Bin Laden is dead

[Gorth]

Hand him over to a taxidermist and then exhibit him in some cabinet of horrors?

[Raithe]

On the one hand, burying him at sea was a swift burial and removed the option of having his "grave site" turn into some form of memorial for other extremists, or place of vandalism for extremists from the other side.

 

Technically it wasn't strictly legit according to firm muslim law (I mean, I know cruise liners aren't allowed to offer burials at sea to muslim passangers that croak on holiday).

 

On the other hand.. Osama and his associates weren't exactly bothered by bodies that got pulverised in 9/11 and if they could be given proper christian / jewish / islamic burials. And those were all innocent civilians.

 

So eh, it might not be "nice" but I'm not that bothered by him getting buried at sea.

[Walsingham]

I told you, they should have incarcerated him in Sweden, where he would eventualy have become a feted member of the local liberal cognoscenti.

 

Or in Canada, like the surviving members of the Weathermen terrorist organisation. LOL

[Monte Carlo]

The astroturfers worrying about Bin Laden would be hilarious if they weren't so serious in terms of moral weakness.

 

UBLs followers and adherents would groom the young and mentally ill to strap explosives to themselves and blow up marketplaces and mosques.

 

Who, seriously, gives a toss about how they disposed of his carcass?

[Raithe]

Although I did see the comment "Osama Dead. It's amazing what the Americans are capable of when they don't have the playstation network to distract them."

[Junai]

Who, seriously, gives a toss about how they disposed of his carcass?

 

The worlds most wanted man/ghost for a decade, killed and dumped in the ocean in a day. A bit anticlimactic?

 

 

J.

[Hildegard]

Again, geniuses, they didn't get the label because of hit and run guerilla tactics. 9-11 & Suicide bombings.

 

Are all Swedes rude and stupid? Whatever the hell you are.

 

Techniques aimed at military targets. You really think the CIA trained Al-Qaeda to invade Russia and suicide bomb schools etc. You probably do you pathetic troll.

 

You apparently invented your own version of what is and is not terrorism.

 

Calling names and pointing figures, nice one. The only thing pathetic here is your level of communication. CIA trained and created Al Qaida, and then it backfired on the US, something that often happens. Al Qaida while fighting Soviets in Afghanistan used suicide bombers, in the process they also killed many civilians, they tortured and killed captured Soviet soldiers, they were deemed as freedom fighters. In Afghanistan and Iraq when domestic groups, so called insurgents, use suicide bombers and blow up US and coalition targets resulting also in civilian deaths, when they capture American soldier and behead them, they are a bunch of terrorist dogs. For me the two that I mentioned are the pretty much the same, group of fighters using the same techniques and methods of warfare to combat a superior occupation force. Both of these groups can be looked at as terrorist and as freedom fighters, depending on your point of view. Now I now you'll come at me screaming retarded suicide bombers blowing up market places full of innocent civilians. And of course a group using such methods are sick ****s and terrorists in almost anyones sane mind. The US and Coalition forces merge any opposing force in Afghanistan and Iraq as terrorist. My point is that the US through out history paints one group as terrorist when they're acting against them, and another one as guerrillas or freedom fighters when their actions suits them, but when in fact the two often have little difference at all. In my opinion a group in Iraq using suicide bombers, IED and ambushes against US forces is absolutely no different then Islamic forces fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, both using same tactics against occupation armed forces that illegally invaded their country for their own interests.

 

Hildegard is trying to argue that guerilla warfare = terrorism.

 

Hm, no I'm not. I'm saying the difference between the two is more often in the perception of the western powers and media rather then in their own actions and goals.

 

Terrorists are organizations, groups and individuals that are willingly conducting actions aimed at the deaths of civilians or undergoing actions of self-interest while fully aware they will result in deaths and suffering of innocent civilians.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Hildegard

[Nightshape]

Who, seriously, gives a toss about how they disposed of his carcass?

 

Don't care how, but pictures else it didn't happen.

[Walsingham]

Hilde, actually there HAS been a transition in AlQ methods since their ancestors they got trained by the CIA/SAS/my nan. I know this because I've slogged through several chapters of The Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad, but luckily (it's incredibly tedious and probably illegal to access now) for you it's simple common sense. The war in Afghan against the Soviets was fought largely in the countryside. AlQ now operates in urban areas, in western cities.

 

As for your observation that anti-US terrorists and anti-Sov terrorists are identical is conflating the tactical and the strategic. Terror is a tactic, so obviously they are similar. The strategic differences should be obvious. You might just as well say that the war in Korea was the same on both sides because everyone fought in trenches and used tanks.

[Moose]

Although I did see the comment "Osama Dead. It's amazing what the Americans are capable of when they don't have the playstation network to distract them."

 

lol @ this

[Hildegard]

Hilde, actually there HAS been a transition in AlQ methods since their ancestors they got trained by the CIA/SAS/my nan. I know this because I've slogged through several chapters of The Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad, but luckily (it's incredibly tedious and probably illegal to access now) for you it's simple common sense. The war in Afghan against the Soviets was fought largely in the countryside. AlQ now operates in urban areas, in western cities.

 

As for your observation that anti-US terrorists and anti-Sov terrorists are identical is conflating the tactical and the strategic. Terror is a tactic, so obviously they are similar. The strategic differences should be obvious. You might just as well say that the war in Korea was the same on both sides because everyone fought in trenches and used tanks.

 

Of course Al Qaida's methods evolved since the 80s to now days, it would be foolish of them if it didn't. While fighting the Soviets Islamic fighters used suicide bombers, IED and ambushes as pretty much the main technique of resistance. Afghan geographical landscape and Soviet inferior coverage and surveillance in the air compared to the present of the US allowed the Islamic forces to operate and engage the Soviets in countryside on a much larger scale then they do now. Such strategy can't work for example in Iraq due to the terrain and other factors. Hence the movement of operations to urban areas. When I talk about anti - US forces in Iraq and comparing them to those of anti - Soviet I do so for the insurgent groups that target US military targets, not the ones that deliberatly target civilians in order to spread chaos. But for many all anti -US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are put in the same basket of terrorist&Al Qaida. For me that isn't the case. And I wouldn't say by far the comparison for the war in Korea nor do I see the label that connects it to the comparison I have made here.

[Wrath of Dagon]

They still deserve the same level of respect as any other dead guy, including Bin Laden, and John Paul II.

Incredible.

 

Why? Would you prefer it have been mutilated or otherwise dealt with in a manner that would given more ammunition for the radical individuals to toss at America? If not, what you prepose we have done with the corpse?

 

I wasn't going to respond to you because it's pointless, but since you got into it with Greasy, I'll point out the discussion was about celebrating Bin Laden's death, not mutilating his body. As far as what to do with his body, they should've just dumped it into the sea like the dog he was (sorry for insulting dogs). Certainly giving him a little ceremony before that was moronic.

[Enoch]

I wasn't going to respond to you because it's pointless, but since you got into it with Greasy, I'll point out the discussion was about celebrating Bin Laden's death, not mutilating his body. As far as what to do with his body, they should've just dumped it into the sea like the dog he was (sorry for insulting dogs). Certainly giving him a little ceremony before that was moronic.

Nah, it was the smart move. Hardcore terrorists are going to hate us regardless, but there's a pretty broad swath of opinion in the muslim world that may dispise bin Laden's violent tactics but that has some sympathy with his cause. If the U.S. hadn't observed proper islamic burial traditions, it just throws more gasoline on the "America wants to destroy Islam" theories.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It won't make a bit of difference. http://news.yahoo.com/ We shouldn't do anything to appease that scum, it's useless and we demean ourselves.

 

Edit: Alternate link for when the first one changes: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Osama-bin-La...795fd5c2a43d991

Edited May 4, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

I wasn't going to respond to you because it's pointless, but since you got into it with Greasy, I'll point out the discussion was about celebrating Bin Laden's death, not mutilating his body. As far as what to do with his body, they should've just dumped it into the sea like the dog he was (sorry for insulting dogs). Certainly giving him a little ceremony before that was moronic.

Nah, it was the smart move. Hardcore terrorists are going to hate us regardless, but there's a pretty broad swath of opinion in the muslim world that may dispise bin Laden's violent tactics but that has some sympathy with his cause. If the U.S. hadn't observed proper islamic burial traditions, it just throws more gasoline on the "America wants to destroy Islam" theories.

Agreed. It costs us nothing to act civilized even if we we not treated that way. Even if it gains us nothing it's better to take the high road.

 

I'm just glad Obama did not lose his nerve on this. He wavered for sixteen hours after he got confirmation Bin Laden was there. If it ever got out that he had the chance and passed on it for fear of failure he would be done. He's probably done anyway but still.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1LJkz0f2d

[Nepenthe]

I was under the impression that the intel wasn't confirmed until the raid was, well, complete.

[Malcador]

So apparently he died in 2001 of Marfan's syndrome.

[Walsingham]

Hilde, actually there HAS been a transition in AlQ methods since their ancestors they got trained by the CIA/SAS/my nan. I know this because I've slogged through several chapters of The Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad, but luckily (it's incredibly tedious and probably illegal to access now) for you it's simple common sense. The war in Afghan against the Soviets was fought largely in the countryside. AlQ now operates in urban areas, in western cities.

 

As for your observation that anti-US terrorists and anti-Sov terrorists are identical is conflating the tactical and the strategic. Terror is a tactic, so obviously they are similar. The strategic differences should be obvious. You might just as well say that the war in Korea was the same on both sides because everyone fought in trenches and used tanks.

 

Of course Al Qaida's methods evolved since the 80s to now days, it would be foolish of them if it didn't. While fighting the Soviets Islamic fighters used suicide bombers, IED and ambushes as pretty much the main technique of resistance. Afghan geographical landscape and Soviet inferior coverage and surveillance in the air compared to the present of the US allowed the Islamic forces to operate and engage the Soviets in countryside on a much larger scale then they do now. Such strategy can't work for example in Iraq due to the terrain and other factors. Hence the movement of operations to urban areas. When I talk about anti - US forces in Iraq and comparing them to those of anti - Soviet I do so for the insurgent groups that target US military targets, not the ones that deliberatly target civilians in order to spread chaos. But for many all anti -US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are put in the same basket of terrorist&Al Qaida. For me that isn't the case. And I wouldn't say by far the comparison for the war in Korea nor do I see the label that connects it to the comparison I have made here.

 

If you have any evidence that there's is any real distinction between groups attacking military tragets and those attacking civilian targets then I'd dearly love to see it. Feel free to PM.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Snip

I've already countered every one of those arguments... not going to get into this thing where I keep explaining the difference between guerilla tactics and outright terrorism and you keep repeating yourself back and forth ad nauseum because you don't get it.

 

As for me calling names, I did sort of apologize in a later post but you are right, I shouldn't. It is kind of hard to argue with someone as twisted as you and stay polite though. I don't really want to argue with you anymore because you kind of make me .

[Meshugger]

I am still confused here. Was he armed or not? Who exactly died besides of him at the compound? Who were at the compound to begin with at the time of the strike? Will the video or pictures ever be released?

[Wrath of Dagon]

They already said he wasn't armed, but somehow "resisted". May be we'll never know the whole story. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharn...-doesnt-add-up/

 

That article is just a bunch of speculation though, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[Calax]

I wasn't going to respond to you because it's pointless, but since you got into it with Greasy, I'll point out the discussion was about celebrating Bin Laden's death, not mutilating his body. As far as what to do with his body, they should've just dumped it into the sea like the dog he was (sorry for insulting dogs). Certainly giving him a little ceremony before that was moronic.

Nah, it was the smart move. Hardcore terrorists are going to hate us regardless, but there's a pretty broad swath of opinion in the muslim world that may dispise bin Laden's violent tactics but that has some sympathy with his cause. If the U.S. hadn't observed proper islamic burial traditions, it just throws more gasoline on the "America wants to destroy Islam" theories.

Agreed. It costs us nothing to act civilized even if we we not treated that way. Even if it gains us nothing it's better to take the high road.

 

I'm just glad Obama did not lose his nerve on this. He wavered for sixteen hours after he got confirmation Bin Laden was there. If it ever got out that he had the chance and passed on it for fear of failure he would be done. He's probably done anyway but still.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1LJkz0f2d

This is what I was slowly getting at.

[Raithe]

To say it was ill done to shoot a man in front of his wife, I say nonsense! He wasn't shot in front of her. He was after all hiding behind his wife at the time, and she was in fact shot and wounded before anyone was able to shoot him.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I wasn't going to respond to you because it's pointless, but since you got into it with Greasy, I'll point out the discussion was about celebrating Bin Laden's death, not mutilating his body. As far as what to do with his body, they should've just dumped it into the sea like the dog he was (sorry for insulting dogs). Certainly giving him a little ceremony before that was moronic.

Nah, it was the smart move. Hardcore terrorists are going to hate us regardless, but there's a pretty broad swath of opinion in the muslim world that may dispise bin Laden's violent tactics but that has some sympathy with his cause. If the U.S. hadn't observed proper islamic burial traditions, it just throws more gasoline on the "America wants to destroy Islam" theories.

Agreed. It costs us nothing to act civilized even if we we not treated that way. Even if it gains us nothing it's better to take the high road.

 

I'm just glad Obama did not lose his nerve on this. He wavered for sixteen hours after he got confirmation Bin Laden was there. If it ever got out that he had the chance and passed on it for fear of failure he would be done. He's probably done anyway but still.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...l#ixzz1LJkz0f2d

This is what I was slowly getting at.

I don't really have anything against treating the body with a modicum of of respect, I just don't see the point in the average American stifling their excitement over his death. I'm normally not the 'party' type, but it puts a smile on my face seeing people with their "WOOOOO!" faces on.

[Humodour]

Um, the Americans new where Osama was hiding for ages dude. The Wikileaks release which mentioned Osama and Abbottabad in the same document is what forced the US government to act.