Bin Laden is dead

[Walsingham]

I'm intrigued, Pid. Who said that the Brits were indecisive about control in Northern Ireland? To my understanding police have always had primary power, and it's been a civil controlled process. The Army have only applied investigative and defensive use of force. Plus observation, patrolling etc.

 

I'm not suggesting there hasn't been the odd wobble, but a decade prolongation is a pretty serious allegation.

 

Interestingly, but perhaps for another topic, 'dissident Republicans' have been conducting attacks on the police and army more and more recently. No doubt having realised that if they don't pick up the temppo then people may well realise that they are and have always been a bunch of megalomaniacal psychopaths and gangsters, and not freedom fighters.

[Pidesco]

I didn't, Nepenthe did and Raithe screwed up the quote.

 

Edit: Fixed it.

[Hurlshort]

This sort of discussions on righteous revenge always make me wonder who, here, professes to be a Christian or subscribes to Christian values.

 

I'm not really into the whole revenge aspect of this. I am relieved. I wish there was a better way to deal with a truly disturbed and violent individual like this, but I think most of those ways are unrealistic. For example, the best way for this situation to be resolved is for the millions of Muslims in this world to stand up against people like Osama Bin Laden who pervert the message of Islam. But unfortunately there is still too much divisiveness even among the moderates in the Muslim community.

[Walsingham]

I think that's a wee bit unfair. Hurlshot. Moderates stand up to AlQ et al. all the time. They are then murdered.

[Raithe]

I didn't, Nepenthe did and Raithe screwed up the quote.

 

Edit: Fixed it.

 

My bad. I've got to learn not to quote on the fly...

[Pidesco]

This sort of discussions on righteous revenge always make me wonder who, here, professes to be a Christian or subscribes to Christian values.

 

I'm not really into the whole revenge aspect of this. I am relieved. I wish there was a better way to deal with a truly disturbed and violent individual like this, but I think most of those ways are unrealistic. For example, the best way for this situation to be resolved is for the millions of Muslims in this world to stand up against people like Osama Bin Laden who pervert the message of Islam. But unfortunately there is still too much divisiveness even among the moderates in the Muslim community.

 

Bin Laden, while at least partially responsible for many acts of terrorism was not a lone serial killer. He was part of a large, organized group of violent people with huge chips on their shoulders regarding western civilization. Eliminating Bin Laden achieved nothing in terms of curbing future terrorist attacks. The Muslim Brotherhood is a huge organization with millions poured into their coffers regularly that isn't going to be stopped by killing any specific individual.

 

Your average Muslims are being routinely stepped on by the US backed and completely corrupt Saudi royal family while, concurrently, fundamentalist Muslim schools (AKA terrorist schooling and recruitment centers) are being bankrolled by the same royals in order to keep the Wahhabis from rebelling. Not exactly a recipe to stop terrorism.

 

All killing Bin Laden did was give a boost to the current US administration popularity at home, and make most Americans a bit happier.

[Hurlshort]

I think that's a wee bit unfair. Hurlshot. Moderates stand up to AlQ et al. all the time. They are then murdered.

 

I didn't mean to make it sound like there aren't any Muslims standing up, I just would like to see more unity against groups like AlQ. Frankly I'm surprised anyone even considers Bin Laden a Muslim, anyone who endorses a path of violence against innocents has completely failed to understand the message of Muhammad.

[Hurlshort]

This sort of discussions on righteous revenge always make me wonder who, here, professes to be a Christian or subscribes to Christian values.

 

I'm not really into the whole revenge aspect of this. I am relieved. I wish there was a better way to deal with a truly disturbed and violent individual like this, but I think most of those ways are unrealistic. For example, the best way for this situation to be resolved is for the millions of Muslims in this world to stand up against people like Osama Bin Laden who pervert the message of Islam. But unfortunately there is still too much divisiveness even among the moderates in the Muslim community.

 

Bin Laden, while at least partially responsible for many acts of terrorism was not a lone serial killer. He was part of a large, organized group of violent people with huge chips on their shoulders regarding western civilization. Eliminating Bin Laden achieved nothing in terms of curbing future terrorist attacks. The Muslim Brotherhood is a huge organization with millions poured into their coffers regularly that isn't going to be stopped by killing any specific individual.

 

Your average Muslims are being routinely stepped on by the US backed and completely corrupt Saudi royal family while, concurrently, fundamentalist Muslim schools (AKA terrorist schooling and recruitment centers) are being bankrolled by the same royals in order to keep the Wahhabis from rebelling. Not exactly a recipe to stop terrorism.

 

All killing Bin Laden did was give a boost to the current US administration popularity at home, and make most Americans a bit happier.

 

I think you are reading a bit too much into my statements, I never said that this would end terrorism. I think I will allow Harris Zafar, the spokesperson for the US Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to speak on this:

 

"As a Muslim, I am happy that a known terrorist like Usama bin Laden has been brought down and his reign of terror has come to an end. His actions ran counter to the true, peaceful, message of Islam, and he created so much mistrust and misconception of Islam. I hope other Muslims will realize that he was not a leader of Muslims. He was only a leader of extremists."

[HoonDing]

I didn't mean to make it sound like there aren't any Muslims standing up, I just would like to see more unity against groups like AlQ. Frankly I'm surprised anyone even considers Bin Laden a Muslim, anyone who endorses a path of violence against innocents has completely failed to understand the message of Muhammad.

All depends on interpretation (or lack thereof, in this case).

[Hurlshort]

I didn't mean to make it sound like there aren't any Muslims standing up, I just would like to see more unity against groups like AlQ. Frankly I'm surprised anyone even considers Bin Laden a Muslim, anyone who endorses a path of violence against innocents has completely failed to understand the message of Muhammad.

All depends on interpretation (or lack thereof, in this case).

 

Well, I prefer to go with the interpretations of the people that aren't bat-**** insane.

[Zoraptor]

There is plenty of stuff in the Koran that can be used to justify violence- it's a product of its time and Muhammad was a miltary as well as spiritual leader.

 

Then again, plenty of people use the Bible as justification for violence and that's (NT at least) about a guy with mottos like "turn the other cheek" "love thy neighbour" and "render unto Caesar". Basically people like to dress up their power fantasies in some sort of 'legitimacy', be it religious, nationalist or a UNSC and will do so irrespective of the actual intention by seizing on the bits that support what they want supported.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Nepenthe]

I'm intrigued, Pid. Who said that the Brits were indecisive about control in Northern Ireland? To my understanding police have always had primary power, and it's been a civil controlled process. The Army have only applied investigative and defensive use of force. Plus observation, patrolling etc.

 

Wish I could remember the source, I'm pretty sure it's been years since I read it (good memory is a curse when you are a scientist, you'll remember all the amazing stuff but won't be able to reference it since you have no idea where you read it 15 years ago... ). I'm pretty sure that the author was of the opinion that "defensive use of force" had occasionally included defence of the best kind, so to speak.

[Calax]

And the partisan hackery begins!

 

Currently the Bush administration has taken to Fox News in order to say that it's due to their efforts that Obama was able to pull the trigger.

 

 

(Yes the maker has a political opinion... he's a lawyer for the ACLU in Sacramento but that doesn't seem to work to hard on his opinions).

[Walsingham]

Be fair, Cal. I can't see this having happened without invading Afghan, and displacing Bin Laden. You also have to give the Bush administration credit for whacking (see above) a large number of other senior jihadists.

 

Anyone who's been reading me for a while will know I'm not pro-Bush. I think they arsed up a lot of stuff that will be difficult to un-arse. But false credit serves no-one.

[Nepenthe]

Be fair, Cal. I can't see this having happened without invading Afghan, and displacing Bin Laden. You also have to give the Bush administration credit for whacking (see above) a large number of other senior jihadists.

 

Anyone who's been reading me for a while will know I'm not pro-Bush. I think they arsed up a lot of stuff that will be difficult to un-arse. But false credit serves no-one.

Sure, but I kind of doubt that's the spin they are putting on it on Fox.

[Walsingham]

Be fair, Cal. I can't see this having happened without invading Afghan, and displacing Bin Laden. You also have to give the Bush administration credit for whacking (see above) a large number of other senior jihadists.

 

Anyone who's been reading me for a while will know I'm not pro-Bush. I think they arsed up a lot of stuff that will be difficult to un-arse. But false credit serves no-one.

Sure, but I kind of doubt that's the spin they are putting on it on Fox.

 

Anyone who watches Fox news can feth off into a hate sandwich.

[Calax]

Be fair, Cal. I can't see this having happened without invading Afghan, and displacing Bin Laden. You also have to give the Bush administration credit for whacking (see above) a large number of other senior jihadists.

 

Anyone who's been reading me for a while will know I'm not pro-Bush. I think they arsed up a lot of stuff that will be difficult to un-arse. But false credit serves no-one.

True, it wouldn't have happened without the invasion. But the exact point they're trying to make is that the use of "legal loopholes" to torture/extract intel from the "combatants" is what got the intel, and Obama just pulled the trigger when they set him up for it. And yet, as the video I linked points out, the CIA and others outside the Bush administration said that the use of torture was actually detrimental to the acquisition of the intelligence that lead to the killing.

[Gfted1]

You mean except for the vital link of getting the couriers name?

[Calax]

You mean except for the vital link of getting the couriers name?

Hell, Bush could have had the couriers name if he'd not tortured.

 

As the departing CIA head states:

It's very possible that they could have gotten the information faster from non-torture means.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, and everything Khalid Sheik Mohammed told them was detrimental. Of course you have to ask, detrimental to whom?

 

Edit: May be you can actually quote where it states that, and the page?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Dagon, this is taken from pg 96:

 

On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh

Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few

intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of

that information revealed 'that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or

incomplete. As a means. of less active resistance, at file beginning of

their interrogation, detainees routinely provide information that they

know is already known. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad received 183

applications of the waterboard in March 2003

(page 96)

it then goes into still classified stuff.

 

also

 

Determining the effectiveness of each

EIT is important in facilitating Agency management's decision as to

which techniques should be used and for how long. Measuring the

overall effectiveness of EITs is challenging for a number of reasons

including: (1) the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the

totality of the intelligence the detainee. actually possesses: (2) each

detaineehas different fears of and tolerance for BITs; (3) the

application of the same EITs by different interrogators may have

(page 94) Edited May 12, 2011 by Calax

[Wrath of Dagon]

So it doesn't say what you're claiming. Quite the opposite, it says KSM gave them little of use before they waterboarded him.

 

Edit: Why did you remove the link?

 

For the record, it's here: http://luxmedia.com.edgesuite.net/aclu/IG_Report.pdf

Edited May 12, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Mainly pointing to page ninety four there... in that they're unsure exactly what, if any, help the torture was (While Mr. Cheney said that report said that the waterboarding was totally what gave them all of the information).

[Hurlshort]

I don't know if it really should matter whether the torturing was effective or not. Is that how we want to get the job done? The answer from the mainstream was a resounding no, as the waterboarding incidents have been met with a very negative backlash.

 

I know there are plenty of times in war where morality takes a back seat, but we do need to maintain some measure of decency.

[Calax]

I don't know if it really should matter whether the torturing was effective or not. Is that how we want to get the job done? The answer from the mainstream was a resounding no, as the waterboarding incidents have been met with a very negative backlash.

 

I know there are plenty of times in war where morality takes a back seat, but we do need to maintain some measure of decency.

Well, my entire point in posting the original video (which only like one person seems to have taken the time to watch given the responses) was that the Bush crew and fox news wanted to be partisan and are trying to deny credit to the current democratic president and instead take credit for themselves by instigating the various intelligence gathering operations that led to Bin Laden getting shot.

 

One part pure partisan hackery, one part "we got him so we were vindicated in ordering the torture of another human being!"