, they tried to get him to surrender). He refused surrender during the fight and was then killed.

[insane_alien]

yeah, just about every bad guy refuses surrender.

 

from what i've seen he was severely out numbered, chuck a can of tear gas in and wait for him to run out.

 

also to the terrorist mecca, i'm pretty sure they could and would do that without the body if they really wanted to.

[mississippichem]

Denying him the proper burial deals a major blow to the morale of Al Queada. I personally didn't want him to be tried on international TV so that he can spout his anti-western propaganda and make a new generation of Al Quaeda recruits. If he hated the way we operate the western world so badly, then we won't allow him to enjoy the hospitality of our western court system. He lived by middle-east third world style justice, so that's what we gave him. A one way ticket to the bottom of the Persian gulf.

 

I bet it was an assassination attempt, and I'm glad it was. This is what we should have done all along. Why start a war and kill thousands of civilians when you can just pick off the major baddies one by one. Wars are won by tech, intel, economics, and psychology these days.

Edited May 2, 2011 by mississippichem

[Horza2002]

I personally have no problem with him being killed; he has got as good as he gave to the rest of the world. As has been pointed out, he was given the chance to surrender but he didn't take it. Lets not forget that this man is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people. If he had been tried he would have been executed anyway. I think it also points out that, no matter how long you hide, justice will be done eventually.

 

As for dumbing the body, as ajb has pointed out, it prevents a "terrorist Mecca". Yes they could do it anyway somewhere, but its less powerful if the body is not there.

[ajb]

As for dumbing the body, as ajb has pointed out, it prevents a "terrorist Mecca". Yes they could do it anyway somewhere, but its less powerful if the body is not there.

 

 

For example, as Hilter's body was not recovered (always been rumours that Stalin had it) it has not become the centre of focus for neo-Nazi groups. It was always a possibility that Bin Laden's body or even parts of his body could take on "religious" significance like the Christian artefacts from the middle ages. No body wants to martyr Bin Laden and for him to take on "supernatural" inspirational powers. Saladin has been used used as a symbol of the struggle of the Middle East against the West, it would be a disaster if Bin Laden became the next symbol.

[zapatos]

yes, it does sound fishy.

 

I'm uncomfortable with this for a number of reasons:

 

1/ this smacks of assassination rather than an attempt to bring him to justice(jumping straight to execution is not justice)

 

2/ the way (some) americans are reacting (chants of USA, etc, etc,) seems a bit, well, insane. seriously, its just like the saber rattling in the middle east when they kill an american soldier that you guys were so disgusted by (i'm betting its the same people who were disgusted that are aber rattling today).

 

3/ its being passed on as if every terrorist is now dead and sunshine and kittens are raining from the sky and death and evil have been eliminated from the world.

 

it hasn't this is still reality and you killed one guy. fairly prominent figure head but not much more these days. if anything this is merely going to cause a breif upsurge in levels of terrorism before it settles back down into the norm again.

1/ It was IMO an act of war on his part that was ongoing. Soldiers do not usually ask the belligerents to surrender so they can stand trial. They kill them. Taking the time and effort required to take him prisoner would have put more people at risk. Job well done.

 

2/ An indication of how much the attacks on 9/11 affected people in this country. Sorry they are unable to emotionally react in a manner that others find acceptable.

 

3/ Where are you hearing this? Every commentator I've heard has made the point of saying that while his death is important it may have little impact on terrorism, which may even increase in the short term due to retaliation.

 

So bin Laden kills thousands, hides out for 10 years, and ends up dying in a gun battle. And your only comments are to second guess the motives of the US government and military on how it decided to respond, and to criticize the citizens who respond with joy in hearing that this mass murderer is dead.

 

You could have at least mentioned in passing that bin Laden was not a nice fellow. Does all your criticism have to be directed at the US?

[Athena]

For example, as Hilter's body was not recovered (always been rumours that Stalin had it) it has not become the centre of focus for neo-Nazi groups. It was always a possibility that Bin Laden's body or even parts of his body could take on "religious" significance like the Christian artefacts from the middle ages. No body wants to martyr Bin Laden and for him to take on "supernatural" inspirational powers. Saladin has been used used as a symbol of the struggle of the Middle East against the West, it would be a disaster if Bin Laden became the next symbol.

 

I sincerely thank you for the reasoning that is probably behind dumping bin Laden's body in the sea. I think you are correct about the threat of him being a martyr with remains the could give a shine all the religious power of the artifacts required by catholic churches in the middle ages. Now I am at peace with the decision. People may be very upset by the indignity, but this will be shorter lived than if he became part of religious shrine associated with supernatural powers.

 

A second thought. The leaders who have been asked to step down, and are killing their own people, might have a reaction to this covert action. Hope they can see, while we may not be rushing in like Bush did, with the "power and glory" of our military might, that does not mean it is safe for them to continue killing citizens.

 

Third thought. Are we witnessing a dramatic change in warfare? We have gone from mass destruction, the two atomic bombs the hit Japan, and multi headed million dollar bombs dropped on Iraq were weapons of mass destruction, to precision warfare, that eliminates the target but not the civilians and the infrastructure upon which they depend.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Athena

[ydoaPs]

I think you are correct about the threat of him being a martyr with remains the could give a shine all the religious power of the artifacts required by catholic churches in the middle ages.

I don't think that was ever a real threat. Osama was not a Muslim leader; he was a leader of Muslim extremists. His following was extremely small. His death might galvanize his small following, but that's fighting against the division of a power struggle. Comparing his following to the Catholic Church is simply absurd.

[lemur]

Denying him the proper burial deals a major blow to the morale of Al Queada. I personally didn't want him to be tried on international TV so that he can spout his anti-western propaganda and make a new generation of Al Quaeda recruits. If he hated the way we operate the western world so badly, then we won't allow him to enjoy the hospitality of our western court system. He lived by middle-east third world style justice, so that's what we gave him. A one way ticket to the bottom of the Persian gulf.

 

I bet it was an assassination attempt, and I'm glad it was. This is what we should have done all along. Why start a war and kill thousands of civilians when you can just pick off the major baddies one by one. Wars are won by tech, intel, economics, and psychology these days.

If this was the case, it would undermine the legitimacy of having a war on terror to promote democracy as a better culture. Basically what you're saying would amount to politics of destruction and retaliation with no underlying ideological motivations or moral high ground. Whoever said that the media images of people celebrating his death resembles those of people celebrating the deaths of US soldiers makes a very good point. It is practically a guarantee that terrorism and war will continue as long as people keep allowing themselves to be provoked and provoke others into hatred and bitterness.

[mississippichem]

If this was the case, it would undermine the legitimacy of having a war on terror to promote democracy as a better culture. Basically what you're saying would amount to politics of destruction and retaliation with no underlying ideological motivations or moral high ground. Whoever said that the media images of people celebrating his death resembles those of people celebrating the deaths of US soldiers makes a very good point.

 

In my opinion the reason for having a war on terror is not to spread democracy. It is to stop insane nut-bags [whatever their motivation is, religious or not] from committing atrocious actions against civilians. Most of the time that is a tall order and requires said nut-bags be killed.

 

I don't think we need an ideological motivation. In fact ideological motivated acts of war are the things we are trying to stop. Our enemies celebrating as we die is no more wrong or surprising than us celebrating when our enemies die.

 

It is practically a guarantee that terrorism and war will continue as long as people keep allowing themselves to be provoked and provoke others into hatred and bitterness.

 

And it is guaranteed that as long as we don't act decisively and intensely the crazies will continue to be an annoyance and or a threat in the future. We have no motivation other than wanting people like Bin Laden to cut it out with the anti-western nonsense. If you think my view is ethnocentric, then you would be right. I think in the interest of the culture in which I live as does everyone else who values self preservation.

[zapatos]

If this was the case, it would undermine the legitimacy of having a war on terror to promote democracy as a better culture. Basically what you're saying would amount to politics of destruction and retaliation with no underlying ideological motivations or moral high ground. Whoever said that the media images of people celebrating his death resembles those of people celebrating the deaths of US soldiers makes a very good point. It is practically a guarantee that terrorism and war will continue as long as people keep allowing themselves to be provoked and provoke others into hatred and bitterness.

Yes, yes, its our fault. If only we hadn't celebrated they would have stopped their attacks. What were we thinking?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that simply killing bin Laden was not enough motivation for future attacks? They had to see us celebrating to put them over the top?

 

It's a dirty business and if you lead attacks you have to expect that violence will come your way. Celebrations in the street are a side show to the people making the decisions. Obama would have approved the attack whether people celebrated the 9/11 destruction or not. And there will be retaliation on us whether Americans celebrate or sit quietly at home.

[Stefan-CoA]

I just enjoy how every American in the world is currently frothing at the mouth with the stars 'n stripes in his left hand and beating his chest with the right, whereas people from other countries are "Wait a minute".

 

Americans aren't much different from the terrorists. Except they have an army of democracy, peace, justice and happiness to do the killing rather than religious fanatics.

 

And I'm sorry, this whole shrine to terrorism business. Are you people for real? If such a thing were to happen, the US of A would just drop a bomb to make it all go away. It hasn't happened with Lenin and his body is open to the public viewing.

 

I don't think any terrorist is so stupid to go and make a public place his recruitment center. If anything they could have just used it as bait.

[ajb]

It hasn't happened with Lenin and his body is open to the public viewing.

 

I don't understand why you compare this with Lenin. His body was a very popular attraction in Moscow for many years. I don't know if people consider Lenin's tomb with any "reverence" or deep significance with regards to the communist revolution.

 

Stalin maybe a more appropriate comparison. Stalin's body was preserved and placed next to Lenin. However, it was removed a few years later and cremated (I think). The reason being that killed many of his own people. Khrushchev I believe was instrumental in removing the false image of Stalin and acknowledging the horror he inflicted on the Soviet people.

 

 

I don't think any terrorist is so stupid to go and make a public place his recruitment center.

 

Sure, but one would still not want to create some kind of shrine for Bin Laden.

 

 

A technical point is that the US would have found it difficult to find a country willing to accept Bin Laden's body given he was the most wanted person in the world. Maybe Libya or Iran would have taken him, but they would have used his body for anti-West propaganda, maybe even setting up the shrine.

Edited May 3, 2011 by ajb

[Horza2002]

And I'm sorry, this whole shrine to terrorism business. Are you people for real? If such a thing were to happen, the US of A would just drop a bomb to make it all go away. It hasn't happened with Lenin and his body is open to the public viewing.

 

I don't think any terrorist is so stupid to go and make a public place his recruitment center. If anything they could have just used it as bait.

 

Why would they need to do it publicaly? They could just keep his body in a secret location for the devoted follower who they beleive have earned the right to go and visit him? Remember it took 10 years to find him this time...if they wanted to keep his body in a secret location then it could be very difficult and costly do try and fix later is indeed it did become a matyr

[CaptainPanic]

As long as all the people who believe that terrorism is the Biggest-Threat-To-Life-As-We-Know-It believe that Osama is dead, it's Mission Accomplished.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about Osama bin Laden. Terrorism was never really important... it was just made very important by politicians. The terrorists had their time in the spotlights. Can we now focus on more important things again, please?

[lemur]

In my opinion the reason for having a war on terror is not to spread democracy. It is to stop insane nut-bags [whatever their motivation is, religious or not] from committing atrocious actions against civilians. Most of the time that is a tall order and requires said nut-bags be killed.

But that is in itself a repressive approach to violence. Democracy requires that violence is regarded in terms of power-balancing instead of domination. So we're not supposed to be killing to repress the will of terrorists but to return fire to show that violence isn't a one-way street. It's more of an ideological difference than a practical one, but I think it's important not to fall into ourselves pursuing a terrorist approach to authoritarian domination.

 

I don't think we need an ideological motivation. In fact ideological motivated acts of war are the things we are trying to stop. Our enemies celebrating as we die is no more wrong or surprising than us celebrating when our enemies die.

Celebrating death is twisted. You're supposed to regret the loss of life in war, not celebrate it. People should be regretting that Osama bin Laden's clearly good-hearted intentions in his life politics led him down a road that degenerated into killing and being killed. Remember he was a champion of democracy and freedom against sovietism, right?

 

And it is guaranteed that as long as we don't act decisively and intensely the crazies will continue to be an annoyance and or a threat in the future. We have no motivation other than wanting people like Bin Laden to cut it out with the anti-western nonsense. If you think my view is ethnocentric, then you would be right. I think in the interest of the culture in which I live as does everyone else who values self preservation.

There's nothing wrong with politically critiquing western culture. The problem comes with advocating death and destruction as a means of achieving reform. This ideology was held not only by anti-westerners before 9/11 attacks but many westerners as well. I can remember people used to say that WWII was good for the economy and that Europe became better after suffering destruction during that war. They thought that the US needed a "good war" to propel it into solidarity. Such an ideology is just as death-driven as one that regards killing as a means to destroy capitalism, democracy, globalism, etc.

 

 

 

Yes, yes, its our fault. If only we hadn't celebrated they would have stopped their attacks. What were we thinking?

 

Are you seriously suggesting that simply killing bin Laden was not enough motivation for future attacks? They had to see us celebrating to put them over the top?

 

It's a dirty business and if you lead attacks you have to expect that violence will come your way. Celebrations in the street are a side show to the people making the decisions. Obama would have approved the attack whether people celebrated the 9/11 destruction or not. And there will be retaliation on us whether Americans celebrate or sit quietly at home.

No, I would never say that anyone should choose to behave a certain way to avoid attacks. That would be like telling children to keep their mouths shut to avoid getting beaten up by bullies. What I am saying is that there is no difference between celebrating bin Laden's killing and anyone else in the world celebrating the killing of US soldiers or otherwise. It is an expression of hate and hate stokes hate. That's all. When you nurture hate, you can't be surprised when someone else's hate ends up ruining your day one day. What goes around comes around.

[CaptainPanic]

lemur, I congratulate you on an excellent post.

 

Indeed, the only way to fight terrorism is by arresting them and trying them as criminals. If they hide in a remote area, and fight a guerilla, they are called "rebels" and can be considered an army.

 

Indeed, regretting loss of life is the only road to peace. Finding something good in your enemies is the only way to get to speaking terms.

 

Indeed, in a free world, it is essential that we allow people to completely and utterly despise the (rather dominant) Western culture. They should, according to freedom of speech even be allowed to try to convert the rest of us to whatever ideology they have. As long as they do not take up arms (especially against civilians), there is no problem.

 

And your final comment - I just completely agree with that too.

 

In our fight to protect Freedom and Democracy, we sometimes seem to forget the freedom and democracy itself.

[zapatos]

As long as all the people who believe that terrorism is the Biggest-Threat-To-Life-As-We-Know-It believe that Osama is dead, it's Mission Accomplished.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about Osama bin Laden. Terrorism was never really important... it was just made very important by politicians. The terrorists had their time in the spotlights. Can we now focus on more important things again, please?

Tell it to the victims (number of dead in parentheses), their families and friends. But as long as it is not personally an issue for you, then by all means everyone else should move on.

 

13 Dec 1921: bombing of Bolgard palace in Bessarabia (modern Moldova) (100)

16 Apr 1925: bombing of cathedral in Sophia, Bulgaria (160)

18 May 1973: mid-air bombing of Aeroflot airliner, Siberia (100)

4 Dec 1977: crash of hijacked Malaysian airliner near Malaysia (100)

20 Aug 1978: arson of theater in Abadan, Iran (477)

20 Nov-5 Dec 1979: hostage taking at Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia (includes 87 terrorists killed) (240)

23 Sep 1983: crash of Gulf Air flight following mid-air bombing over the UAE (112)

23 Oct 1983: truck bombings of U.S. Marine and French barracks, Beirut, Lebanon (301)

14 May 1985: armed attack on crowds in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka (150)

23 Jun 1985: mid-air bombing of Air India flight off Ireland, and attempted bombing of second flight in Canada (331)

18 Apr 1987: roadway ambush near Alut Oya, Sri Lanka (127)

21 Apr 1987: bombing of bus depot in Columbo, Sri Lanka (106)

29 Nov 1987: mid-air bombing of Korean Air flight near Burma (115)

21 Dec 1988: mid-air bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland (270)

19 Sep 1989: mid-air bombing of French UTA flight near Bilma, Niger (171)

27 Nov 1989: mid-air bombing of Avianca flight in Bogota, Columbia (110)

3 Aug 1990: armed attack at two mosques in Kathankudy, Sri Lanka (140)

13 Aug 1990: armed attack at mosque in Eravur, Sri Lanka (122)

2 Oct 1990: crash of hijacked PRC airliner in Guangzhou, PRC (132)

12 Mar 1993: 15 bombings in Bombay, India (317)

22 Sep 1993: crash of airliner struck by missile in Sukhumi, Georgia (106)

19 Apr 1995: truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA (169)

14-19 June 1996: hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts (143)

23 Nov 1996: crash of hijacked Ethiopian Air flight off Comoros (127)

29 Aug 1997: attacks at Sidi Moussa and Hais Rais, Algeria (238)

22 Sep 1997: attack at Ben Talha, Algeria (277)

30 Dec 1997: attack at Ami Moussa, Algeria (272)

4 Jan 1998: attacks at Had Chekala, Remka, and Ain Tarik, Algeria (172)

11 Jan 1998: attack on movie theater and mosque at Sidi Hamed, Algeria (103)

8 Aug 1998: truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania (303)

13 Sep 1999: bombing of apartment building in Moscow, Russia (130)

31 Oct 1999: intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot (217)

10 Aug 2001: attack on train south of Luanda, Angola (152)

11 Sep 2001: crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA (2,993)

12 Oct 2002: car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia (202)

26 Oct 2002: hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) (170)

29 Aug 2003: car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq (125)

1 Feb 2004: two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq (109)

21 Feb 2004: armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda (239)

27 Feb 2004: bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines (118)

2 Mar 2004: multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq (188)

11 Mar 2004: bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain (191)

24 Jun 2004: multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq (103)

1-3 Sep 2004: hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) (366)

28 Feb 2005: car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq (135)

14 Sep 2005: multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq (182)

5 Jan 2006: bombings in Karbala, Ramadi, and Baghdad, Iraq (124)

11 Jul 2006: multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India (200)

16 Oct 2006: truck bombing of military convoy near Habarana, Sri Lanka (103)

23 Nov 2006: multiple car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (202)

22 Jan 2007: multiple bombings in Baghdad area, Iraq (101)

3 Feb 2007: truck bombing in market place in Baghdad, Iraq (137)

6 Mar 2007: two bombings and other attacks on pilgrims, Hilla, Iraq (137)

27 Mar 2007: two truck bombings in Tal Afar, Iraq (152)

18 Apr 2007: bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (193)

3-10 Jul 2007: hostage taking and subsequent storming of mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan (102)

7 Jul 2007: bombings in Baghdad and Armili, Iraq (182)

14 Aug 2007: multiple truck bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq (520)

18 Oct 2007: bombing of motorcade in Karachi, Pakistan (137)

17 Feb 2008: bombing at dogfighting festival in Kandahar, Afghanistan (105)

26-29 Nov 2008: multiple gun and grenade attacks and hostage takings in Mumbai, India (174)

19 Aug 2009: multiple bombings at government sites in Baghdad, Iraq (102)

25 Oct 2009: two vehicle bombings at government buildings in Baghdad, Iraq (155)

28 Oct 2009: bombing at marketplace in Pakistan (118)

8 Dec 2009: five car bombings in Baghdad, Iraq (127)

10 May 2010: multiple bombings in Hilla, Basra, al-Suwayra, and other cities, Iraq (102)

 

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/globalterrorism1.html

The frequency and deadliness of international terrorist attacks continue to drop, but Al Qaeda and Islamist extremism remain an adaptable and convert-recruiting foe – as witnessed by the growing number of cases of home-grown Muslim radicals.

 

Those are among the findings of “Country Reports on Terrorism,” the State Department’s annual report on international terrorist activity.

 

Among the highlights: The world witnessed 10,999 terrorist attacks in 2009, down from a high of 14,443 in 2006 (think “height of the Iraq war”) and the lowest number in five years. Also last year, the State Department listed 14,971 fatalities from terrorist attacks – down from nearly 23,000 in 2006.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0805/Last-year-10-999-terrorist-attacks-worldwide-a-decline-from-2008

Edited May 3, 2011 by zapatos

[CharonY]

To put that into perspective (and I believe CaptainPanic was trying to make the point that perspective is important here):

Unintentional poisoning Deaths : 29,846

Car deaths : 42,031

 

In the USA alone (2007) My link

[A Tripolation]

To put that into perspective (and I believe CaptainPanic was trying to make the point that perspective is important here):

Unintentional poisoning Deaths : 29,846

Car deaths : 42,031

 

In the USA alone (2007) My link

 

Those were still people that were INTENTIONALLY murdered. I don't understand how you can just shrug off such violent deaths.

[CharonY]

I am not shrugging them off. The question is that of risk assessment. You are more likely to die from wrong medications or in car accidents than by a terrorist attack.

 

Murder obviously has a stronger emotional impact (as the reply demonstrate). And for that reason terrorism commands a disproportionate amount of attention relative to its actual risk.

 

People sit in cars and do not buckle up and are at higher risk to die than from bombing. Yet they are afraid of terrorist and not of car accidents.

 

The inherent danger is that policies and legislature in connection with terrorism are much more likely based on fear than on logic or facts.