News Osama Bin Laden Killed (American politics discussion)

[Wishbone]

From my morning dose of Radio Liberty: ObL was unarmed.

 

[T.Neo]

Keep in mind that just because someone isn't armed doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. A Seal would know better than most that an unarmed assailant can kill you, and that no matter how good you are luck can always go against you. Just because you are better trained in unarmed combat doesn't mean you will always win. Add to that the fact that Bin Laden wasn't the only threat in the compound and it's easy to see why a Seal would shoot any attacker, even an unarmed one - doing anything else is just foolish and dangerous.

So some 54 year old who probably hasn't even had much time outside in the last several years is going to take on highly trained SEALs?

I mean, sure, he can still do harm... but if you look at the odds... the SEALs are in better shape (most probably), they have better training (probably), and they have firearms, which puts them at an inexorable advantage.

To remove Osama as a threat the SEAL team needn't have killed him. You can for example aim for nonvital areas to incapacitate a person- I know, that this is not a sure-fire way to incapacitate someone, nor can it be a means of incapacitating someone immediately. But I really cannot see how Osama was such a threat to this team that they had to take lethal action...

Other threats in the compound affecting the SEALs, can only mean that increased stress affected their actions negatively. Osama here wasn't the main threat.

 

[Eli13]

Unless they were ordered to and the white house isn't reporting that.... :hmm:

 

[Krikkit]

The way I imagine it the order to kill was given ahead of time for two reasons.

1) Time. The Pakistani government was not aware of the raid and there was a large military base nearby. I am sure they wanted to avoid confrontation so they needed to get the main objective over with quickly. After he was dead they had time to secure the other prisoners and take intel because they realized the Pakistanis weren't coming. This is another reason I think the Pakistanis were harboring him. If there were strange helicopters and gunfire in one of your cities don't you think a nearby military base would have been alerted? I think once they realized what the raid was they stayed out of the way.

2) Yes it is highly unlikely that OBL could have fought off a seal team by himself armed or not. But there was the likelihood that he could have put on a type of suicide vest, or at least was holding a few pin-less grenades which could have killed everyone in the room, thus giving him an Alamo like final stand for use in propaganda.

 

[n122vu]

From my morning dose of Radio Liberty: ObL was unarmed.

ABCNews is reporting the same:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-raid-13522148

 

[Urwumpe]

ABCNews is reporting the same:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-raid-13522148

Is also confirmed by the US government already.

The real problem with "resistance" is, how many ways could he really have had to ruin the mission, if he was really unarmed by the fullest military definition of it: You are only unarmed, if there is no realistic direct chance that you can get a weapon. The hand grenade in reach is not unarmed - there you are armed with a hand grenade. Since he was shot in the head, not a plausible explanation, and since he was obviously surprised by the attack, there is no chance he could have worn a bomb vest - such things are high-tech devices that take hours to be worn and armed. And equally long to be disarmed - suicide bombers should not decide otherwise.

Also, he could not have delayed the mission if properly arrested and controlled. Soldiers are no policemen, that have to fear trouble if they are a bit too rough on their prisoners. As long as you don't beat or kick him around, you are on the safe side - and that territory is huge. If you really control the situation, you could even make the strongest man tame and helpless - and resistance from a point on will only harm himself.

Just try the experiment yourself, if you feel lucky: Try to get arrested by police and by the military police and compare the outcome. Most military police forces have a simple procedure there: Beat them unconscious first, then sort them. Works for almost centuries, had even worked that way before the concept of military police was even invented. And I doubt that SEALs are less consequent when taking prisoners.

Also, they could have easily buried him in Afghanistan, in an anonymous grave - because Wahabitian believes actually call for anonymous graves.

 

[Krikkit]

Is also confirmed by the US government already.

The real problem with "resistance" is, how many ways could he really have had to ruin the mission, if he was really unarmed by the fullest military definition of it: You are only unarmed, if there is no realistic direct chance that you can get a weapon. The hand grenade in reach is not unarmed - there you are armed with a hand grenade. Since he was shot in the head, not a plausible explanation, and since he was obviously surprised by the attack, there is no chance he could have worn a bomb vest - such things are high-tech devices that take hours to be worn and armed.

I am not saying he was armed. I am saying they killed him on sight because there was the possibility he was armed.

No matter how fast they did it, he would have had time to throw on a simple suicide vest. A few sticks of dynamite, a few blasting caps, a HV battery, and a momentary switch. Nothing fancy. He could have had it rolled up under his bed and and armed it in about a minute. I doubt he had one. From what I have seen he was not living in a constant state of emergency, but the SEAL team did not know that.

 

[Urwumpe]

I am not saying he was armed. I am saying they killed him on sight because there was the possibility he was armed.

You don't shoot somebody that you should arrest by the pure possibility that he was armed. Just like you don't shoot hostages, because there could be a small chance that they cooperate with their kidnappers.

Also for an intentional head shot, you need to aim pretty carefully at your target, long enough time to know the intents and possibilities of your target.

No matter how fast they did it, he would have had time to throw on a simple suicide vest. A few sticks of dynamite, a few blasting caps, a HV battery, and a momentary switch. Nothing fancy. He could have had it rolled up under his bed and and armed it in about a minute. I doubt he had one. From what I have seen he was not living in a constant state of emergency, but the SEAL team did not know that.

Such vests are only build by amateurs. And as you can often see, they are not good - suicide bombers survive with them. You also don't build such a vest once and then store it under your bed for five years in anticipation of the USA to come and get you. Dynamite is already useless and dangerous after much less time, stable explosives are expensive and not easily detonated.

Also, why should he have such a vest? If you want to take the whole bloody world with you, you would have AP mines in cabinets. You could store enough explosives to down the complete house. Arming them would require some work, but by the time the helicopters are heard and the first soldiers rope down into your house, you would have done that and already hold a deadman switch in your hand. Shooting him then would be especially stupid. There could have been enough explosives for bringing down the helicopters as well in the house, if Osama really prepared for taking any attackers to hell with him.

Remember: Bin Laden wasn't crazy. He had a very radical view of the world and strong hatred of the USA, but he was not crazy. Not in the sense of risking premature explosions. he would have worn a ballistic vest, maybe even in his sleep. He would have armed bodyguards around him. He might not have been afraid to die, but all that we know speaks of somebody who did not plan to die. You don't go hiding in Pakistan and develop secure communications channels for you, if you plan to die in battle soon. You do that for staying in the game when somebody hunts you. Bin Laden did not wait for the USA to come, hiding in a hole. He had a small relatively secure exile. Actually he was even far away from the battlefield, where drones did not seek him. Would you say that this speaks of a crazy person? That had a wish to die?

Sure not.

That speaks of somebody who wanted to stay in command regardless how hard you make that.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

As additional information about Bin Ladens plans: he had $500 and two phone numbers sewn into his clothes when he was killed. That is something that you do if you plan to escape with nothing but your bare clothes on, and can't rely on banks to get money after the escape.

 

[Ark]

I seriously doubt Bin Laden intended to die. You don't get to where he was by being a suicidal fanatic, you get there by sending other people to die for you.

 

[FADEC]

Not only that Bin Laden was unarmed obviously. One of his daugthers (12 years old), which got arrested beside other family members, claimed that Bin Laden was shot in front of his family after he got arrested. CIA director Leon Panetta said, that Obama unfortunately made a "threatening movement". I do not really trust the US government on this to be honest.

Also, my concerns were valid: the operation was a violation of international law since the local government did not know anything. Well, by looking at the last 5 decades of US external policy and intrigues, it was not really hard to predict. Sorry in case people feel offended. I am just talking about politics.

However, I also like to admit that I am concerned of how certain people of a constitutional democracy celebrate the execution of a human in the 21st century:

[ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=922_1304452025"]LiveLeak.com - POV of fireworks mishap at drunken WVU celebration of osama's death.[/ame]

Bin Laden was a mass murderer. But still, our values are based on human rights and constitutionality. One can not just head shoot somebody on foreign ground, no matter who he/she was. I am an optimistic person actually. But at the moment I fear that the world I live in still did not progress very well :thumbsdown:

 

[RichWall]

I am an optimistic person actually. But...

Media moves so fast these days, maybe we all need time to absorb it.

If the spin doctors spin too quickly they will fall down.

 

[Star Voyager]

http://www.floridatoday.com/section/VideoNetwork?bctid=930929475001&odyssey=mod|video||umbrella

 

[SiberianTiger]

I am an optimistic person actually. But at the moment I fear that the world I live in still did not progress very well :thumbsdown:

Pessimism is an informed optimism. I think it's best to accept as a matter of fact that considerations of morale and universal justice are rarely the drivers of political decisions the V.I. Persons up there take. There's much uncertainty surrounding Bin Laden's death and honestly it looks like US President ordered him to be shot dead because he wanted to make sure Osama wouldn't say some things he might have said if he was captured alive.

Now, nobody will be the wiser. All strong governments do that, and the stronger they are, the less blushing are them about spreading authorized violence to foreign lands. When you learn at some specific case, be at least content if you can be sure it's done for your own good.

 

[Urwumpe]

No president in the whole world should have the right to decide over life and death, there is something called "separation of power" that shouldn't be violated.

Also the guilt of Bin Laden is pretty minimal, he is really just the figure head and mastermind of a terror organization, but the directly guilty people of the terror acts (by knowledge and conscious decisions) are either dead since the attack (Atta & co), or rotting alive in US prisons, that are no US prisons (Guantanamo).

I am pretty sure, regardless of the guilt that Bin Laden has as CEO of the Al-Quaida Franchise, the actions of the US president would in a better world result in the president being dragged in front of the International Criminal Court and with high certainty be locked away for many years.

What makes Obama better than Gaddafi or Bemba? Seriously, doesn't the US actions also make it less evil to make assassination attempts against the US president? If you think about it, there are many good reasons, not just religious or ethic reasons, to not permit the assassination of political leaders. Once you start doing it, regardless how good your intents are, you open the box of Pandora. The actions of a US president could also be easily illegal and deeply immoral in other countries, it is pretty hard to find a solid moral absolutism there, when somebody can be happily assassinated, and when not.

It is even better analyzed as failure of morals and civilization, if it happens. Just imagine the allies would just resorted on killing all Nazi key figures in and after WW2, without the Nuremburg trials. Would this made the world a better place, by saving the money for the trials? Sure not. The Nazis would have been easily martyrs, today it takes a lot of conspiracy theory to make them martyrs. The trials confronted them with their crimes, and presented them as the tiny spineless cowards that they really were.

Compared to the evils of the Nazis, Al-Quaida is a Kindergarten. How many people did they kill in 20 years? not even 5000, including the 3000 of 9/11. The Nazis killed alone 6 million Jews in 10 years for no better reason than they being a minority and having wealths. And still they got the trials, because without the victims also deserved the right of a fair trial. And without doubts, the Nuremburg trials are still a milestone in humanity and justice.

How much justice did the victims and relatives of victims of 9/11 get by killing Bin Laden? None would be a pretty realistic estimate. Bin Laden never had to face them and their accusations. He happily went on living in exile ignoring the consequences of his actions to others. Somebody just send a killer commando to close the file and look decisive in the media. Justice wasn't part of the plan.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Not only that Bin Laden was unarmed obviously. One of his daugthers (12 years old), which got arrested beside other family members, claimed that Bin Laden was shot in front of his family after he got arrested. CIA director Leon Panetta said, that Obama unfortunately made a "threatening movement". I do not really trust the US government on this to be honest.

I don't trust his family to be that honest either.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't trust his family to be that honest either.

Honest Achmed is not part of his family... his family is instead owners of the biggest construction company of the Arabian peninsula. Bin Laden is some sort of the black sheep of the family.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Binladin_Group"]Saudi Binladin Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In case you ever wondered why one of the few planes that had been permitted to fly after 9/11 had carried the Bin Laden family to Saudi Arabia, that article contains a few solid numbers with "$" in front, that explain it. A company worth of 5 billion USD is a mark, the company was founded in 1931 by Osama Bin Ladens father.

 

[T.Neo]

Pessimism is an informed optimism.

Realism can be informed optimisim. Pessimisim is rejection of any optimistic or even realistic view at all in a situation.

 

[n122vu]

...since he was obviously surprised by the attack, there is no chance he could have worn a bomb vest...

There was also the fear that the room or house itself was already 'booby-trapped' prior to the raid. He had 40 minutes to get prepared for his final standoff with soldiers. Hardly surprise, in my opinion. Maybe the raid itself was a surprise, but for 40 minutes he listened to gunfire, knowing they would get to him.

I agree that this was an illegal operation by international law. In my own opinion, he deserved death. But there is also an established legal process for bringing him to that point (not the mock tribunal such as was given to Saddam Hussein). There is a right and wrong way to do this. Ignoring that makes us no better, and spits on the very flag our soldiers swear to defend.

[/soapbox]

 

[FADEC]

In my own opinion, he deserved death.

But what is the sense of this? It does not make all the victims alive again. It does not stop terrorism. It does not discourage criminals. It does not make the world a better and more secure place. The only thing it does is to satisfy cravings for revenge and cause more hate. To justify death by death puts people down to an equal level of terrorists since they also justify death by death. This is a delicate topic. Especially in case a state which conducts death penalty considers oneself as a constitutional state, because it is against human rights.

 

[Urwumpe]

In my own opinion, he deserved death.

I think I can't agree to that, but I respect your right to have an opinion.

Regardless what we know what Bin Laden has done... he could still be a good father, husband, famous as free truck mechanic among his friends, paying his taxes or giving a lot for charity.

I can't tell what he deserved, that is left to some deity in a pantheon. If he is still worth 72 virgins, well, nobody can understand the gods, except the gods themselves. And I am sure as hell not going as far as Bin Laden to claim to know what a god wishes Bin Ladens enemies. Gods that can't bring fire and brimstone to their enemies themselves, are weak gods.

I can tell that he died like he wished for and how he lived. He died like a terrorist leader.