Bin Laden's Dead

[cinepro]

A possible sidenote:

It would be interesting if the million dollar mansion were built by dollars from the American taxpayer. We have given billions of dollars to Pakistan.

Osama was independently wealthy from the death of his billionaire father (which is why he had the time and money to start Al Queda to begin with).

[BCSpace]

Obama got Osama!!!!!

Yes, in part thanks to intelligence developed via enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay (both opposed by Obama back then but now embraced) and years of hard work by the Bush administration's intelligence community. The constant criticism of them has now been vindicated. This is indeed yet another win for Bush and his leadership in the war.

[Nathair/|\]

Movies in particular Star Wars. Some people live in a fantasy land and that doesn't even touch the politics of some who shall remain unnamed.

I was using it to make a point. When is a threat great enough that it's weakening is just cause for celebration? How many deaths must someone cause before we can celebrate that he can no longer cause any more?

[Acris Venator]

Honestly, if they were going for "maximum deaths", I'm not sure what they would have done differently.

They could have waited an hour or two, and the death toll would have been greater. The later in the morning, the larger the number who would have been trapped in the top half of both towers. Striking early in the morning while many were still in transit is not optimal if you are going for maximum deaths. It is optimal if you are going for an exclamation point.

But the death toll was probably besides the point to Al Qaeda. The towers themselves were symbols of our economic power, the inflated breasts of the "whore of the earth" from their perspective, and thus the main target. Whether they killed 3,000 or 20,000, the inference of the strike would have been the same.

Was that how the cheering crowds in Pakistan saw it? Who knows. What we do know is that those that cheered didn't know the individuals who perished. They certainly didn't wait for the final death toll to be announced before cheering.

I don't equate those who gathered to cheer Bin Laden death with those who cheered the 9/11 attacks. But I question whether the former group understands the consequences of their actions. I question whether they truly understand the concept of revenge and why its effects persist in the world.

[WalkerW]

Interesting info regarding Bin Laden's burial.

[WalkerW]

Yes, in part thanks to intelligence developed via enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay (both opposed by Obama back then but now embraced) and years of hard work by the Bush administration's intelligence community. The constant criticism of them has now been vindicated. This is indeed yet another win for Bush and his leadership in the war.

A well-written article on this very subject.

[Jeff K.]

They could have waited an hour or two, and the death toll would have been greater. The later in the morning, the larger the number who would have been trapped in the top half of both towers. Striking early in the morning while many were still in transit is not optimal if you are going for maximum deaths. It is optimal if you are going for an exclamation point.

But the death toll was probably besides the point to Al Qaeda. The towers themselves were symbols of our economic power, the inflated breasts of the "whore of the earth" from their perspective, and thus the main target. Whether they killed 3,000 or 20,000, the inference of the strike would have been the same.

Was that how the cheering crowds in Pakistan saw it? Who knows. What we do know is that those that cheered didn't know the individuals who perished. They certainly didn't wait for the final death toll to be announced before cheering.

I don't equate those who gathered to cheer Bin Laden death with those who cheered the 9/11 attacks. But I question whether the former group understands the consequences of their actions. I question whether they truly understand the concept of revenge and why its effects persist in the world.

Does anyone believe that they actually could have waited an hour or two and simply flown in circles? Especially if one of the planes had hit the Capitol building. The greater the death toll the greater the terror. Otherwise, why are these groups trying so hard to acquire weapons of "MASS" destruction. The death toll is the point. A point you seem to be missing. Of course you may believe that terrorists are not expending effort in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but I would wager that people more knowledgeable in the field would disagree with you.

[WalkerW]

My reference is my Arab friend, and I'm not giving you his name.

I'll end with this quote that my daughter-in-law posted on her Facebook page:

Note: While this quote is popularly attributed ot Dr. KIng, it has not been verified that he actually said it. Nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment.

Update: Apparently a Facebook user wrote the first sentence, then quoted Dr. King. Her sentiments got somewhat garbled in the transmission. Read the story here.

Now this is a great quote (from the article):

We become invested in these quotes because they say something important about us--and they let us feel that those emotions were shared by great figures in history. We naturally search for reasons that they could have said it--that they could have felt like us--rather than looking for reasons to disbelieve. If we'd put the same moving words in Hitler's mouth, everyone would have been a lot more skeptical.

Nothing like trying to vindicate one's own feelings and biases by pointing and saying, "See! So-and-so the Illustrious agrees with me! Why don't you??"

[Acris Venator]

Does anyone believe that they actually could have waited an hour or two and simply flown in circles?

Jeff K, let me clarify: they could have stolen different planes and arrived at a different time. They did not arrive at the time when maximum deaths would result. 11:00 am would have been much more optimal, especially factoring in tourists who regularly visited the towers. 8:45 and 9:00 am certainly intends a death toll. But not necessarily the "maximum".

There is also the question of where on the towers that the planes actually struck.

The greater the death toll the greater the terror.

Not necessarily. The destruction of certain symbols can be much more terrifying than a death toll. Hence the burning of a cross.

Otherwise, why are these groups trying so hard to acquire weapons of "MASS" destruction.

Power. Political and economic. Chemical & nuclear weapons have certainly been utilized to kill, but in the bigger picture it can be argued that the main point of their use was always to gain more far reaching power and influence. So I disagree that the death toll is the point. The death toll is almost always remembered more keenly by the countrymen or cohort of the victims. For the rest of the world, death tolls are footnotes to the event. We all, for instance, know that terrorist attacks have occurred regularly in Israel since 9/11. But most of us would have to look up the death toll if questioned.

Of course you may believe that terrorists are not expending effort in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but I would wager that people more knowledgeable in the field would disagree with you.

My friend, you are not Ahab. And I am not Moby ****.

[Commander]

USA USA USA USA

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 03 May 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:

Does anyone believe that they actually could have waited an hour or two and simply flown in circles?

Jeff K, let me clarify: they could have stolen different planes and arrived at a different time. They did not arrive at the time when maximum deaths would result. 11:00 am would have been much more optimal, especially factoring in tourists who regularly visited the towers. 8:45 and 9:00 am certainly intends a death toll. But not necessarily the "maximum".

There is also the question of where on the towers that the planes actually struck.

I travel a great deal, and my expertise early in my career was logistics. What you purpose about "taking another plane" and ensuring that you hit the tower later does not make sense. The complications of pinpoint accuracy in an airport where you are at the mercy of delays (and believe it or not flights are delayed), and leaving the tarmac, make such a proposal almost impossible. Then there is the somewhat ludicrous idea that maybe killing 3,000 was better than killing more, coming across their minds is almost completely in a fantasy land of wishful thinking. Usama bin Ladin in an interview later stated clearly that he was surprised and pleased at the devestating effect. In other words it worked better than he had hoped. He did not know the towers would collapse and was pleased when they did so Interview. To presume he wanted to minimalize casualties is not reflected in the reality and pleased surprise that MORE individuals died. I think Usama bin Ladin's own words have put an end to that bit of wishful thinking on your part.

Quote

The greater the death toll the greater the terror.

Not necessarily. The destruction of certain symbols can be much more terrifying than a death toll. Hence the burning of a cross.

Usama bin Ladin himself in that interview counters your view completely. He was going for body count and was pleased when it was higher than he expected.

Quote

Otherwise, why are these groups trying so hard to acquire weapons of "MASS" destruction.

Power. Political and economic. Chemical & nuclear weapons have certainly been utilized to kill, but in the bigger picture it can be argued that the main point of their use was always to gain more far reaching power and influence. So I disagree that the death toll is the point. The death toll is almost always remembered more keenly by the countrymen or cohort of the victims. For the rest of the world, death tolls are footnotes to the event. We all, for instance, know that terrorist attacks have occurred regularly in Israel since 9/11. But most of us would have to look up the death toll if questioned.

They want weapons so they can kill many people in a single stroke. It isn't a bargaining chip for them, they want us dead and the more dead infidels the better. The death toll is the point, and Usama bin Ladin disagrees with you. So who do I think is more accurate, the terrorist who kills and wants to kill as many people as possible or you who whose position is countered by the terrorists doing the killing?

Quote

Of course you may believe that terrorists are not expending effort in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but I would wager that people more knowledgeable in the field would disagree with you.

My friend, you are not Ahab. And I am not Moby ****.

I am apparently much more aware of the situation than you are. And my being an Arab or the friend of an Arab do not alone make me an expert, more is required than such views. Weapons of mass destruction used by terrorists who have no nation state to protect are ready and willing to use them at a moments notice. Your view that these non state groups somehow use state strategy is hubris at its worst. The destruction of large numbers of people by non state players like Usama bin Laden allow them to make the attacks with little fear of reprisal since they often simply disappear into population centers. To presume that somehow a nuclear weapon in the hands of al-Qaeda will merely be a bargaining chip in some strategy that reflects similar states is downright silly. If they get a weapon, they will use it, whether it be a dirty bomb or biological weapons, or any type of weaopn. Their targets, large civilian populations, always has been. And the attacks will be without warning.

All of these combine to offset your somewhat farsical view that

1-Body count didn't matter

2-Usama bin Ladin might have simply "waited" with the planes

3-Usama bin Ladin hoped to minimize casualties by attacking earlier in the day

These assertions hold no water, either in logic or proof.

[ERayR]

Osama was independently wealthy from the death of his billionaire father (which is why he had the time and money to start Al Queda to begin with).

Not to mention the millions of oil money from our "freindly" Arab nations.

[ERayR]

I was using it to make a point. When is a threat great enough that it's weakening is just cause for celebration? How many deaths must someone cause before we can celebrate that he can no longer cause any more?

Sorry, I too saw an opportunity to make a point. I am sorry if I was out of line.

[frankenstein]

I disagree. I think we've gone so far in the other (especially PC) direction that we're nearly incapable of defending our society from the immorality and violence being foisted upon us. Why should it take a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 to rouse us to a lively sense of our duties and responsibilites?

Did the righteous Nephites celebrate the deaths of their enemies?

[Walden]

Yes, in part thanks to intelligence developed via enhanced interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay (both opposed by Obama back then but now embraced) and years of hard work by the Bush administration's intelligence community. The constant criticism of them has now been vindicated. This is indeed yet another win for Bush and his leadership in the war.

blah, blah, blah.....the Bush camp can slap themselves on the back all they want for using torture, ehhr, I mean "enhanced interrogation techniques," to get some of the data used to find Osama, but in the end, it will be recorded in the history books that Obama was the one who got bin Laden. And another win for Bush? Maybe if had focused on the real terrorists that orchestrated 9/11, instead of attacking and getting bogged down in Iraq (which played no role in 9/11), then maybe this whole Osama bin Laden search and destroy mission could have been accomplished much sooner. That would have been seen as a win for Bush. Getting sidetracked for 10 years in Iraq when the real enemy was in Afghanistan and Pakistan is by no means a win.

[Hestia]

Keep political parties out of the discussion or this will be closed.

[Nathair/|\]

Sorry, I too saw an opportunity to make a point. I am sorry if I was out of line.

Nah, you're not out of line that I know of, I just wasn't sure if I was clear or what position you were taking.

[WalkerW]

...but in the end, it will be recorded in the history books that Obama was the one who got bin Laden.

And rightfully so. But if the "history books" portray the hunt for Bin Laden as starting from scratch at Obama's inauguration, then the "history books" will be very, very wrong.

The detailed account of the search for Bin Laden is one that I look forward to reading someday.

[BCSpace]

Of course celebrating the death of others is in poor tastes.

We have way too much violence in our hearts as a society.

I disagree. I think we've gone so far in the other (especially PC) direction that we're nearly incapable of defending our society from the immorality and violence being foisted upon us. Why should it take a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 to rouse us to a lively sense of our duties and responsibilites?

Did the righteous Nephites celebrate the deaths of their enemies?

Apologies, my answer was directed more to the second part which I have now highlighted.

Getting sidetracked for 10 years in Iraq when the real enemy was in Afghanistan and Pakistan is by no means a win.

Doesn't appear to be any side tracking. The rest of the Arab world now wants what the Iraqis have so it must have been well worth it. Problem is, they're not probably going to get it and the Iraqi's will probably not be able to maintain it once we're gone. But at least they have the best chance they'll probably ever have. Worth it? Heck yes, and a BIG win for the people too.

[Mark Beesley]

Apologies, my answer was directed more to the second part which I have now highlighted.

ROTFLMAO - Yeah, that was a much better thing to disagree with-- -- and certainly understandable coming from one who apparently believes that the perfect state of being is a state of war. You're a hoot BC!

[WalkerW]

(which played no role in 9/11)

I guess I've never quite understood what this has to do with anything. I don't remember ever thinking that Iraq had a specific role in 9/11 beyond connections to known terrorists. But this was always minor. I always found the genocide (including women and children) at Hussein's hands to be the most important issue. I'm not quite sure why the murder and horror stories of Iraq are never brought up.

As Christopher Hitchens has written,

Since this crisis began, I have become used to arguing with people who say that, if menaced, Saddam Hussein will make use of the genocidal weapons that they usually say he does not possess. I have accustomed myself to hearing that the American oil companies, which wanted to lift even the sanctions on Saddam until recently, are now controlling the White House. I have drummed my fingers while waiting for the opposing speaker to say that this is a war for profit that will also cost far more than we can afford, and can't be a war for democracy in Iraq because it would lead to loud disagreement among Iraqis. Some say that this policy is determined by the fact that America is an empire or a superpower, an observation that would be just as true, or just as relevant, if the United States was intervening on Saddam Hussein's side (as it once did). Some slyly imply that if only the Bush administration had signed the Kyoto treaty-which got exactly no votes in the U.S. Senate-it would have a better chance of persuading people that Saddam Hussein was a menace: one of the great non sequiturs of this debate. Some say that because the United States was wrong before, it cannot possibly be right now, or has no right to be right. (The British Empire sent a fleet to Africa and the Caribbean to maintain the slave trade while the very same empire later sent another fleet to enforce abolition. I would not have opposed the second policy because of my objections to the first; rather it seems to me that the second policy was morally necessitated by its predecessor.) Finally, I keep hearing that Saddam has not attacked the United States and therefore should not be attacked, even though-had Iraq openly done such a thing-there would be no need for the administration to have sought the enforcement of violated Security Council resolutions. It could simply have evoked the clause on self-defense in the U.N. Charter, and done so from the first, instaed of trying to restore the vertebrae of international law...My jaw has many times dropped on hearing that Saddam Hussein is a "bad guy" all right, but only one among many...Did the people who said this have any idea what they were saying? How many bad guys could they name who had violated the Genocide Convention on their own territory, invaded two neighboring states, openly financed suicide bombing, sought and nearly acquired nuclear capacity and were within easy reach of 9 percent of the world's energy reserves? People say that Saddam understands deterrence and self-preservation-this of a man who blew up the Kuwaiti oilfields after he had surrendered them, and after he had been threatened with dire consequences if he did so. A man who not only murders his mildest critics but has also murdered members of his own family and members of his own government. (His foreign minister, Naji Sabry, has seen one brother tortured to death and another merely tortured. His suave deputy Tariq Aziz has seen his son imprisoned for twent years as a reminder of who is boss...) The only possible rival here is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, who can't threaten sea-lanes or commerce very much but who does possess some awesome weapons...The same smart-*** critics used to say that double standards were being employed for Saddam and Kim. Yes indeed. But this facile point obscured the fact that Kim actually has the deterrent power that Saddam lacks. "More time" was a plea to give Saddam the chance to join the North Korean madman-plus-WMD club, in which case a military intervention in Iraq would have been almost impossible to mount to begin with...Saddam has been warned and put on notice and the entire debate on armed enforcement has been exhaustively conducted in full public view. There is no surprise attack being readied here-at least not from the American end...This brings me to my closing point. On my last visit to Kurdistan I made some friends for life, and I have kept up with them. They, and their allies in the Iraqi democratic opposition, could each tell you a story that would harrow up your soul. You'll get an idea, when the mass graves and secret prisons are opened...Only after a long train of blunders and hesitations and betrayals did the United States decide that it was, at long last, in the same trench as the resistance. No matter how it comes out, or how the alliance may fray, I shall never have the least serious doubt that it was the right side to have been on. (A Long-Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, 2003)

[Stargazer]

I guess I've never quite understood what this has to do with anything. I don't remember ever thinking that Iraq had a specific role in 9/11 beyond connections to known terrorists. But this was always minor. I always found the genocide (including women and children) at Hussein's hands to be the most important issue. I'm not quite sure why the murder and horror stories of Iraq are never brought up.

As Christopher Hitchens has written,

Since this crisis began, <snip /> No matter how it comes out, or how the alliance may fray, I shall never have the least serious doubt that it was the right side to have been on. (A Long-Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, 2003)

Holy cow, that was refreshing. I didn't think Hitchens had it in him. I'm gratified to discover that he does. I shall be less dismissive of him in the future.

[BCSpace]

ROTFLMAO - Yeah, that was a much better thing to disagree with-- -- and certainly understandable coming from one who apparently believes that the perfect state of being is a state of war. You're a hoot BC!

Yeah well you've illustrated why left-wingers can't function in the real world; they believe in fantasies like conservatives always wanting to be in a state of war. But I also do disagree with the first part.

[Libs]

I had wondered about this.

Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches” and says the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

Another source on this story:

http://networkedblogs.com/hqhun

[Acris Venator]

Usama bin Ladin himself in that interview counters your view completely. He was going for body count and was pleased when it was higher than he expected.

You've educated me on the point. I apologize if I ruffled your sensibilities.

Your view that these non state groups somehow use state strategy is hubris at its worst.

If it's hubris at it's worst, then perhaps there's no hope.

God bless, brother.