Implications of Bin Laden's death?

dan_d · 03-05-2011 05:18PM

seamus wrote: »

There was more than one helicopter.
Reports at the moment are that one heli developed mechanical problems and had to be ditched on the roof (though not crash landed). As it was US military tech, they destroyed it when they left, which is probably the main cause of the reported fire.
Other reports suggest that they planned to take more people from the compound, but had to leave them due to being one heli down and instead left them for the Pakistani forces to arrest.

Ah my naivety!!:o
My confusion arose from the reports being "THE helicopter broke down" hence my assumption.Also, I admit, from a lack of interest in the detail..

Laminations · 03-05-2011 06:00PM

This is an excellent article IMO

The fact that western media (which includes American media and individual Americans) are having these debates and restraining themselves and discouraging celebration provides an important counterpoint to the actual celebrations in America, a counterpoint that was missing when people were celebrating 9/11

Hayte · 03-05-2011 06:16PM

I frequent another forum which is overwhelmingly American and I'd say opinion was divided 50/50 on the public reaction to the news. Half were cheerleading and the other half were at a loss to explain what there is to cheer for.

I'm not posting there for the time being because after all is said and done, it is not a pleasant place to be around right now. The atmosphere is definitely not conducive to calm, logical debate. This issue has brought out some of the worst I've seen in people this past 48 hours. The reaction here is much less polarized and much more open for discussion. Over there you have to be very careful what you say or all hell breaks loose.

gandalf · 03-05-2011 06:37PM

Hayte wrote: »

Over there you have to be very careful what you say or all hell breaks loose.

Yep it appears that public opinion in the US only has room for black or white opinions, there seems to be no room for the grey areas to be considered.

It is interesting that there seems to be no recognition of the irony that a country that espouses democracy and following rule of law for regime change abandons those ideals at the drop of the hat when it suits them.

03-05-2011 08:30PM

Hayte wrote: »

I frequent another forum which is overwhelmingly American and I'd say opinion was divided 50/50 on the public reaction to the news. Half were cheerleading and the other half were at a loss to explain what there is to cheer for...

Discussion forums like our boards.ie are not all that popular in America; e.g., our boards.us failed "over there" closing April 2010. Social networks and Twitter-like communications represent tens-of-millions of Americans, so perhaps you had a very biased source by consulting a relatively small (by American standards) "forum" over there?

Hayte wrote: »

Over there you have to be very careful what you say or all hell breaks loose.

Well, I crossed the pond over 5 years ago, and I am currently "over there" now, and in their largest state by population, and I see no mutually exclusive "50/50" divide, nor do I feel the need to "be very careful what you say" regarding the recent OBL news.

gandalf wrote: »

Yep it appears that public opinion in the US only has room for black or white opinions, there seems to be no room for the grey areas to be considered.

America is very diverse. They do not fall into some nominal, mutually exclusive either/or category that corresponds with "public opinion in the US only has room for black and white opinions," any more than we find merit for such oversimplifications of public opinion in Ireland, regarding this, or other issues of global interest.

gandalf · 03-05-2011 08:36PM

Black Swan wrote: »

America is very diverse. They do not fall into some nominal, mutually exclusive either/or category that corresponds with "public opinion in the US only has room for black and white opinions," any more than we find merit for such oversimplifications of public opinion in Ireland, regarding this, or other issues of global interest.

Probably phrased that in a clumsy manner. Probably a better way would have said that grey opinions tend to get drowned out in the excessive noise from the views on the either extreme of the argument.

I see the White House are now saying that contrary to their initial briefings that OBL was not armed and did not open fire on the assaulting troops. Also his wife was not killed but was shot in the calf when she rushed at the soldiers when they burst into the room they were in.

They did say that OBL did "resist" but did not elaborate on what that meant.

There was never the intention in taking this man alive from the US authorities.

Hayte · 03-05-2011 08:51PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Discussion forums like our boards.ie are not all that popular in America; e.g., our boards.us failed "over there" closing April 2010. Social networks and Twitter-like communications represent tens-of-millions of Americans, so perhaps you had a very biased source by consulting a relatively small (by American standards) "forum" over there?

"Over there" refers to forums.somethingawful.com, which is the forum I was talking about. There are 2 concurrent threads on the issue in 2 separate forums. One in the general forum and the other in the debate forum.

I'm staying away from those threads for the time being because they are wall to wall strawmen and ad hominem attacks. There is no discourse and in both forums, very little awareness of what discourse is, which makes debating...frustrating at the best of times. You can probably view both without having to sign up.

edit: I just logged out and yeah, you can read both threads without an account. Its not pretty though.

Shea O'Meara · 03-05-2011 09:02PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The slight difference is that in the one case, it's the death of someone who in effect publicly declared war on the US and had it coming, and in the other case it's the deaths of people who went to work one morning in New York/Washington.

I doubt a 'dignified response' would have changed the minds of people who would be inclined to attack the US on the basis of 'Oh, they're happy they killed UBL, are they?'

NTM

So basically, the one you sympathise with is less disagreeable than the one you don't.
I think jumping up and down in celebration of murder is distasteful and shows a scary mindset.
If you look at both celebrations impartially, they are exactly the same. That's my view on it.

There are people who firmly believe the U.S. had 9/11 coming. Whether we agree or not makes no difference, that's their view.
Fist pumping the air shouting 'We're number one!' would look to them as the 9/11 celebrations may have looked to us.

Shea O'Meara · 03-05-2011 09:08PM

Laminations wrote: »

What? Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is one of Pakistan's people, and deserved the protection of the Pakistani authorities? Are you recommending countries harbour and protect known terrorists? I'd be fine if bin Laden was in Ireland for the Americans to come in and take him out without a word of warning to the government and I wouldn't feel any less secure or any more worried that they'd be coming to shoot me next. And I wouldn't feel like they bought the government or rule Ireland

Works for George W.

Not sure about you, but I like voting for the governments who have jurisdiction over me. But if you're cool with the U.S. doing what it likes undemocratically anywhere in the world, we differ greatly. I'd be uneasy to say the least about any government deciding to execute anyone anywhere and carrying it out like bully boys and illegally at that.

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 09:09PM

Laminations wrote: »

What? Knew what? You seem to be skeptical about 9/11 being orchestrated by bin Laden. Sounds like conspiracy forum stuff.

That is your best argument is it, conspiracy, just because it may go against what you believe or just accept all that is fed to the media. Earlier you accused me of bias, so shall I just agree with you then to avoid any more slurs? We now discover that Bin Laden was unarmed according to sources so there was no intention of taking him alive if the account of the raid is true. I suspect there is only black and white in your world, grey does not exist.

How many more countries are going to pay for 3000 dead Americans killed in 9/11? As I posted before 700,000 plus in Iraq and countless thousands in Afghanistan. Is the world any safer for all the deaths....no.

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 09:14PM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

So basically, the one you sympathise with is less disagreeable than the one you don't.
I think jumping up and down in celebration of murder is distasteful and shows a scary mindset.
If you look at both celebrations impartially, they are exactly the same. That's my view on it.

There are people who firmly believe the U.S. had 9/11 coming. Whether we agree or not makes no difference, that's their view.
Fist pumping the air shouting 'We're number one!' would look to them as the 9/11 celebrations may have looked to us.

The Americans would not look or accept possible reasons why it happened. It is not a benign country and has been proactive globally....not always to the good, yet it as a country was puzzled as to why it was attacked.

irishh_bob · 03-05-2011 10:04PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Americans would not look or accept possible reasons why it happened. It is not a benign country and has been proactive globally....not always to the good, yet it as a country was puzzled as to why it was attacked.

thats because american society has always been taught ( by the media and its leaders ) that it is exceptional and is always unconditionally a force for good in the world , even the british in thier imperial days never tried to potray thier actions as being about mom and apple pie , it is also a very insular country by and large , americans see the world as starting at california and ending at new york , they assume everyone subscribes to thier ideals and values and are genuinly puzzled when anyone proclaims them to be anything less than whiter than white

metrovelvet · 03-05-2011 10:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, as a place to hide it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

You think he should have stayed in a cave? Can you imagine what the satellite imagery would show? "Why are there all those supply runs going up that trail to that mountain? There's nothing visible up there. Might be worth checking out".

Similarly, if he had to move in a hurry, it wouldn't take too long for him to get lost in the crowd, as it were, in the middle of a city. As opposed to hiking for a day in the mountains in full view of God and Predator drones.

It was ballsy, but the best moves usually are.

NTM

At first I found it hard to believe too, that Pakistan had no idea he was there, even that the US had no idea he was there and thought that they pulled him out now since Obama's ratings were so low. But then I recalled some advice my brother gave me about hiding valuables in the house. He told me to keep them in an obvious place, because no one would look for them there.

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 10:53PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

At first I found it hard to believe too, that Pakistan had no idea he was there, even that the US had no idea he was there and thought that they pulled him out now since Obama's ratings were so low. But then I recalled some advice my brother gave me about hiding valuables in the house. He told me to keep them in an obvious place, because no one would look for them there.

TBH it was hardly even hiding. It beggars belief and it may have been one of a number of places he used, which would be the more likely scenario IMO.

walrusgumble · 03-05-2011 10:54PM

if this case involed eu states in euro,osama was unarmed and it was safe to arrest him,would it have been shot to kill and possibly infringe echr on grounds of the gilbraltar case ireland v uk?i know people of 9/11 did not get a trial.isn't this politically advantage for obama in next election?was the photo of clinton a bit staged or naturally genuine shock?rosary beeds with obama(yes i doubt anyone likes anyone watching another die)all the same,it was war and not much different if killed on a battlefield.doubt many will shed a tear. blair once talked about dealing with the cause of crime.hopefully america will deal peacefully with why people like osama targeted them in the first place.but how?is there a point of no return?god help innocent people in pakistan,surely some knew & turned a blind eye to the attack

Sierra Oscar · 03-05-2011 11:01PM

The White House have managed the PR of this so very badly. They have back tracked on certain elements of the event and are now being pushed to relase photos - photos which will be of immense importance for the Al-Quaeda recruitment machine.

Knight990 · 03-05-2011 11:42PM

I can't imagine how agonising it must be to be in the White House at the minute. If they release the picture, it could multiply any revenge by a hundred. However, they would prove the nay-sayers wrong. Tough one.

Yitzhak Rabin · 03-05-2011 11:45PM

Knight990 wrote: »

I can't imagine how agonising it must be to be in the White House at the minute. If they release the picture, it could multiply any revenge by a hundred. However, they would prove the nay-sayers wrong. Tough one.

I don't see how. Those who support bin Laden will want to avenge his death. The vast majority of Muslims who don't support him, aren't going to be whipped up into a murderous frenzy when they see his photo.

Knight990 · 03-05-2011 11:49PM

yekahS wrote: »

I don't see how. Those who support bin Laden will want to avenge his death. The vast majority of Muslims who don't support him, aren't going to be whipped up into a murderous frenzy when they see his photo.

That's the thing i'm not so certain of. I reckon there is a sort of middle-of-the-road group of people who are angered, but not to the point of carrying out attacks. Pictures of the mutilated corpse of the man they held to be their paramount leader might incense this group and add them to the list of people willing to carry out attacks.

dan_d · 04-05-2011 09:47AM

They're very much between a rock and a hard place.
Myself, I don't want to see photos of a mutilated corpse.And it will inevitably be on the front page of every paper...

dan_d · 04-05-2011 09:50AM

irishh_bob wrote: »

thats because american society has always been taught ( by the media and its leaders ) that it is exceptional and is always unconditionally a force for good in the world , even the british in thier imperial days never tried to potray thier actions as being about mom and apple pie , it is also a very insular country by and large , americans see the world as starting at california and ending at new york , they assume everyone subscribes to thier ideals and values and are genuinly puzzled when anyone proclaims them to be anything less than whiter than white

Very well phrased. I've had a lot of dealings with Americans, and they're great people, but my God they can be infuriating when it comes to world views (they tend not to have one..)

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 11:16AM

Showing photos of a dead OBL will serve no useful purpose IMO. His followers will know he is dead and the US know it, and showing photos will only incense those who may seek revenge and negate any advantage gained by the vacuum left in wake of leadership of al-Qaeda, plus they would be splashed all over the net and papers. There will always be those who will not believe photos anyway unless they see the body and other evidence. The wise thing to do IMO is to not publish photos and leave it at that as the people who need to know he is dead already do.

nacho libre · 04-05-2011 11:39AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

At first I found it hard to believe too, that Pakistan had no idea he was there, even that the US had no idea he was there and thought that they pulled him out now since Obama's ratings were so low. But then I recalled some advice my brother gave me about hiding valuables in the house. He told me to keep them in an obvious place, because no one would look for them there.

i'm not convinced by this argument. it's like someone putting password as their password thinking they'll dupe cyber criminals. There isn't anything that goes on in Pakistan without the ISI knowing it. There is no way the World's most wanted man could live in a compound for five years without the ISI being aware of it. It's a convenient line for them to now plead incompetence. The contradictory information from the Pakistani Goverment in the last couple of day only adds to the suspicion he had state protection.
the question is, did senior people in the ISI switch sides? it would seem to me that in order for the Americans to carry out this mission successfuly this must have happened, either that, or there has been a recent purge of elements in the ISI that are playing both sides? if this is the case, then Mullah Omar could be on borrowed time.

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 12:15PM

nacho libre wrote: »

i'm not convinced by this argument. it's like someone putting password as their password thinking they'll dupe cyber criminals. There isn't anything that goes on in Pakistan without the ISI knowing it. There is no way the World's most wanted man could live in a compound for five years without the ISI being aware of it. It's a convenient line for them to now plead incompetence. The contradictory information from the Pakistani Goverment in the last couple of day only adds to the suspicion he had state protection.
the question is, did senior people in the ISI switch sides? it would seem to me that in order for the Americans to carry out this mission successfuly this must have happened, either that, or there has been a recent purge of elements in the ISI that are playing both sides? if this is the case, then Mullah Omar could be on borrowed time.

I tend to agree. The raid itself was kept quiet from the Pakistanis, and ordinarily if OBL would have received warning of a raid from his helpers ( for want of a better word ) so to give him time to go elsewhere. Only this time there was no notice. It has all the hallmarks of treachery from his helpers, clearly his usefulness had come to an end or it was the age old temptation of money, as in reward $25,000,000 for his capture or death.

djpbarry · 04-05-2011 12:20PM

nacho libre wrote: »

The contradictory information from the Pakistani Goverment in the last couple of day only adds to the suspicion he had state protection.

It’s possible that elements of state instruments, such as the ISI, were protecting Bin Laden. However, I find it hard to believe his presence was “state-sponsored” given that Pakistan has suffered more at the hands of Islamic terrorists than any other nation – what would there be to gain?

nacho libre · 04-05-2011 01:08PM

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s possible that elements of state instruments, such as the ISI, were protecting Bin Laden. However, I find it hard to believe his presence was “state-sponsored” given that Pakistan has suffered more at the hands of Islamic terrorists than any other nation – what would there be to gain?

well, yes, perhaps state sponsored is incorrect, since there are a lot of western-leaning politicans in Pakistan, but at the same time it's clear that elements of the military and intelligence services are ideologically wedded to extremist groups. Afterall, wasn't the Taliban a creation of the ISI? Futhermore there is an increasing belief that North Waziristian region is not being attacked by the Pakistan military, despite concerted pressure from the Americans to do so, because the Taliban leaders there are a proxy of the ISI.
It is said that Pakistan is using the Taliban to advance its interests in Afghanistan at the expense of India. Certainly the recent high profile attacks in Afgahanistan would seem to lend credence to the idea that the Taliban have highly placed informers in Afghan institutions. I doubt this could happen without the backing of an intelligence agency.

djpbarry · 04-05-2011 02:11PM

nacho libre wrote: »

It is said that Pakistan is using the Taliban to advance its interests in Afghanistan at the expense of India.

In the past, yes, the ISI quite possibly sponsored the Taliban to further Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan, as indeed did the US. Now however, the Taliban is as much Pakistan’s enemy as anyone else’s.

Sierra Oscar · 04-05-2011 03:26PM

Its also important to remember that the Taliban ≠ Al-Qaeda.

Some senior members of Al-Qaeda may have made use of the Taliban training camps in order to recruit terrorists, but in no way does Al-Qaeda exercise complete control over the Taliban.

gandalf · 04-05-2011 07:25PM

So lets recap.

According to the Americans initially Osama opened fire on the assault team. That now turns out to be a lie.

He used his wife as a human shield and she died. Another lie, she rushed the troops who stormed the room and was shot in the foot.

He was armed. Another lie they now say he was unarmed.

They say he "resisted" but gave no details of said resistance. Bin Ladens 12-year-old daughter has now told Pakistani security officials her father was captured alive and shot dead by US troops during the first few minutes of the raid. She was left behind and is in the care of the Pakistani authorities.

Yesterday the Head of the CIA said they would release the pictures showing Bin Laden dead, today the US authorities say they won't. Their lame excuse is "that is not who we are".

I am at a loss on how the US authorities can mess this up even more. At this stage they have handed Islamic extremists a media coup they only could have dreamed of months ago. The recruiters will be hard at work based on this farce.

As for the so-called Worlds policeman they have degenerated now to the position of Worlds Lynch Mob. They are in no position to preach to other countries about democracy and the rule of law when they abandon these values at the drop of a hat. You either believe in the right of everyone to a trial before they are punished or not and naively I thought this was a cornerstone of American values. It is obvious this is not the case any longer.

Mr.Micro · 04-05-2011 07:44PM

gandalf wrote: »

So lets recap.

According to the Americans initially Osama opened fire on the assault team. That now turns out to be a lie.

He used his wife as a human shield and she died. Another lie, she rushed the troops who stormed the room and was shot in the foot.

He was armed. Another lie they now say he was unarmed.

They say he "resisted" but gave no details of said resistance. Bin Ladens 12-year-old daughter has now told Pakistani security officials her father was captured alive and shot dead by US troops during the first few minutes of the raid. She was left behind and is in the care of the Pakistani authorities.

Yesterday the Head of the CIA said they would release the pictures showing Bin Laden dead, today the US authorities say they won't. Their lame excuse is "that is not who we are".

I am at a loss on how the US authorities can mess this up even more. At this stage they have handed Islamic extremists a media coup they only could have dreamed of months ago. The recruiters will be hard at work based on this farce.

As for the so-called Worlds policeman they have degenerated now to the position of Worlds Lynch Mob. They are in no position to preach to other countries about democracy and the rule of law when they abandon these values at the drop of a hat. You either believe in the right of everyone to a trial before they are punished or not and naively I thought this was a cornerstone of American values. It is obvious this is not the case any longer.

I agree, the rule of Law has been long abandoned. Even today officials in the US saying the killing was legal. Does it matter to the US, did it ever whether something was legal or not. Was the War in Iraq legal as if the US cared. As you say the story changes all the time to suit ....forget the truth. The actions of the US are no better than terrorists with bigger guns and impunity.

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments