...So, I guess we decided to call al-Qaeda's bluff?

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...So, I guess we decided to call al-Qaeda's bluff?

 So, here's something you probably won't hear elsewhere tonight: assassinating Bin Laden was a stupid fucking move. We have recently leaked confessions from Kalid Sheikh Mohammed explicitly stating that al-Qaeda had the intention of detonating a warhead somewhere if anything happened to Bin Laden.

 

We fucking called a bluff when one party has a pretty credible claim to atomize a few thousand Europeans???

 

Well, let's hope it really was just a bluff, I guess.

 

EDIT: I also love the flagrant insistence by the mainstream media that the viewer should dismiss their analytical faculties. 'Spontaneous gatherings' my ass. Nobody on the fucking planet would hear the news of Bin Laden's murder and think, "Gee whiz, good opportunity to stand in the cold & dark outside of the White House and wave a few Jignoistic flags around!"

Obvious PR stunt is obvious.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
It probably is a bluff. If

It probably is a bluff.

 

If they had nuclear weapons I don't think they'd necessarily hold on to it waiting for Bin Laden to get killed by Jack Bauer.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: EDIT:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

EDIT: I also love the flagrant insistence by the mainstream media that the viewer should dismiss their analytical faculties. 'Spontaneous gatherings' my ass. Nobody on the fucking planet would hear the news of Bin Laden's murder and think, "Gee whiz, good opportunity to stand in the cold & dark outside of the White House and wave a few Jignoistic flags around!"

Obvious PR stunt is obvious.

 

Didn't Obama say he was holding a press conference, so people stood outside to see what it was about?

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:It

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It probably is a bluff.

 

If they had nuclear weapons I don't think they'd necessarily hold on to it waiting for Bin Laden to get killed by Jack Bauer.

 

Well, I'm super glad that the U.S. is quite willing to bet other countries' populations on such a bluff. It's not exactly difficult to get your hand on an old Soviet bloc warhead or a North Korean made one, and al-Zawahiri is not a political simpleton - hangng onto a warhead and waiting for an opportune time to use it is hardly something I'd put past him.

 

I don't think I'd bet on him having a bomb, but I certainly would not want to call his bluff on it. 

 

There was no pressing reason to kill Bin Laden (other than perhaps Obama's floundering poll numbers).

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:  

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Well, I'm super glad that the U.S. is quite willing to bet other countries' populations on such a bluff. It's not exactly difficult to get your hand on an old Soviet bloc warhead or a North Korean made one, and al-Zawahiri is not a political simpleton - hangng onto a warhead and waiting for an opportune time to use it is hardly something I'd put past him.

 

I don't think I'd bet on him having a bomb, but I certainly would not want to call his bluff on it. 

 

 

 

 

 

I blame the rap music

Quote:

 

I don't think I'd bet on him having a bomb, but I certainly would not want to call his bluff on it. 

 

There was no pressing reason to kill Bin Laden (other than perhaps Obama's floundering poll numbers).

 

Other than the fact that he was the head of a terrorist organization and may have been planning more attacks.

 

Did you hit your head while you were gone? I thought you would have supported this and Obama.

 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I just this morning found

I just this morning found out about this...

Scanning the headlines, I read: 'Osama buried at sea'.

How convenient.

I won't believe he's dead without seeing the body... maybe not even then since there is such a thing a Photoshop.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Well they did find him in

Well they did find him in his lavish compound in pakistan after all.  Caves, lol.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I just this

Sandycane wrote:

I just this morning found out about this...

Scanning the headlines, I read: 'Osama buried at sea'.

How convenient.

I won't believe he's dead without seeing the body... maybe not even then since there is such a thing a Photoshop.

Yeah, I found that really weird too. Special ops always carry a camera with them, so even if he was killed and they were under fire and retreating, you think one of the soldiers would have snapped a picture as confirmation. And from the news story I read, it sounds like we were the ones to bury him so there was plenty of time to take a picture, of course, the media could be wrong, they originally reported he was killed by an airstrike and now saying he was shot in the head.

 

This leads me to one of two conclusions- We have a picture but the military doesn't want to release it for some reason, perhaps they believe it would inflame the radicals. Or we didn't kill him, rather we took him alive and have him in some safehouse where we are interrogating him and maybe even torturing him with the intention of killing him and disposing of the body. I hope it is the latter but it is probably the former. 

 

I doubt he is actually alive anywhere where he might see the light of day. If he was alive, Osama would take the opportunity to greatly embarrass the US. 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

I doubt he is actually alive anywhere where he might see the light of day. If he was alive, Osama would take the opportunity to greatly embarrass the US. 

qft

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah, I

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, I found that really weird too. Special ops always carry a camera with them, so even if he was killed and they were under fire and retreating, you think one of the soldiers would have snapped a picture as confirmation. And from the news story I read, it sounds like we were the ones to bury him so there was plenty of time to take a picture, of course, the media could be wrong, they originally reported he was killed by an airstrike and now saying he was shot in the head.

I just got back from town so, I still don't know any of the details yet other than what I read this morning in the headlines: Bin Laden dead, killed by navy Seals, buried at sea. I'll start reading the articles after I post this, for more details but, I find this information totally unbelievable. Someone said he was killed in a cave? Why would Navy Seals be involved? No photos at all of the deceased? He was immediately buried at sea... by the US? Every time I see some Muslim killed they usually parade the dead person in a box all over town for a few days.

 

Quote:
This leads me to one of two conclusions- We have a picture but the military doesn't want to release it for some reason, perhaps they believe it would inflame the radicals. Or we didn't kill him, rather we took him alive and have him in some safehouse where we are interrogating him and maybe even torturing him with the intention of killing him and disposing of the body. I hope it is the latter but it is probably the former. 

 

I doubt he is actually alive anywhere where he might see the light of day. If he was alive, Osama would take the opportunity to greatly embarrass the US. 

There is a third option: The US paid off Bin Laden to keep his mouth shut, he is now or, has had reconstructive surgery on his face and finger prints removed so he couldn't be positively ID'd, he is now living in the lap of luxury without fear of harassment from the US.

Motive: to boost Obama's ratings. The presentation of the birth certificate was a flop so, they probably said, 'Well, that didn't work. Now what?' and someone suggested, 'Hey, I know. We could say we killed Bin laden and fix it so no one would ever know whether or not he actually is dead!'.

That sounds more likely to me. And I believe that's exactly what Bush would have done under the circumstances... anything to boost the ratings.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Kevin R Brown wrote:I

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
I don't think I'd bet on him having a bomb, but I certainly would not want to call his bluff on it.




There was no pressing reason to kill Bin Laden (other than perhaps Obama's floundering poll numbers).


 

That would be my guess as well.


 

From what I am seeing in the news, it would appear that we knew he was there fort some time now. If that is true then the question comes up about why we did not just off him on discovery.


 

If they found him and offed him right away, then that would just be too damned bad. I doubt many people would shed a tear.


 

If they found him and sat on the matter, then only the bluff would be a good accounting for the delay. Unless they have a way of determining that it was a bluff but it takes a couple of months to be sure, then OK, that is just a prudent restraint. They would really be trying to not get someone nuked.


 

However, that would beg the question of just how they could make that determination.


Can they determine that the guy was a liar? If so, why did that not happen when he first said it?


 

Do they have some way of finding actual nukes in the field? Then why would we be concerned about lost Soviet weapons?


 

As far as where they would have got the bomb, the odds of it being from PRNK are really slim. We must have had the threat several years ago. Check me on this: Khalid Sheik Mohammad was taken in 2003. PRNK did not have a test until more than three years later.


 

They could have a Pakistani bomb. Other probable sources would be unlikely. A. Q. Khan sold stuff to Iran (who still don't have one as far as we can tell), Libya (who gave them up under the Bush Doctrine (and how the fuck he has a doctrine I don't quite get but yah...)), and PRNK.


 

So it is either Pakistan, the Soviets or home grown. If either Paki or home grown, then the smart money is on a “gun type” with a maximum yield of about 15 kt. Probably less. Don't misunderstand me. That will ruin a whole lot of people's day. As far as actual damage goes though, carpet bombing is far worse.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Beyond

Sandycane wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, I found that really weird too. Special ops always carry a camera with them, so even if he was killed and they were under fire and retreating, you think one of the soldiers would have snapped a picture as confirmation. And from the news story I read, it sounds like we were the ones to bury him so there was plenty of time to take a picture, of course, the media could be wrong, they originally reported he was killed by an airstrike and now saying he was shot in the head.

I just got back from town so, I still don't know any of the details yet other than what I read this morning in the headlines: Bin Laden dead, killed by navy Seals, buried at sea. I'll start reading the articles after I post this, for more details but, I find this information totally unbelievable. Someone said he was killed in a cave? Why would Navy Seals be involved? No photos at all of the deceased? He was immediately buried at sea... by the US? Every time I see some Muslim killed they usually parade the dead person in a box all over town for a few days.

 

Quote:
This leads me to one of two conclusions- We have a picture but the military doesn't want to release it for some reason, perhaps they believe it would inflame the radicals. Or we didn't kill him, rather we took him alive and have him in some safehouse where we are interrogating him and maybe even torturing him with the intention of killing him and disposing of the body. I hope it is the latter but it is probably the former. 

 

I doubt he is actually alive anywhere where he might see the light of day. If he was alive, Osama would take the opportunity to greatly embarrass the US. 

There is a third option: The US paid off Bin Laden to keep his mouth shut, he is now or, has had reconstructive surgery on his face and finger prints removed so he couldn't be positively ID'd, he is now living in the lap of luxury without fear of harassment from the US.

Motive: to boost Obama's ratings. The presentation of the birth certificate was a flop so, they probably said, 'Well, that didn't work. Now what?' and someone suggested, 'Hey, I know. We could say we killed Bin laden and fix it so no one would ever know whether or not he actually is dead!'.

That sounds more likely to me. And I believe that's exactly what Bush would have done under the circumstances... anything to boost the ratings.

 

 

Well he was killed in Pakistan so of course SEALs would be involved. We don't have an official military presence in Pakistan and Pakistan is probably a little pissed off that we had boots on the ground. SEALs are the ones who go in when you want to be sneaky about it. News reports are now saying there are photos but the government has not decided whether or not to release them because they are gruesome. Which considering they are saying he was shot twice in the head is plausible.

 

Details will probably be more forthcoming in time... Special ops by their nature are usually not happy disclosing details about how they do their job but I suspect in this case that the pictures will be released eventually due to media pressure. The more I hear about the operation though it sounds like something went wrong. But every news story has slightly different details. We probably won't know what exactly went wrong for another 30 years when the file becomes declassified. I believe most of the conspiracy theories flying around are completely baseless.

 

I think your third option is completely unrealistic. Osama was an idealist and extremely wealthy. He would have no incentive to stay quiet and a lot of incentive to speak out. The sheer risk that Obama would be taking by claiming Osama was dead if it was false would be huge because if it came out that he was alive his political future would be dead. Obama is stupid, but not that stupid. Besides, if they wanted to fake it they would say he was blown up in an airstrike and there was no body because it was blown to a million pieces. 


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Well

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Well he was killed in Pakistan so of course SEALs would be involved. We don't have an official military presence in Pakistan and Pakistan is probably a little pissed off that we had boots on the ground. SEALs are the ones who go in when you want to be sneaky about it. News reports are now saying there are photos but the government has not decided whether or not to release them because they are gruesome. Which considering they are saying he was shot twice in the head is plausible.

 

Details will probably be more forthcoming in time... Special ops by their nature are usually not happy disclosing details about how they do their job but I suspect in this case that the pictures will be released eventually due to media pressure. The more I hear about the operation though it sounds like something went wrong. But every news story has slightly different details. We probably won't know what exactly went wrong for another 30 years when the file becomes declassified. I believe most of the conspiracy theories flying around are completely baseless.

 

I think your third option is completely unrealistic. Osama was an idealist and extremely wealthy. He would have no incentive to stay quiet and a lot of incentive to speak out. The sheer risk that Obama would be taking by claiming Osama was dead if it was false would be huge because if it came out that he was alive his political future would be dead. Obama is stupid, but not that stupid. Besides, if they wanted to fake it they would say he was blown up in an airstrike and there was no body because it was blown to a million pieces. 

That makes sense. I'm always a skeptic first.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 About the reports that we

 

About the reports that we knew he was there several months ago and waited I think it is completely plausible and proper. You know that I am not a fan of Bama but I don't think it was political reasons that caused a delay if true. Remember you are dealing with a strike in a country that is not exactly welcoming to us. There were real concerns that if Pakistan detected our helicopters Osama might be tipped off. If we had reliable intelligence of his location and that he was not changing his location regularly, it would make sense to take the time to do it right. If you fuck up the operation, it could be years before you have another chance. 6 months might sound like a long time but when you consider the necessity of recreating a replica of the house which requires recon and construction time, a week or two of mock practices and also monitoring Pakistani military/police movements to determine a good window of opportunity. And of course, there was probably some time to verify the intelligence.

 

If there is no reason to hurry such as a reason to believe Osama was going to move, then you might as well take 6-months and get the job done right. Most people don't recognize how much patience goes into a special operation, it isn't like the movies where you go in with a half-assed plan and start shooting. You train for that possibility, but ideally any special operation of importance is in the planning stages for months to cover every possible contingency so that the operators can adapt quickly to any deviations. If something goes wrong, everyone knows what to do, without having to form a new plan in the middle of an operation. In special ops, over planning saves lives.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
  Yah, I have trouble with

 

 

Yah, I have trouble with the idea that we had to take months to plan shit out. We have had ten years to plan shit out and we have boots on the ground who can deal with whatever fuckup happens.


 

The boots on the ground might make mistakes and then the wrong people will die. The real major fuckups are when the suits in offices can't get it right. Then thousands of wrong people might die. Either that or thousands of right people will not die. Possibly both.


 

Compare that to Sadam and the spider hole. Apart from the possible tin foil hat crowd, has anyone ever credibly stated that we knew about the matter for months ahead of time? Not so much.


 

From any source on the matter, we got the wolverines going in a matter of a few hours. You get bonus points if you can explain the name wolverines without googling.


 

As far as planning, I will say that I am not willing to call this out as a theory but we routinely ban cell phones in court houses. So why the fuck is Hussein's execution on youtube?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

  So why the fuck is Hussein's execution on youtube?

 

 

Because he deserves no less. I regret that I have not seen a viral video of Laden's death.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 robj101 wrote:   Answers

 

robj101 wrote:

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
So why the fuck is Hussein's execution on youtube?

 

Because he deserves no less.

 

I agree with you. However, that was not the point that I was making.

 

We spent two years getting ready to invade during which time the powers that be did everything to make us think that he was at least as bad as Hitler. Which is probably true despite the fact that a couple of things we were told turned out to be wrong.

 

I suppose that there really ought not to be an “oops” with war but it is war and well, oops.

 

In any case, security must have been a concern at his execution. As I said before, I am not willing to make a case that the filming was specifically condoned. Still his execution was filmed and will be around as long as the internet exists.

 

That seems to me to be a pretty basic lack of security. It only takes a couple of soldiers with rifles to make sure that cell phones do not enter the location. The fact that the film exists is a fuckup. Probably a 2nd lt. Who should have written the order did not do his job. And the privates with the guns? I guess that that is why we don't put them in charge of shit.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
I don't know guys, the

I don't know guys, the skeptic in me is asking a lot of questions about this.

I know nothing about psy-ops or special ops or war strategy and not much about middle eastern politics either but....

I watched the video of Obama's speech. He got tongue-tied which I have never seen him do so much in one speech before. Most of his speeches seem to come from the heart, I got the impression he was reading a script he was not comfortable with. Just my 'feelings'.

I also didn't like all the references to patriotism and religion or, his 'One Nation under god' grand finale.

Whenever a political appeals to religion or patriotism, I get a queasy feeling something bad is about to happen.

I read one article which said he was living in luxury right under the noses of the Pakistan military base/school, not in a cave in the wilderness.

It just doesn't add up to me.

Oh! and there was this photo from the FBI Internet site:

In all the years I've seen his name in print or heard it mentioned, I have Never seen it spelled or pronounced 'Usama' but, that is the official FBI spelling of his name.

WTF is up with that?

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

 

 

Yah, I have trouble with the idea that we had to take months to plan shit out. We have had ten years to plan shit out and we have boots on the ground who can deal with whatever fuckup happens.

 


 

 

The boots on the ground might make mistakes and then the wrong people will die. The real major fuckups are when the suits in offices can't get it right. Then thousands of wrong people might die. Either that or thousands of right people will not die. Possibly both.

 


 

 

Compare that to Sadam and the spider hole. Apart from the possible tin foil hat crowd, has anyone ever credibly stated that we knew about the matter for months ahead of time? Not so much.

 


 

 

From any source on the matter, we got the wolverines going in a matter of a few hours. You get bonus points if you can explain the name wolverines without googling.

 


 

 

As far as planning, I will say that I am not willing to call this out as a theory but we routinely ban cell phones in court houses. So why the fuck is Hussein's execution on youtube?

 

 

 

Big difference between Iraq where we had tens of thousands of troops to serve as backup and Saddam was in a hole in the ground with virtually no support and Pakistan where Osama was in a fortified position with an unknown number of body guards and the men going in had no backup readily available. They couldn't phone in for an air strike or artillery support in an emergency. We don't have boots on the ground in Pakistan... at least not the official kind. If the team that went in failed, it is likely that Osama would have gotten away. In Iraq, if the initial assault team failed, Saddam is being tailed by every military asset in the area. 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:  We

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

 

We fucking called a bluff when one party has a pretty credible claim to atomize a few thousand Europeans???

 

 

 

         Shit, that's small potatoes compared to the potential nuclear conflagration during the Kennedy administration that is historically referred to as The Cuban Missile Crisis.  The term Mutually Assured Destruction is in no way an exaggeration of the potential consequences if the Soviets hadn't backed down.   October, 1962 is as close to true nuclear holocaust as the world has ever come.  Period.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, the image is directed

 

OK, the image is directed at beyond saving. I don't see a reason why the quote fucked up but even so...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

OK, the image is directed at beyond saving. I don't see a reason why the quote fucked up but even so...

ok.......if your post wasn't asking why it took months to take out Osama but a significantly shorter period to capture Saddam, I guess I missed the point. Even now looking back at it I don't know what you were trying to say if that wasn't your point.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:We

Kevin R Brown wrote:
We fucking called a bluff when one party has a pretty credible claim to atomize a few thousand Europeans???

bin Laden's Wager?
 

Perhaps al Qaeda has to consider how seriously to take Tom Tancredo's bluff in return.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Because if they had

 Because if they had nuclear weapons they would have used them by now, they want to cause maximum damage and make the US and their allies looks weak, a nuclear bomb would have done that, they wouldn't have waited until bin laden was killed, that's called a bluff, a stupid bluff at that. You don't go on saying you want to cause death to america and it's allies and then say, well we have a nuke and we will use it if you kill our leader.....fuck no, u just use the damn thing and then say fuck with us and we will do it again. That's is how you know they are bluffing.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
@ OPSo your take on this is

@ OP

So your take on this is that we should not get rid of any iconic terrorists because of potential backlash?  Seems a little like shoving your head in the sand so you don't get dust in your eyes.  I would find a live terrorist more threatening than a dead one personally.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:In all the

Sandycane wrote:

In all the years I've seen his name in print or heard it mentioned, I have Never seen it spelled or pronounced 'Usama' but, that is the official FBI spelling of his name.

WTF is up with that?

 

it's the same name, just a different transliteration from arabic characters.  same as with "muhammad" and "mohammed."  the former represents a more classical arab pronunciation, the latter a more persian pronunciation.  since the dominant cultural influence in middle eastern islam is not arab but persian, you often see these spellings.  it depends on which system the person chooses.  the spelling "osama" just happens to be more in vogue.  i've seen many articles with the "usama" spelling.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Sandycane

iwbiek wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

In all the years I've seen his name in print or heard it mentioned, I have Never seen it spelled or pronounced 'Usama' but, that is the official FBI spelling of his name.

WTF is up with that?

 

it's the same name, just a different transliteration from arabic characters.  same as with "muhammad" and "mohammed."  the former represents a more classical arab pronunciation, the latter a more persian pronunciation.  since the dominant cultural influence in middle eastern islam is not arab but persian, you often see these spellings.  it depends on which system the person chooses.  the spelling "osama" just happens to be more in vogue.  i've seen many articles with the "usama" spelling.

I thought it had something to do with mass media psychology... 'Osama' might be easier to hate than a name that has 'usa' in it.

I think I also remember back in the Bush days a commentator saying the pronunciation of 'O sama' was some kind of slur.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:iwbiek

Sandycane wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

In all the years I've seen his name in print or heard it mentioned, I have Never seen it spelled or pronounced 'Usama' but, that is the official FBI spelling of his name.

WTF is up with that?

 

it's the same name, just a different transliteration from arabic characters.  same as with "muhammad" and "mohammed."  the former represents a more classical arab pronunciation, the latter a more persian pronunciation.  since the dominant cultural influence in middle eastern islam is not arab but persian, you often see these spellings.  it depends on which system the person chooses.  the spelling "osama" just happens to be more in vogue.  i've seen many articles with the "usama" spelling.

I thought it had something to do with mass media psychology... 'Osama' might be easier to hate than a name that has 'usa' in it.

I think I also remember back in the Bush days a commentator saying the pronunciation of 'O sama' was some kind of slur.

I don't remember that but I do remember that Poppy Bush's mispronunciation of Saddam Hussein's name was done as an insult.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I don't

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't remember that but I do remember that Poppy Bush's mispronunciation of Saddam Hussein's name was done as an insult.

Oh yeah, that's probably what I was thinking of. Thanks 

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I was pleased to see Cheney

I was pleased to see Cheney stick up for Obama and Rice too.

As bad as I thought Bush was as a president, I did not blame him for the attack itself, although his reaction to it was inept and messy and costly.

These attacks will happen under any president and intel won't always stop it. What I have been pissed off about is the right always looking for a reason to be negitive when they don't have power.

It was nice to finally see some overlap and credit given where it is due.

The irony is that Obama was passed the torch by Bush and kept lots of the intel policies Bush set up. I think there is a reality beyond politics that every president faces on their first day in office.

I think the current revisionist history of Reagan by the neo Republicans is a distortion of a great president. Reagan was a great president. Bush Sr was ok, but certainly not knee jerky like Jr was. All of them handled foreign police much better than Jr did.

Mind you all our presidents, BOTH republican and democrat have dropped the ball on the economy from a long term perspective.  I am strictly talking about Reagan winning the cold war, with words rather than weapons, for the most part.

What does Obama have to do prove himself? If I can give Reagan credit for winning the cold war, and even Bush Sr for handling the first gulf war as best he could, with much more moral certainty, Obama certainly deserves at least this credit.

We are all Americans and we can disagree on how to move forward without always viewing our detractors as being monsters.

Now that Cheney and Rice have said "Good job Obama", could the nutters out there please shut the fuck up and say "thank you" at least on this subject.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Other than the fact

 

Quote:
Other than the fact that he was the head of a terrorist organization and may have been planning more attacks.

 

Did you hit your head while you were gone? I thought you would have supported this and Obama.

 

Of course he was planning more attacks - but he'd likely been doing so for the past decade (while living in the lap of luxury in a home probably provided to him by the ISI. What a fucking joke).

And no, I'm not about to start supporting state-arranged assassinations of individuals that the state has suddenly found inconvenient. Perhaps the United States should've considered the consequences of their actions before they trained Bin Laden and donated all sorts of marvelous weapons to him and the rest of his fanatical little band of 'freedom fighters'.

 

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
Other than the fact that he was the head of a terrorist organization and may have been planning more attacks.

 

Did you hit your head while you were gone? I thought you would have supported this and Obama.

 

 

 Perhaps the United States should've considered the consequences of their actions before they trained Bin Laden and donated all sorts of marvelous weapons to him and the rest of his fanatical little band of 'freedom fighters'.

 

 

 

 

  Yes, perhaps in the future the US government should consult with clairvoyants who can see into the future so we can avoid such inconvenient developments.  Alliances are purely based upon what is expedient at the time.  Remember 65 years ago ?  Russia was our friend and ally.  Japan and Germany were our declared enemies.  Things change. Politics is a dirty business.  Stop being so naive.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: Of

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Of course he was planning more attacks - but he'd likely been doing so for the past decade (while living in the lap of luxury in a home probably provided to him by the ISI. What a fucking joke).

And no, I'm not about to start supporting state-arranged assassinations of individuals that the state has suddenly found inconvenient. Perhaps the United States should've considered the consequences of their actions before they trained Bin Laden and donated all sorts of marvelous weapons to him and the rest of his fanatical little band of 'freedom fighters'.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh ok, the Kevin R Brown source of morality.

 

Israelis state sponsored genocide of Palestinian civilians= Good

 

Obama small SEALs team to route out a terrorist leader= Bad

 

Got it.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Oh ok, the Kevin R

 

Quote:
Oh ok, the Kevin R Brown source of morality.

 

Israelis state sponsored genocide of Palestinian civilians= Good

 

Obama small SEALs team to route out a terrorist leader= Bad

 

Got it.

My position on Israel has changed over the past few years, based on:

 

a) The breaking of the Israeli agreement to stop settlers from continuing to encroach on Palestinian territory.

b) The attack on the aid flotilla and the extremely brazen dishonesty in claiming that the flotilla was some sort of terrorist assault.

c) The increasing radicalization of the right-wing party led by Netanyahu

d) Reading many of Hitchens's current and old articles on the Israeli / Palestinian issue.

 

In any case, you haven't made an argument. Saying that I approve of a genocide while disapproving of an assassination, even if that were true, just point out an inconsistency in my own position - it doesn't speak to the actual act of state-arranged assassinations at all.

 

@Prozac:

Reagan knew full well when he trained and equipped the Mujahideen and drew the Soviets into the trap in Afghanistan that he was dealing with fanatics, and he should have known (though given his stupidity, perhaps it really did just go right over his head) that these people would not just magically disappear after the proxy war was finished. 

We (that is, developed states) do this over and over - support groups of extremely dangerous individuals because we find them to be a convenient proxy at the time without thinking about what the long term consequences might be. We take the easy way out and then future generations have to deal with the mess. 

 

And, of course, when dealing with this particular mess we took the easy way out again - just shooting Bin Laden in the head, waving a few flags around and calling it a day. No bothering to arrest him and put him on trial, no time given to actually see justice & due process done; a few bullets to the noggin and blurbs in the popular press about how shooting someone is somehow the same as sitting them down in a courtroom is good enough to serve the public.

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:  We

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

 We (that is, developed states) do this over and over - support groups of extremely dangerous individuals because we find them to be a convenient proxy at the time without thinking about what the long term consequences might be. We take the easy way out and then future generations have to deal with the mess. 

 

  Not only do we support such dangerous groups we even forgive certain "valuable" individuals of their criminal associations so that we can get them to work directly for our government.   Werner Von Braun ( Nazi Party member, developed the V2 "terror weapon" ), Klaus Barbie, ( Former SS, and Gestapo member, aka "The Butcher of Lyon" ) and the most hideous Japanese doctor Shiro Ishii ( Head of the infamous Unit 731 which conducted experiments related to biological and chemical weapons.  He used captured POW's as test subjects and then later dissected them while they were still living. )   

   Like I said, it's a dirty business and high minded ethics exist for only as long as it is convenient.  This double minded, constantly changing status of friend or foe has always existed and extends back to antiquity.  It's not going to change.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Not only do we

 

Quote:
Not only do we support such dangerous groups we even forgive certain "valuable" individuals of their criminal associations so that we can get them to work directly for our government.   Werner Von Braun ( Nazi Party member, developed the V2 "terror weapon" )

I would note on behalf of Werner that his involvement in Nazi criminal activity is disputed and not clearly understood. We know that he had no choice in the matter of joining the NSDAP, and that he could not continue his rocketry work at all unless it was conducted within the domain of military application. We have, to Werner's benefit, Gestapo documentation suggesting that he was a communist sympathizer opposed to the war who may have intentionally sabotaged the V-2 project while hoping to eventually construct space vehicles; against his benefit, we have two testimonies from members of the French resistance who claim that Werner was unambiguously a monster & fanatic when it came to the treatment of laborers and/or suspected traitors.

We don't (and probably will never) have the full picture of who Werner was at the time of his surrender; in any case, his adaption into NASA was hardly a negative thing.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3502
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
Not only do we support such dangerous groups we even forgive certain "valuable" individuals of their criminal associations so that we can get them to work directly for our government.   Werner Von Braun ( Nazi Party member, developed the V2 "terror weapon" )

I would note on behalf of Werner that his involvement in Nazi criminal activity is disputed and not clearly understood. We know that he had no choice in the matter of joining the NSDAP, and that he could not continue his rocketry work at all unless it was conducted within the domain of military application. We have, to Werner's benefit, Gestapo documentation suggesting that he was a communist sympathizer opposed to the war who may have intentionally sabotaged the V-2 project while hoping to eventually construct space vehicles; against his benefit, we have two testimonies from members of the French resistance who claim that Werner was unambiguously a monster & fanatic when it came to the treatment of laborers and/or suspected traitors.

We don't (and probably will never) have the full picture of who Werner was at the time of his surrender; in any case, his adaption into NASA was hardly a negative thing.

 

   All three men I mentioned had a useful purpose to the US government otherwise they would have never been allowed to completely bypass being held accountable for their actions.  Granted some were worse than others but it doesn't negate their status as former war criminals.  Yes it's hypocritical of my government to sweep it's ethics under the rug simply to gain access to the expertise of a formerly reviled enemy.

   Klaus Barbie was useful to the US military intelligence community for awhile...Ishii was valuable to the US weapons industry for the knowledge he gained from his bloody experiments. 

 Regarding Von Braun and his being forced to comply with the wishes ( demands ) of the Nazi's I am reminded of an article that I recently read where a US psychologist who was attending  to Goering while awaiting his trial asked him why he was always a "yes" man in his relationship with Hitler and he replied something to the effect "Because "no" men live very short lives."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Yes

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Yes it's hypocritical of my government to sweep it's ethics under the rug simply to gain access to the expertise of a formerly reviled enemy.

those ethics never existed except in press releases.  it was all about racing to get to german expertise before the soviets could get to it.  the nuremberg convicts were mostly just sacrificial lambs: petty bureaucrats who could contribute nothing.  even goering, despite being a field marshall, was hardly a military asset.  the old professional german military had always had a rocky relationship with the nazi party, and party men like goering were rightly considered dilettantes.

as early as 1943, if not earlier, the american military brass was gearing up to go to war with the soviet union.  germany was seen as an annoying but necessary distraction that was already practically beaten anyway.

as for japan, i think that was the whole motivation for dropping the atom bomb: take japan out of the war definitively before stalin has a chance to invade via manchukuo, as he promised he would.  there were other reasons, including reasons of scientific observation, but the whole argument that it saved millions of american lives that would have been lost invading japan is bullshit.  the military knew damn well that japan was already making overtures to surrender, but america demanded total surrender, including handing over the emperor, which was the main bone of contention.  so we drop the bomb, on purely civilian targets--twice, for some reason--and we get our total surrender.  then what does macarthur do as soon as he rolls into tokyo?  saves hirohito's ass.

that's the lasting problem of scientific ethics we've inherited from wwii.  much of our knowledge of human anatomy and how the body behaves comes precisely from nazi and japanese human experimentation, especially vivisections.  we save lives by using it, but torture and murder were the price of it.  so what do we do?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:All three men I

Quote:
All three men I mentioned had a useful purpose to the US government otherwise they would have never been allowed to completely bypass being held accountable for their actions.

In Werner's case, I disagree. Again, we don't have a clear picture of what his involvement within the Nazi party was, and the rule of thumb for Nuremberg (it was not applied perfectly, of course) was that the prosecution needed a not-so-fuzzy image of the accused before they were sent to the gallows.

Speer and Donitz, for example, were given prison sentences but not executed because the prosecution did not (and we, to this day, still do not) have a clear understanding of what involvement either of those men had in Nazi crimes - neither of those men went on to provide meaningful perks of any sort to America.

Quote:
the nuremberg convicts were mostly just sacrificial lambs: petty bureaucrats who could contribute nothing.  even goering, despite being a field marshall, was hardly a military asset.  the old professional german military had always had a rocky relationship with the nazi party, and party men like goering were rightly considered dilettantes.

Well, I mean, I have to be fair here to the U.S. prosecutors: who would you have had them put on trial? Himmler committed suicide in his cell, Hitler and Goebbels killed themselves in their bunker, Bormann killed himself during his break-out attempt (and was tried in absentia anyway, as he was just MIA at the time), Rosenberg was tried and hung, Ribbentrop was tried and hung, Mengele had fled the scene and was nowhere to be found.

I'm not fond of Nuremberg for a number of reasons, but I think it's unfair to call the trial 'just a bunch of sacrificial lambs'. What high ranking Nazi criminals they did find alive they, by and large, did put on trial and sentence to death, regardless of what they may have been able to provide for the U.S.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940