Jump to content

Home

Bin Ladin is dead


Jae Onasi
 Share

Recommended Posts

But we still need to stay focused, and our minds sharp, where there is one trying to cause death and suffering there is another, That could do far more damage!!

 

So the US should maintain their aggressive foreign policies incase someone (somewhere) may try to do "damage"?

 

You realise this habit the US has of involving itself in all the worlds affairs is the reason why it's such a hated country right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

, yet you also said it put our citizens on the same level as the enemy
Because I don't see all the Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11/2001 as our enemy. I can see the reasons some of them were happy to see bad things happen to us beyond them being our enemy. I did not like it, but I could understand it.

 

Also no problem Liverandbacon, you have nothing to do with my limiting my exposure to Kavars in the furture. You just hit upon the reason.

 

On slightly unrelated question: Is it proper to wave a nations flag (the USA in the case) back and forth as hard as you can? Like cheerleader would a school flag at a football game. Saw a few people doing it last night and I kind of felt the same way I do when I see someone burn the American flag. I can accept it, but I don't like it.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One thing you'll learn: The media always gives the SEALs credit. I really have no clue why, but according to the news, there've been things I've participated in that were apparently done by the SEALs, not the 75th or anything else I've been involved with. That's news to me. However, considering the info that it was a joint CIA + SEAL attack is coming from the government in this case, it's actually accurate. No hate here for the SEALs, they're excellent warriors, just bemusement at their higher media profile.

 

I'd say infighting is unlikely, as is any kind of disintegration. Osama was in hiding, and his influence on AQ's day to day operation was very limited. The people who have been actually leading AQ for quite a while now are still around. Honestly, I almost prefer that to a bunch of splinter groups, since the more well known a terrorist group is, the harder it is for them to put any plans into action without information about them getting to us.

 

Good point. I may have underestimated the integrity of their chain command; but at the same time I feel like infighting is a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the majority of AQ leadership under Bin Laden Saudi? Isn't there a possibility that another group would seize power?

 

I'm still in college with an ROTC scholarship, so I have limited experience, but everything I've read from sources on the ground makes it seem like it was a hassle to make all the factions (the various tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, etc.) in AQ work together.

 

Also, wouldn't infighting give us some advantage? True, we'd have less actionable intelligence, but wouldn't the overall weakening of our enemy be advantageous?

 

Slightly off topic: 75th would be Rangers, correct? They won't let me go to Ranger School until I graduate :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure the guy was a bad man, but it is puzzling to me seeing everyone(or at least many Americans) celebrating the death of a fellow human being. I mean it makes people look like death is a good thing, I dunno...I suppose to many people affected by 9/11 it is some relief. But to everyone else....I dunno I will shut up now. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure the guy was a bad man, but it is puzzling to me seeing everyone(or at least many Americans) celebrating the death of a fellow human being. I mean it makes people look like death is a good thing, I dunno...I suppose to many people affected by 9/11 it is some relief. But to everyone else....I dunno I will shut up now. :p

 

It isn't a celebration of the death of some random guy. It's celebrating the death of someone who orchestrated multiple terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people; and who would have killed many more if he had the capability. Its different. Celebrating the death of someone who has been responsible for the death of my countryman and who would have killed me if he had the chance is not, in my opinion, morally wrong in any way.

Edited by Mandalorian Knight
Spelling and grammar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone can't see how celebrating the groundless murder of thousands of innocents is entirely different from celebrating the killing of a man responsible for the deaths of thousands, who wanted to kill more, and had become a symbol to like-minded individuals, they're beyond help.
I wasn't drawing any correlation between the supposed jubilation of "Muslims" on 9/11 with what was experienced today, simply because the situation is incomparable. Quite frankly, there isn't much reason to celebrate here, as irrespective of bin Laden's death, there still remains a considerable threat; a threat that during the manhunt for bin Laden has probably increased to a new level of prominence. Even with the figurehead toppled, there's still the fragmentary cells that will follow the power vacuum, as well as the semi-independent al-Qaeda offshoots that have been operating without direct administration from bin Laden prior to his passing. Quite frankly, it's as monumental as the execution of Saddam Hussein (i.e. of petty consequence).
If celebrating his death makes me overly jingoistic, debased, aggressive, racist, and ignorant, those words must have changed their definition since I last checked.
I never claimed any of that; I was just saying that the celebrations could be perceived simply as such. One could compare it to the foolhardiness of "Mission Accomplished", in that it's a gross mischaracterization of a "victory".
The truly ignorant thing is criticizing people for celebrating the death of the man who wanted to kill them, did all of this, and planned to do more.
As I've pointed out, I'm criticizing the fanfare that has been made by some; the insistence that this is a game-changing, tide-turning victory in the War on Terror. The resignation of Mubarak is in many ways more celebratory in terms of against-the-odds, "the bigger they are, the mightier they fall" circumstances that makes this incident seem more like the execution of an obscure ideologue who has little absolute authority to make a tremendous difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called closure. To many this is all the closure they needed. It's a relief to know that we finally got him. Sure, he was more a figurehead or whatever, but it feels good to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. To some extent, it was what people criticized Bush for. "We didn't get Bin Laden, but we got 5 of his second in commands." So here we have the top man. Now the next time we take out one of Bin Laden's second in commands, we actually take out the leader. It's also a psychological boost. Bin Laden is the name we know. It's the name the world knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't drawing any correlation between the supposed jubilation of "Muslims" on 9/11 with what was experienced today, simply because the situation is incomparable.

 

So, those people in the "arab street" who were unmistakably jubilant about the Towers attack weren't muslims?

 

Quite frankly, there isn't much reason to celebrate here, as irrespective of bin Laden's death, there still remains a considerable threat; a threat that during the manhunt for bin Laden has probably increased to a new level of prominence. Even with the figurehead toppled, there's still the fragmentary cells that will follow the power vacuum, as well as the semi-independent al-Qaeda offshoots that have been operating without direct administration from bin Laden prior to his passing. Quite frankly, it's as monumental as the execution of Saddam Hussein (i.e. of petty consequence).

 

Depending on how one spins the meaning of "celebrate", it is noteworthy in and of itself b/c he was such an important figure to jihadis in general. However, I'd agree that it is premature to say "well, now that we've bagged bin laden, let's call it a day". Will be interesting to see just how much info about AQ and affiliates is gleaned from the intelligence cache they got on this mission

 

As I've pointed out, I'm criticizing the fanfare that has been made by some; the insistence that this is a game-changing, tide-turning victory in the War on Terror. The resignation of Mubarak is in many ways more celebratory in terms of against-the-odds, "the bigger they are, the mightier they fall" circumstances that makes this incident seem more like the execution of an obscure ideologue who has little absolute authority to make a tremendous difference.

 

It is game changing, not game ending. Sort of a "you can run, but you can't hide" to terrorists worldwide. Still, unseating Mubarak, will likely prove more destabilizing than OBL's death. Two words: Muslim Brotherhood (and no, they are a legitimate concern, not some toothless boogeyman).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had no regard for human life, He even used children for target practice, He started this war to see us Americans cower in fear, Did it work NO!!, I'm am very proud to be American do i believe in violence and death no, However when someone comes to my country and kills with no remorse or regard for human life, yes i have a problem, I come from a very good family, I was born and raised Catholic. I hold my morales and values with a lot of pride.

 

Am i glad he's gone yes, However i never said it was ok to take a life from someone, I really wished this war never started and i wish that there could have been a peaceful situation.

 

We did what had to be done to prevent another 9/11, Some may agree or disagree with how i feel, But i have a lot of friends from different country's, Just because someone is from the same country as him, Doesn't make them terrorist, Even after 9/11 i never looked at other people the way some did. I admit we don't all ways think before we react, There are a lot of good people in this world, it's too bad that some try to make others look bad!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, those people in the "arab street" who were unmistakably jubilant about the Towers attack weren't muslims?
I was referring to the coverage that depicted "Muslims celebrating 9/11" was simply that; "Muslims celebrating 9/11". The connotation that was displayed when media showed those scenes is that "Muslims" includes Muslims anywhere and everywhere, and that they are all are jubilant at the mass murder of Americans. My quotes weren't a question of self-identity and faith vis-a-vis questionable ethics, but rather a criticism of the overgeneralization and homogenization of Muslim-majority societies that was present in the scenes of 9/11-fest. Anything else is simply reading too much into it, frankly.
It is game changing, not game ending. Sort of a "you can run, but you can't hide" to terrorists worldwide. Still, unseating Mubarak, will likely prove more destabilizing than OBL's death. Two words: Muslim Brotherhood (and no, they are a legitimate concern, not some toothless boogeyman).
I wasn't really making a correlation between a rise of radical Islamism and the downfall of Mubarak, but rather illustrating the point that bin Laden's death isn't the ragtag Rebel Alliance taking down the expansive Galactic Empire here; hell, someone can probably argue that it's the opposite. :D My point was that it's hardly some grand triumph of good over evil with insurmountable odds factored in; it's more like a cat catching a mouse. I sure don't like vermin in my house any day, but it's not like the cat took on a pack of wolves here: it's just a goddamn mouse, even if it is a big one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. I may have underestimated the integrity of their chain command; but at the same time I feel like infighting is a possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the majority of AQ leadership under Bin Laden Saudi? Isn't there a possibility that another group would seize power?

 

I'm still in college with an ROTC scholarship, so I have limited experience, but everything I've read from sources on the ground makes it seem like it was a hassle to make all the factions (the various tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, etc.) in AQ work together.

 

Also, wouldn't infighting give us some advantage? True, we'd have less actionable intelligence, but wouldn't the overall weakening of our enemy be advantageous?

 

This is true to a certain extent. Whether or not infighting or ordinary splintering would help or hinder our side depends largely on amount. For instance, very significant infighting would be helpful, while more minor infighting wouldn't be enough to counterbalance the problems splintering would cause us. I just suspect that due to Osama's significantly reduced role in the organization, any such changes won't be very large, since most have already occurred. The main change I can see would be the Pakistan branch receding in importance a bit, as the Yemen branch continues to grow in importance.

 

I wasn't drawing any correlation between the supposed jubilation of "Muslims" on 9/11 with what was experienced today, simply because the situation is incomparable. Quite frankly, there isn't much reason to celebrate here, as irrespective of bin Laden's death, there still remains a considerable threat; a threat that during the manhunt for bin Laden has probably increased to a new level of prominence. Even with the figurehead toppled, there's still the fragmentary cells that will follow the power vacuum, as well as the semi-independent al-Qaeda offshoots that have been operating without direct administration from bin Laden prior to his passing. Quite frankly, it's as monumental as the execution of Saddam Hussein (i.e. of petty consequence).I never claimed any of that; I was just saying that the celebrations could be perceived simply as such. One could compare it to the foolhardiness of "Mission Accomplished", in that it's a gross mischaracterization of a "victory".As I've pointed out, I'm criticizing the fanfare that has been made by some; the insistence that this is a game-changing, tide-turning victory in the War on Terror. The resignation of Mubarak is in many ways more celebratory in terms of against-the-odds, "the bigger they are, the mightier they fall" circumstances that makes this incident seem more like the execution of an obscure ideologue who has little absolute authority to make a tremendous difference.

 

We're actually in agreement that anyone who sees this as anything more than a symbolic victory is being way overoptimistic. I'm still not sure where 'violent', 'debased', and 'overly jingoistic' come into that, but I guess I just misinterpreted you or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure the guy was a bad man, but it is puzzling to me seeing everyone(or at least many Americans) celebrating the death of a fellow human being. I mean it makes people look like death is a good thing, I dunno...I suppose to many people affected by 9/11 it is some relief. But to everyone else....I dunno I will shut up now. :p

 

Death is never a solution, You're right about your statement, And yes many were celebrating, What bothers me the most with some peoples attitudes or statements is, America was not the only country hurt by 9/11, that's why we called it the WORLD TRADE CENTER, meaning that all races and religion's were affected by this event, Meaning that all races worked in the same buildings and offices together.

 

He was clearly a mad man, and evil in it's purest form, He was given the choice of surrender and denied that option, I really wish we could all wish upon a star and wish away war, violence, and hatred, But clearly that is living in a fantasy world, We alll live int his world together, Hopefully someday we can all live in Peace with out violence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the coverage that depicted "Muslims celebrating 9/11" was simply that; "Muslims celebrating 9/11". The connotation that was displayed when media showed those scenes is that "Muslims" includes Muslims anywhere and everywhere, and that they are all are jubilant at the mass murder of Americans. My quotes weren't a question of self-identity and faith vis-a-vis questionable ethics, but rather a criticism of the overgeneralization and homogenization of Muslim-majority societies that was present in the scenes of 9/11-fest. Anything else is simply reading too much into it, frankly.

 

That's fine. Wasn't initially sure what you're point was, but agree that oversimplification only tends to muddy the picture. Given that muslims border on 20+/- % of global population, I never took those pics to really be anything more than anti-American arab-muslims or radicalized muslims outside the ME.

 

 

I wasn't really making a correlation between a rise of radical Islamism and the downfall of Mubarak, but rather illustrating the point that bin Laden's death isn't the ragtag Rebel Alliance taking down the expansive Galactic Empire here; hell, someone can probably argue that it's the opposite. :D My point was that it's hardly some grand triumph of good over evil with insurmountable odds factored in; it's more like a cat catching a mouse. I sure don't like vermin in my house any day, but it's not like the cat took on a pack of wolves here: it's just a goddamn mouse, even if it is a big one.

 

No, I understood the basic analogy in terms of power imbalance between OBL vs the US and protestors vs an autocratic govt. Just didn't buy the Egyptian "revolution" to be something to really celebrate b/c I think that the MB will eclipse the "secular" forces that wanted to remove HM and replace him with a more "democratic" regime. I'd agree that taking OBL out, while necessary, was just one more operation in a long war with no real end in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine. Wasn't initially sure what you're point was, but agree that oversimplification only tends to muddy the picture. Given that muslims border on 20+/- % of global population, I never took those pics to really be anything more than anti-American arab-muslims or radicalized muslims outside the ME.

 

 

 

 

No, I understood the basic analogy in terms of power imbalance between OBL vs the US and protestors vs an autocratic govt. Just didn't buy the Egyptian "revolution" to be something to really celebrate b/c I think that the MB will eclipse the "secular" forces that wanted to remove HM and replace him with a more "democratic" regime. I'd agree that taking OBL out, while necessary, was just one more operation in a long war with no real end in sight.

 

Meaning this war is another Vietnam, Lives lost with no real directive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....................I don't like this place and try not to come in here... but I have to ask.

 

Why did they go in and kill him instead of capturing him? I know a lot of people see this as "justice" but since I'm Australian and we don't have a death penalty here... it doesn't seem like "justice" to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaning this war is another Vietnam, Lives lost with no real directive!

 

That really isn't an accurate statement for several reasons. First, the nature of our enemy is different. AQ is a multi ethnic and multinational force; the VC and NVA were Vietnamese. Some of the tactics are similar, but the motivation behind each group is different. The VC were fighting because (depending on who you ask) they wanted to unify or free their country. AQ, however, is an international terrorist group. The motivations differ widely upon joining, from anger at western interference (real or perceived) to religious fundamentalists who are just following the orders of their religious leaders. Some would argue that the US didn't have a clear objective upon entering Vietnam, we have clear objectives for each of current fights, including Afghanistan, Iraq (it varies depending on who you ask), and the international pursuit of terrorists.

 

We have had over 30 years to analyze Vietnam. I feel like we've learned from the mistakes. This isn't a conventional war; there aren't many huge straight up battles to show to the media and boost public opinion. Operations like the one that killed Bin Laden are a key part of this war; the only reason we know about this one is because he is such a symbol.

 

There are a few parallels, but it's important to draw distinctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never believed that Al Qaeda exists, nor have I ever believed Bin Laden was their leader. However that's a big arguement I could write essays on, but this isn't about 9/11 or anything, it's about the death of Bin Laden. But let's look at this a minute;

 

Us british have just had the Royal Wedding, taking the attention off of the Americans, which, as much as I hate to admit it, because I despise America as a whole, is THE power in the world at the moment.

 

Obama is up for re-election very soon, and this has no doubt given him a ton of popularity points.

 

So...it's managed to put the spotlight back on America AND grant Obama popularity++ right before the election. How convenient...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is up for re-election very soon, and this has no doubt given him a ton of popularity points.

 

So...it's managed to put the spotlight back on America AND grant Obama popularity++ right before the election. How convenient...

 

The next US Presidential elections aren't till November 2012. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, a year and a half is a very long time regarding these things.

 

This year alone has seen two Middle East Governments fall, one in what I hope are it's death throes, and countless others scrambling to prevent that happening to them, and we've only just reached May.

 

And while I'm sure this will no doubt give Obama a popularity boost (and let's face it, he needed it), it will by no means make his re-election in 2012 a certainty.

 

EDIT: And I have to agree with Mim when it comes to the Royal Wedding (not the crap bit, though :p). It might have been a big event here, but it ranked pretty low on the agenda for the rest of the world.

Edited by Astor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never believed that Al Qaeda exists, nor have I ever believed Bin Laden was their leader.

 

Big surprises since you also do not believe in the moon landing.

 

The only thing surprising about the timing is the fact that they found him at all after almost 10 years. However, the reason it took so long is because the U.S. diverted resources in the wrong direction, Iraq and a “so-called” ally knew where Bin Laden was, but kept feeding the U.S. B.S. for intelligence.

 

Also no one was paying attention to the Royal Wedding, but the media. The rest of us were wearing out our remotes from having to change the channel every time that that crap came onto the air.

 

Why did they go in and kill him instead of capturing him?
Bin Ladin and his people had guns too and was shooting back. Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they go in and kill him instead of capturing him? I know a lot of people see this as "justice" but since I'm Australian and we don't have a death penalty here... it doesn't seem like "justice" to me...

 

There seems to be a bit of a mix-up regarding the mission's objectives.

 

White House Homeland Security Adviser John O. Brennan stated after the raid that "If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that."

 

I guessing him so much as mock roaring would probably be interpreted a threat by the SEALs.

 

But there's two reports vouching for the 'kill order' statement. If I were a SEAL with a capture order though, I'd still "accidentally" headshot him. Just sayin'. :indif:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...