Well Done Lads...Well Done :D-Stephen66515 (May 01, 2011, 10:48 PM)
Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, is dead.
US president Barack Obama said bin Laden, the most-wanted fugitive on the US list, has been killed on Sunday in a US operation in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, about 150km north of Islamabad.
"Tonight, I can report to the people of the United States and the world, the United States had carried an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist responsible for killing thousands of innocent people," Obama said in a statement.
"Today, at my direction, the United States carried out that operation... they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body.
"The death of Bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date against Al Qaeda.
"We must also reaffirm that United states is not and will never be at war against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, in fact, he slaughtered many Muslims," Obama said.
Hey... Just wondering... But did Osama Bin Laden have an iPhone by any chance? :P-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 12:18 AM)
Highly reliable sources (the voices in my head) are reporting that the death of Osama Bin Laden is entirely thanks to him owning an iPhone, allowing his location to be tracked.
I couldn't help myself...
Submitted for your amusement:
Osama Bin Laden Dead Thanks to iPhone Tracking (http://cynic.me/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-thanks-to-iphone-tracking/)Highly reliable sources (the voices in my head) are reporting that the death of Osama Bin Laden is entirely thanks to him owning an iPhone, allowing his location to be tracked.(see attachment in previous post (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=26609.msg247542#msg247542))-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 02:53 AM)
US president Barack Obama said bin Laden, the most-wanted fugitive on the US list, has been killed on Sunday in a US operation in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, about 150km north of Islamabad.Geez, haven't had enough coffee today - read that as "US president Barack Osama bin Laden" >_<-Renegade (May 01, 2011, 11:22 PM)
Well Done Lads...Well Done :D-Stephen66515 (May 01, 2011, 10:48 PM)
That's assuming they got the right guy - a quick burial at sea seems a bit fishy to me (sorry for he pun).-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2011, 05:49 AM)
I, for one, do not think that killing people is a good thing.-housetier (May 02, 2011, 05:11 AM)
That's assuming they got the right guy - a quick burial at sea seems a bit fishy to me (sorry for he pun).-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2011, 05:49 AM)
I, for one, do not think that killing people is a good thing.-housetier (May 02, 2011, 05:11 AM)
<sarcasm>It's a travesty if one of "us" gets killed, and justice when "we" kill one of "them". </sarcasm>
The level of hypocrisy in some places is, well... I leave that alone.-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 07:10 AM)
Might've been smart having the body buried on Muslim ground - just saying.And how do you go about finding an legitimized group that would be willing to host such a burial?-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 06:41 AM)
Might've been smart having the body buried on Muslim ground - just saying.I am sure that the burial at sea was to prevent his final resting place becoming a holy pilgrimage site. We don't want to help him become more of a martyr.-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 06:41 AM)
I, for one, do not think that killing people is a good thing.I hope you are kidding, right? This guy is responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands. We kill one to prevent thousands more being killed. I'm confident that if we could have simply captured him and brought him back then we would have. The reports I read is that he went down "resisting".-housetier
Good point - but perhaps letting them have his corpse could help put a dampener on the supporting Muslims? Oh well, they're probably going to be royally pissed anyway.Might've been smart having the body buried on Muslim ground - just saying.I am sure that the burial at sea was to prevent his final resting place becoming a holy pilgrimage site. We don't want to help him become more of a martyr.-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 06:41 AM)-edbro (May 02, 2011, 07:30 AM)
They started!"I, for one, do not think that killing people is a good thing.I hope you are kidding, right? This guy is responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands. We kill one to prevent thousands more being killed. I'm confident that if we could have simply captured him and brought him back then we would have. The reports I read is that he went down "resisting".-housetier-edbro (May 02, 2011, 07:30 AM)
How about 2,977 of "us" to 1 of "them"?-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 07:26 AM)
And I'll counter this by saying that sometimes people just need killing...-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 07:26 AM)
<sarcasm>It's a travesty if one of "us" gets killed, and justice when "we" kill one of "them". </sarcasm>
The level of hypocrisy in some places is, well... I leave that alone.-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 07:10 AM)
How about 2,977 of "us" to 1 of "them"?-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 07:26 AM)
celebration over murder (not justice) is no way forward.I truly do not understand how us taking out a terrorist responsible for thousands and thousands of death, and someone who continues to be a threat, constitutes murder. It baffles my mind.-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2011, 07:42 AM)
What would you have us do?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 08:16 AM)
Here's a convenient link if you want to follow the reports updated by the minute: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-death-live-nudone (May 02, 2011, 08:49 AM)
"This was a kill operation," he said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture Bin Laden alive in Pakistan.Well, I stand corrected but, good on them I say! Imagine the security nightmare if he was captured. There would be non-peaceful rioting all across the extremist Islamic world if we simply held him in captivity.
How about 2,977 of "us" to 1 of "them"?-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 07:26 AM)
Sorry this is my last comment on this but... it isn't 3000 to 1, it is 3000 to untold numbers (probably more than 100000) of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK bin Laden deserved what he got but aren't the US and UK supposed to be civilised countries that say they want to show the way to a better future? If so how do street celebrations help? Relief that he is no longer part of the problem yes - celebration over murder (not justice) is no way forward. And don't forget the cost paid by all those other civilians caught in the middle.-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2011, 07:42 AM)
I probably didn't phrase that well.
Compare pictures of people rejoicing after 9/11 and the recent pictures of people doing the same thing over Osama. It's the same thing - people screaming for blood.
Either way, it's pretty sad to see people getting all hard & wet over other people dying.
I can't claim to be an angel though. There are people out there that I think would be better off dead, and people that I think would make the world a better place if they died.
I suppose it seems to be a fine line between rejoicing over someone's death, and being glad for what their death represents.-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 07:45 AM)
What would you have us do?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 08:16 AM)
Have him stand trial.-housetier (May 02, 2011, 08:40 AM)
I'm old fashioned in that way- never women or children.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 09:18 AM)
What would you have us do?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 08:16 AM)
Have him stand trial.-housetier (May 02, 2011, 08:40 AM)
+1
But it just goes to show what kind of a world we live in. It's perfectly fine to murder people if you can get away with it. It's also fine to steal and do anything else if you can get away with it. The only "evil" in this world is "getting caught/punished".-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 09:22 AM)
I'm old fashioned in that way- never women or children.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 09:18 AM)
Oh, that's NATO's job to kill women and children (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382626/Libyans-attack-Tripoli-US-embassy-NATO-strikes-kill-Gaddafis-son-3-grandchildren.html?ito=feeds-newsxml).-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 09:26 AM)
(there is IMHO a big difference between collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians, though)-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 07:34 AM)
(there is IMHO a big difference between collateral damage and deliberately targeting civilians, though)-f0dder (May 02, 2011, 07:34 AM)
IMHO, no difference whatsoever. When you start bombing a country, you know there will be civilian casualties and you know this is not avoidable. Saying they are not deliberate is just that - saying it. You made it deliberate when you set out to bomb a city or a village full of civilians.-tranglos (May 02, 2011, 10:34 AM)
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be. When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields. One of the four killed last night was a woman that one of the men was using as a human shield. This weekend there was a bombing in Iraq against civilians where they used a 12 year old boy as the suicide attacker. Where is your outrage at that?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be. When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields. One of the four killed last night was a woman that one of the men was using as a human shield. This weekend there was a bombing in Iraq against civilians where they used a 12 year old boy as the suicide attacker. Where is your outrage at that?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
(BTW- I abhor the term collateral damage. It's a euphemism used to cover up the fact that this damage takes its toll in lives. If you're going to do the act, at least look it in the eye when you do so.)-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 10:47 AM)
I see it as boiling down to killing is killing.
The only question then is, are you willing to commit "evil"?-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 11:29 AM)
We as a species would do well to get back to straighter talk..Agreed.
heheh, "they hate our freedoms"; i've not heard that one before.-nudone (May 02, 2011, 12:59 PM)
heheh, "they hate our freedoms"; i've not heard that one before.-nudone (May 02, 2011, 12:59 PM)
It seems to me that in a lot of cases, it just boils down to "they hate..." :(-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 01:07 PM)
Even sadder though, is that a lot of it boils down to "'we' hate..." :(-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 01:29 PM)
heheh, "they hate our freedoms"; i've not heard that one before.-nudone (May 02, 2011, 12:59 PM)
It seems to me that in a lot of cases, it just boils down to "they hate..." :(-Renegade (May 02, 2011, 01:07 PM)
Even sadder though, is that a lot of it boils down to "'we' hate..." :(-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 01:29 PM)
Through the words of a muppet comes the truth...
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
Does it really matter in what stage you find yourself? That's a spiraling mode of thinking.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 02:43 PM)
Bin Laden living in area known to authorities for quite a while.Now that's something weird, comparing that guy with fuerer, i doubt he'll keep himself in the front to let anyone know where he lives, that too in residential zone like that ?
Just because something can spiral, does not automatically dictate that it will/must spiral into the eternal abyss (or the dark side if you like... :)). Because it is also "true", that only a fool has no fear.-Stoic Joker (May 02, 2011, 03:12 PM)
Just because something can spiral, does not automatically dictate that it will/must spiral into the eternal abyss (or the dark side if you like... :)). Because it is also "true", that only a fool has no fear.-Stoic Joker (May 02, 2011, 03:12 PM)
I think that 'fear' in that case (and at least in the case of what I'm talking about) is irrational uncontrolled fear. Fear as in a 'healthy respect for' is reasonable, and definitely helps in survival and decision making. The other kind- not so much.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 03:23 PM)
Osama's DNA was tested ? against whom ? as if they had previous sample to verify ? or their blood relatives to match with ?-mahesh2k (May 02, 2011, 03:17 PM)
But the point of the matter is that it is avoidable, for the fact that there are operations where it doesn't happen.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 10:47 AM)
But the point of the matter is that it is avoidable, for the fact that there are operations where it doesn't happen.-wraith808 (May 02, 2011, 10:47 AM)
I suppose "collateral damage" is often avoidable in what used to be called "surgical strike" operations (haven't heard of those in a while! Are they all out of fashion now?) when a small, specialized team is sent to perform a small, focused task, like apprehending or killing OBL.
It is never avoidable when you launch a full-scale war like in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even limited air strikes such as in Libya.-tranglos (May 02, 2011, 04:09 PM)
So, what would you advocate? I ask this not with any sarcasm, I am truly curious as to what you think the alternative should be.-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
When one party launches a military assault on a country, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, what should be done? Should it go unanswered, which would invite more attacks?-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
I should also remind you that a lot of the collateral damage is caused by cowards who take refuge in population centers and who use women and children as human shields.-edbro (May 02, 2011, 10:46 AM)
"He may be dead, but in a way, he won. We gave up our rights. We passed a PatriotAct. We spent trillions on needless wars. Fear now rules us."
Compare pictures of people rejoicing after 9/11 and the recent pictures of people doing the same thing over Osama. It's the same thing - people screaming for blood.
The question now arises what will happen in Afghanistan given that the prime objective of that war was to get bin Laden -That is simply not true. The objective was never just to get bin Laden. The objective was, and still is, to destroy Al Qaeda and limit terrorism.-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2011, 08:42 PM)
A possibility just crossed my mind - what if they have him alive in a dungeon somewhere? Would make perfect sense from a counter-terrorism POV. No accusations of torture, easy to produce and verify DNA evidence and show the world it was indeed him, even easy to fake death images or video if you have the guy alive.-nosh (May 03, 2011, 11:18 PM)
You're really going for that clown badge, aren't you? :mad:
Funny tho! :P-nosh (May 03, 2011, 11:48 PM)
I am hearing how OBL should have had a trial. Without taking any position on that I wonder:
1. where it would have been held. If he wasn't extradited to the USA with all legal formalities observed, could the defence have got him off on a technicality?
2. Would his entitlement to a "fair" trial be jeopardized by the publicity/reporting since 9/11. I would imagine defence lawyers rejecting jurors wholesale.
3. Whilst he was awaiting trial, how would the increase in hostage taking by pro-OBL elements be countered?
I'm sure there must be another thousand practical issues to be considered ... so easy to call for a trial as a spectator. Buggered if I know the answer.-tsaint (May 03, 2011, 05:45 PM)
You're really going for that clown badge, aren't you? :mad:
Funny tho! :P-nosh (May 03, 2011, 11:48 PM)
Hell yeah~! (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/esmileys/gen3/1Small/banana.gif)-Renegade (May 04, 2011, 12:01 AM)
Had they said that they tried to seize him, but had to shoot him in self defence (even if it wasn't true), it would have been a different situation.-phitsc (May 04, 2011, 03:02 AM)
S1: "Oh my god! He's got a blanket. Repeat... He's got a BLANKET! And he's reaching for a PILLOW NOW!"
BANG BANG~!
S1: "Target pacified. Shit man... That was one bitchin' pillow... I think I need to change my shorts. Hey... He's got a diaper on his head! Of all the luck!"
S2: "Navy Seals 1. Old man, 0."
My suggestion was in full earnest! I really think you deserve it :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:-phitsc (May 04, 2011, 03:04 AM)
Like the collateral damage on both sides and friendly fire, that is a sure sign of incompetence.-cmpm (May 04, 2011, 04:37 AM)
A possibility just crossed my mind - what if they have him alive in a dungeon somewhere? Would make perfect sense from a counter-terrorism POV. No accusations of torture, easy to produce and verify DNA evidence and show the world it was indeed him, even easy to fake death images or video if you have the guy alive.-nosh (May 03, 2011, 11:18 PM)
(Of course, I'd think he'd want a more violent last stand, i.e. a true sacrifice to martyr himself, but that might have had the opposite effect...)-wraith808 (May 04, 2011, 08:26 AM)
But that's just a conspiracy theory...-wraith808 (May 04, 2011, 12:47 PM)
You're really going for that clown badge, aren't you?
You're really going for that clown badge, aren't you?
no more clown badges until 2012, so don't work yourself up over it!-mouser (May 04, 2011, 01:01 PM)
Yeh, "congratz" for murdering an unarmed old man after ten years of pointless bombing. Idiots.
BTW, has anyone here mentioned yet that al-Quaeda was an US-American guerilla troop initially?-Tuxman (May 04, 2011, 01:25 PM)
Yeh, "congratz" for murdering an unarmed old man after ten years of pointless bombing. Idiots.Says the man from country not bombed by Al Qaeda.-Tuxman (May 04, 2011, 01:25 PM)
Killing innocents?
Hmm... wait... wasn't it the government of the USA who wanted Hussein and Bin Laden to do exactly that a few decades ago?-Tuxman (May 04, 2011, 03:48 PM)
The US supported Bin Laden as well as Hussein while they were fighting against other innocent countries. Now they fought the US and, suddenly, it is called "terrorism"?Yeah, you're right. Flying airliners into office buildings isn't terrorism. You win by your uncanny logic. Congrats!-Tuxman (May 04, 2011, 04:02 PM)
I have come up with a new heuristic to help people tell whether they should post another reply in an opinion thread, here it is:Aren't you overlooking the fact that there should be a summation of probabilities to determine the p of a member posting usefully?
The probability of making a useful contribution to an opinion thread ~= 1 / (NumberOfRepliesYouPost^3) (graph (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot%5Bx^%28-3%29%2C+{x%2C0%2C+10}%2C{y%2C0%2C1}%5D)).
- So your FIRST post has a 100% probability of having a useful impact.
- By the time you make your 3rd post, you are down to a 4% probability.
- By your 5th post you are below 1% probability.
-mouser (May 04, 2011, 04:44 PM)
otherwise yes i think we might see some infinite posters-mouser (May 04, 2011, 07:00 PM)
No. Soviet military forces engaged in war are not considered innocent noncombatants. Al Qaeda is engaged in war with the US. Therefore, their leader is a valid military target.-edbro (May 04, 2011, 04:00 PM)
Imagine if OBL had been the same..with fruit juice instead of beer of course.-tsaint (May 05, 2011, 01:37 AM)
"No, there's no moral justification for the celebration. But no enlightened reason for the fear we felt, either. If the fear was comprehensible, so is the joy. We're only human."
Human does not refer to humanity these days, right?-Tuxman (May 05, 2011, 10:07 AM)