Osama bin Laden Offically Killed

[Allamorph]

[quote name='CaNz']Okay, this really is insulting.
The people who killed Osama were not murderers, they were United States Navy Seals[/quote]
[font="Calibri"]I think you're missing the part where I said I was glad he was gone. To further clarify the point, not only am I strongly considering attempting to become a SEAL, but were I given the chance [i]I would have shot him myself[/i].

Doesn't make it right, nor worthy of celebration.[/font]

[quote name='CaNz']Besides, even if he was stabbed in the back in his sleep, we are not celebrating the act of murder, many Americans are celebrating the fact that a horrible man is dead. I think most people could care less about how it happened, they are just glad it finally did happen.[/quote]
[font="Calibri"]Tell that to the people who are cheering for him to "burn in Hell". That's not happiness. That's vindictive gloating.

And thank you, [color="DarkRed"]James[/color], for making the effort to understand the point, even as you're stuck trying to reconcile yourself to both sides of a horribly polarised case in an effort to smooth out all the feathers.




To sort of attempt to steer the current conversation away from such a volatile angle, it occurs to me (for the first time, actually) that a "war on terror" is rather an ambiguous 'enemy', if you will. Raises a couple more questions in my mind.

[list][*]How do you know when you've won? or at least when you are able to go back to just being vigilant?[*]Specifically to this situation, how stable does the Middle East have to be for us (the US) to end what is essentially protective occupation?[/list]
Not easy answers, I know.[/font] Edited May 3, 2011 by Allamorph

[Boo]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1304383725' post='707044']
[font="palatino linotype"]I think you are misreading this if you simply interpret it as vengeance. [/font]
[/quote]Well basically, I just went for his use of the word "avenging" and took it from there. If I had the energy, I'd probably also make a ranty remark about CaNz's remark about it not being murder because it was done by SEALs. But I don't. 8D

Also, the War on Terror is at it's end when the US finds something new to wage war upon.

[James]

[quote=PiroMunkie]Though I've read an article or two suggesting that the way he was buried might actually anger some Muslims. That a burial at sea is only done in extreme cases, which some don't agree that this was one; and just because it was done as part of tradition, doesn't mean it was done properly or according to Islamic law. Though in this light it seems it's more how he was buried and less about who buried him that might cause some reprisal.[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Honestly, the fact that they made any effort at all to be provide a respectful Islamic burial is enough for me. Consider what happened to Daniel Pearl a few years ago, for example. Pearl's kidnappers (who follow bin Laden's backward ideology) treated him even worse than garbage and that very much included his actual death and the subsequent abuse of his body (i.e. by using his severed head as part of propaganda footage).

Given the contrast, I can't in good conscience complain about what the American authorities did. Even if their burial was not strictly perfect (I have heard that burial at sea is generally not acceptable under Islamic law, although again, I don't think they really had much choice), it certainly afforded bin Laden a degree of respect and dignity that his followers have deliberately denied their victims.[/font]

[quote=Allamorph]And thank you, James, for making the effort to understand the point, even as you're stuck trying to reconcile yourself to both sides of a horribly polarised case in an effort to smooth out all the feathers.[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Your point about celebrating death is not only one I agree with, but it is a valid way of reminding us that in our pursuit of enemies, we should try as much as possible to maintain the ideals that we are actually fighting for.

Having said that, I did not lose a family member on 9/11. So honestly, I can not truly understand what kind of emotions the relatives of victims must be feeling at the moment. I imagine that many of these people are feeling a much stronger conflict of emotion than we can even imagine.[/font]

[quote=Allamorph]To sort of attempt to steer the current conversation away from such a volatile angle, it occurs to me (for the first time, actually) that a "war on terror" is rather an ambiguous 'enemy', if you will. Raises a couple more questions in my mind.

* How do you know when you've won? or at least when you are able to go back to just being vigilant?
* Specifically to this situation, how stable does the Middle East have to be for us (the US) to end what is essentially protective occupation?[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Very good questions with no easy answers, I agree.

I have always disagreed with the term "war on terror", because terrorism is really a tactic and the tactic itself is really not the enemy.

The enemy is really a group of people with a very strict interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that takes the Quran literally and uses its text as a justification for what is essentially a form of theocratic colonialism.

It is very unpopular to say that we are fighting against a religious ideology, but we are. It's a similar ideology to those Christians who blow up abortion clinics. It involves people who are not psychotic or irrational; they quite literally believe that they are doing god's work.

This is why it is erroneous for people to try to blame the U.S. or other western powers as the cause of the current problem. People who make that assertion only demonstrate that they don't know their history and they apparently haven't even listened to Osama bin Laden's speeches, where he himself has declared the Quranic lights by which his ideology is based.

So to answer your questions, I don't think that the current war will have a definitive "end". What will need to happen, I think, is a long term effort that involves removing the ideological foundations and safe harbours of such extreme groups as much as possible.

On the second question, I think it comes down to largely to the ability of said nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) to maintain their own security, independent of foreign support. But that will take a long time, especially in Iraq, where the United States essentially disbanded the entire public service without considering the long term consequences.[/font]

[quote=Boo]Well basically, I just went for his use of the word "avenging" and took it from there. If I had the energy, I'd probably also make a ranty remark about CaNz's remark about it not being murder because it was done by SEALs. But I don't. 8D[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]The reason it is not murder is because it does not fit the definition of murder.

Osama bin Laden (and his affiliated organisations) declared war on the United States. So bin Laden made himself a combatant in a "war". I used quote marks because, obviously, this is not a typical war between two states.

Nevertheless, bin Laden is essentially a military combatant. He leads an organisation that has trained fighters to carry out para-military style missions. And this is not just a designation I am putting on him by way of assertion - he has described himself as being engaged in a war. So he made himself a viable combatant. [/font]

[CaNz]

[quote name='Allamorph' timestamp='1304444413' post='707069']
[font="Calibri"]I think you're missing the part where I said I was glad he was gone. To further clarify the point, not only am I strongly considering attempting to become a SEAL, but were I given the chance [i]I would have shot him myself[/i].

Doesn't make it right, nor worthy of celebration.[/font]
[/quote]
I am not missing anything, You are trying to play both sides here, saying you like the fact that he is dead, yet you are criticizing the people who also like that he is dead. However, you are clearly missing my point when I am saying Murder is just not the right word to use, and for someone who is so quick to judge other peoples choice of words, I wanted you to see where you were wrong.

[font="Arial"]To be clear I don't care what your opinion is on if its right to celebrate or if you are glad he is dead, just call it what it really is. If you kill someone on the opposing side during a war, you are not a murderer, and if you really believe the soldier who did this is one, w[/font]hy would you want to join this military? I may not be part of the military myself, but both my grandfather and my uncle have killed during wartime scenarios and they probably carry enough guilt for killing without someone crying murder.

[quote name='Allamorph' timestamp='1304444413' post='707069'][font="Calibri"]
[list][*]How do you know when you've won? or at least when you are able to go back to just being vigilant?[*]Specifically to this situation, how stable does the Middle East have to be for us (the US) to end what is essentially protective occupation?[/list][/font][/quote]
1, As far as I am concerned when there are no opposing forces against us. If there are still people out there trying to kill Americans, there is a reason to keep fighting. This of course means establishments, not just individuals. 2 We are able to go back to being vigilant now or fairly soon ( incase there is a form of retaliation coming) Though returning to a more aggressive approach may also return if a threat is identified.

3 The Middle East does not have to be stable in my opinion. I don't want to see power going into the hands of the wrong people, but I am not sure if anything we are doing now or can do in the future would change that outcome. I think we have done enough to rebuild what we have destroyed in Iraq and need to leave. This doesn't mean I welcome terrorist activities in the middle east, but until we see the threat there is no use in involving ourselves, financially it isn't good for our country. Edited May 4, 2011 by CaNz

[James]

[quote=CaNz]think we have done enough to rebuild what we have destroyed in Iraq and need to leave. This doesn't mean I welcome terrorist activities in the middle east, but until we see the threat there is no use in involving ourselves, financially it isn't good for our country. [/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]The United States has been closely bound up with the fate of Iraq for a long time now - ever since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. It's not just a question of leaving because infrastructure has been re-built; I think America actually needs to make good on its relationship with the Iraqi people by remaining in the country until the Iraqis themselves are comfortable enough with local conditions.

The real problem that we have dealt with in the past ten years (in Iraq) is partly due to the fact that the United States did not support the two popular uprisings that occurred in Iraq just after the end of Gulf War I. Had America supported those uprisings actively, Saddam Hussein could possibly have been deposed as early as 1992/1993 without the need for foreign intervention.

I know that hindsight is always 20/20, but there are cases where immediate action is actually less harmful than waiting and waiting and then taking action much later on when conditions are different. This is partly why Obama was right to support the current action in Libya at this moment, rather than stringing along a failed diplomatic process for endless years.

On that note I must say, Obama really surprised me. I think that his strategic leadership has generally been extremely good - he has carefully judged each situation and responded accordingly. His slower and more careful approach was widely criticised early on, but I think now people are starting to see that he has a pretty decent grasp of when to apply the accelerator and when to apply the brake. He is turning out to be far better in this area than his predecessor (even though I think President Bush was [i]generally[/i] right about the long term goal and the general pathway, but he was very bad with timing and implementation).[/font]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Yesterday was our monthly Navy DEP (Delayed Entry Program) meeting, and since it was SEALs that accomplished the mission, obviously this subject came up. And after the initial "so how did the news make you feel" question from MM1, we got some hard information out of the deal.

Well. Hard[b][i]er[/i][/b], I should say. But anyway.

First, Pakistan was kinda pissed at us after the whole thing, mostly because we didn't tell them our intel or plans. However, the past few times this situation has arisen, we [i]have[/i] told them, and bin Laden was alerted to the attempt and fled. So on the one hand they're crying about noncooperation and jurisdiction and stuff, and on the other hand I'm thinking "you know, you leak information like a sieve, and we can't even be sure you're not sympathetic to him in the first place". I think the President made the correct decision in not alerting them, because had he done so I feel bin Laden would have escaped once againâ??and then we wouldn't have all gotten (well, mostly me gotten) into this lovely little argument here. =P

As far as speculation that it wasn't even bin Laden who was killed (mostly supported by the speedy removal of the corpse), MM1 said he really didn't care what sort of spin came out of the White House, but[i] "...if the SEALs tell me they shot the mother****er, then they shot the mother****er"[/i]. So there you have it.

According to MM1, the SEALs were under direct and explicit orders to demand that bin Laden surrender should they find him during the mission. If he did not surrender, they were to shoot him, but they had to ask him to surrender first. Bin Laden speaks English, as I have been informed.

The SEALs asked him to surrender in Spanish. Apparently he doesn't know that language.

Regarding the body, the reason for the dumping overboard was almost gotten right by Sam. I also think using the 24-hour stipulation of Islam was a bit of an excuse as well, but then again, if they hadn't buried him within that time period, you can bet an international incident between the US and the Middle East would have immediately flared up. However, according to MM1, they buried his body at sea because they feared if he was buried on land, there would be fanatics among his followers who would have built a shrine to him at his gravesite, for worship and spiritual guidance. MM1 also said they were considering razing the compound where he was killed for the exact same reason. (Another Future Sailor confirmed that this had been done, but I can't find any news stories on the issue.)

That's about all the new 'info' I have right now.[/FONT]

[James]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Very interesting, Allamorph. Thanks. :)

You raise an interesting point there about his compound in Pakistan - what will they do with it now? I've seen recent pictures of it becoming almost a weird tourist attraction. I have these horrible visions of [b]Osamaland[/b] popping up...[/font]

[Felix the Cat]

With the air gun ranges featuring SEAL action figures?

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='James' timestamp='1304777057' post='707180']I have these horrible visions of [b]Osamaland[/b] popping up...[/font]
[/quote]
[center][img]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/9332/gozaburokaiba.jpg[/img][/center]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]He doesn't get a theme park! Think man, who would go to a place called [i]Osamaland[/i]?![/font]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='The Professor' timestamp='1304804638' post='707189']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]He doesn't get a theme park! Think man, who would go to a place called [i]Osamaland[/i]?![/font]
[/quote]
All the rollercoasters would blow up just when you got to the top of the highest slope.

[PiroMunkie]

[quote name='Allamorph' timestamp='1304711049' post='707162']
[FONT=Calibri]The SEALs asked him to surrender in Spanish. Apparently he doesn't know that language.[/FONT]
[/quote]
[color="#006400"]I don't know if I should laugh or facepalm. On one hand it's kind of funny that they would be so eager as to not actually give him an option, but at the same time it's disappointing and/or confusing. I mean, I can't imagine he would have cooperated anyway, and it's not like you even need a guy's permission to take him as a prisoner so why even bother with the formality?

When I heard the news I was a little surprised that they just offed him right then and there, it was a bit anti-climactic, lol. At the same time I can't even imagine the media frenzy if we had him alive.[/color]