Osama Bin Ladin Has Been Killed

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm no lawyer, but I think that would depend on whether the law enforcement had legitimate reason to think the suspect posed a threat to their lives, i.e. probably not.

But this was a military operation, not law enforcement. It's interesting to note that the US had a plan in place to drop a "few dozen" 2000lb JDAMs on the compound from B-2 bombers. Obama ultimately decided against the plan because it would have made it nearly impossible to obtain physical proof of bin Laden's death.

[Vanir Ausf B]

"This was a kill mission."

A senior US official, hoping to offer clarity on the nature of Operation Neptune Spear, tells ABC News that “this was a kill mission.”

Yesterday White House press secretary James Carney said that “on orders of the President, a small U.S. team assaulted a secure compound in an affluent suburb of Islamabad to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.”

The senior US official says there was no expectation that bin Laden would be taken alive.

As CIA director Leon Panetta explained to PBS yesterday, “the authority here was to kill bin Laden. And obviously under the rules of engagement, if he in fact had thrown up his hands and surrendered and didn’t appear to represent any kind of threat then they were to capture him. But they had full authority to kill him.”

[dieseltaylor]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Islamabad,+Islamabad+Capital+Territory,+Pakistan&daddr=Abbott%C4%81bad,+Khyber+Pakhtunkhwa,+Pakistan&hl=en&geocode=FYd_AgIdw9BaBCkvcpF40L_fODG2Ats7XFFZYA%3BFWsJCQIdhTFdBCkXxXpVETHeODEslS6xNaZZbg&mra=ls&sll=34.146667,73.216389&sspn=0.114222,0.200329&g=Abbott%C4%81bad,+Khyber+Pakhtunkhwa,+Pakistan&ie=UTF8&z=10

Yesterday White House press secretary James Carney said that “on orders of the President, a small U.S. team assaulted a secure compound in an affluent suburb of Islamabad to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.”

What is it with American officials - suburb of Islamabad? I know geography is tough but for Petes sake its meant to be 75 miles by road which in most countries does not make it a suburb. Particularly given the quality of the roads. And the mountains.

Now if you are flying its not far - but then most distances and times to travel are not calculated by flight times.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Outrageous lies! :mad::mad::mad:

[noxnoctum]

Just out of curiosity: had this operation been conducted by law enforcement agents (DEA, FBI) against a violent drug lord in the US would the shooting be deemed justified under the same circumstances (target unarmed but resisting) ?

Given that one particular DEA raid on a legal by state law MMJ dispensary resulted in one of the owners' pet dog getting shot to death I'm fairly sure they'd have no problem shooting an AK toting drug lord.

DEA officers regularly raid California and other MMJ state dispensaries while wielding lethal firearms... not just tasers or pepper-spray equipped paintball guns.

[Magpie_Oz]

I'm no lawyer, but I think that would depend on whether the law enforcement had legitimate reason to think the suspect posed a threat to their lives, i.e. probably not.

That kinda applies to all people, Law Enforcement, Military or Civilian. It is just that determining if someone poses a threat varies on the situation.

Soldiers in a declared war for example can be reasonably expected to see all enemy combatants as a threat to their lives. If you shoot an enemy and wound them that is OK, if you shoot them when they are incapacitated that is murder.

Is AQ a declared enemy? Yes they are,

Can a member of that organisation who is unarmed been seen as a threat to life ? It would depend on their actions. I think that if that person is uninjured and does not have their arms up or is lying on the ground they would have to be considered a threat for many reasons.

In the end it comes down to the judgement, training and disciple of the soldier and I think we can trust that SEALs have all 3 in abundance.

[bump]

Even if OBL is dead I still am not convinced that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. So to me it is a moot point. I never really cared about OBL. Five days after 9/11 OBL said he didn't do it, and for the next 3 years he denied being responsible. Then, in 2004 all of a sudden he said he did do it? All the while the US is blatantly using the towers destruction to run rampant for the interests of the wealthy. And investigations into the destruction of the towers and WTC building 5 which fell also, by third parties all seemed to show that controlled demolition was the cause of the buildings collapse. And the pentagon attack was a cruise missile. Show me evidence otherwise.

[abneo3sierra]

Actually there have been plenty of experts who have debunked the various conspiracy theories of 9-11.

There are many 'experts' who have 'proven' that man did not walk on the moon, as well. In the age of internet, it is fairly easy to find an expert to prove or disprove every theory. The events of 9-11 however,which destroyed so many lives, have been proven...I guess that maybe some people could even see something with their own eyes, and still not believe it,and for people like that, there really can be no proof, because they will believe what they will believe.

[bump]

Who are these experts that have debunked these various 9/11 conspiracy theories? Seriously, I have not seen one convincing one yet. Whereas the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters are quite convincing. If anyone has some links/references here please pass them this way. As for fake moon walking and people who claimed to have seen or been abducted by aliens... I have not seen any convincing evidence for any of that malarkey either. But that is not the issue here, the issue is that people think that because OBL is dead that the US has achieved some sort of victory. This is complete nonsense. Even as a symbolic victory it is pathetic. OBL denied his involvement for 3 years before finally suggesting that the attacks on the towers were inspired by the US destroying towers in Lebanon. This brings up Al Qaeda's ace card: Why were the towers attacked in the first place? US is an astoundingly hypocritical terrorist nation. I have seen little to suggest that the US hasn't orchestrated this mess in the first place and brought it all upon itself so that it may further its greedy economic strangling and holy wars. Meanwhile only the rich benefit while the poor get poorer because they took all of the profits and moved the jobs overseas to places where people still work for a pittance... but I digress... The blood spilled on 9/11 is not superior to the blood spilled in Iraq, or Afghanistan (or in dozens of other places). Is it? Cause everyone sure acts like it is.

[abneo3sierra]

Popular Science Magazine, was one of the best "proofs" out there..mostly because they did it so even an "idiot" (their word, not mine) could understand...they gathered experts in every related field, and thoroughly trashed the various conspiracy theories regarding 9-11. However, as I said, those who will believe them,will still believe them...the only thing accomplished by their (very massive)undertaking, was to show open minded, intelligent people who nevertheless may have had questions.

As far as "superior"blood spilled..the difference is we did not attack first, radical Islam attacked the west first, it has been attacking the west for centuries...and yes, the west has also attacked it back, war is like that...if they did not want war, they should not have begun one...but I digress. The numbers killed are yet another thing that is questionable,with wide range of numbers,brought up by wide range of experts. That is immaterial though, because, again, it is war..and obviously one side will lose, me, I hope it is the enemy, I have spent a lot of time fighting them, you..maybe you hope it is us, but then realize that if Radical Islam got its wish, you would be converted..hope you have no daughters, because they are not allowed to go to school, gays?hey..not only can they not marry, they cannot live..people doing drugs? forget putting them in prison, kill them..

The people in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, have been freed from these rules,and most are happy about it,only the fringe (in Iraq) and slightly more than the fringe (in Afghanistan) miss the old ways. Now,they can actually complain about their governments...before, in both places, that was a death sentence,as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis buried in mass graves could attest, if they could still speak.

In short, there IS a difference between our side, and theirs..if you cannot see that from New York(home of 9-11..wow,amazing..) then you should go see it from there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777

http://skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

Educate yourself. I've wasted too much of my life on this nonsense already.

[dieseltaylor]

AB - I was just seeing how much of your piece could be usefully read replacing Radical Islam with fundamental Christian - works well.

.... it has been attacking the west for centuries.

Excuse me but my history is lacking, can you advise me when the West was attacked between 1800-1940 other than when the West was interloping.

Incidentally you say the radical Islamist attacked first but you are aware that the US was the first country that recognised Israel which might be seen as a continuing and expanding occupier of Arab/Muslim land. To a Martian without any axe to grind that might seem to be a tad provocative to drop a new nation into a region. I don't particularly want to start that thread but just mention possible continuing salt in Muslim wounds.

...hope you have no daughters, because they are not allowed to go to school, gays?hey..not only can they not marry, they cannot live..people doing drugs? forget putting them in prison, kill them..The people in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, have been freed from these rules,

Unless I am very very much mistaken Iraq was the most secular of all Arab nations pre-invasion so I do wonder why you are so misinformed.

Before 1990 and the imposition of sanctions, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. It was a highly urbanized society, dependent on a large service economy, with high standards of healthcare very widely available, and a complex infrastructure typical of a modern society. In 1990 about 71% of the 18.9 million population lived in cities, 80% of the labour force worked in the service sector, with only 12.5% in agriculture and 7.8% in industry. 97% of urban-dwellers and 70% rural-dwellers had access to health facilities, according to United Nations Development Programme criteria.

The World Health Organisation in Baghdad reports that before the Gulf War, 93% of the population had access to a free, modern, high quality health care system. Today that system is barely functioning.

More than 93.9% children were enrolled in primary school before the sanctions. Also pre-war, over 90% of the population had access to safe distributed water. Extensive health surveillance ensured a high quality of drinking water, and efforts to eradicate malaria, leishmaniasis and other water-borne diseases had saved Iraq from the epidemics found in many other developing countries. (source :Report on Humanitarian needs in Iraq prepared by a mission led by Sadruddin Aga Khan, executive delegate of the Secretary-General, UN, 1991)

Some extracts from a UnICEF report shed an interesting light on the social responsibilities of a Muslim society.

Historical background: In spite of the fundamental changes that Iraqi society has undergone since 1990, family structures seem to have remained largely intact.The countrywide MICS 2000 found that around 95% of all 0 – 14 years old children lived together with both of their parents. Another 4% lived only with their mothers, mainly due to their fathers’ death, 1% lived with their fathers only and only 0.4% of them did not live at all with their biological parents. This mostly affected older children (Republic of Iraq & UNICEF, 2001).

Iraq has a strong tradition of providing substitute care for children without caregivers within their extended families.Social customs in Iraq, like in all Islamic countries, oblige the extended family and the community as a whole to be responsible for children whose parents are unable to raise them properly. This obligation was originally formulated in the Qur’an and consequently elaborated in the Islamic Shari’a law. Until now it has protected many children from serious harm to their development and well being. The SWL of 1980 formulated the state’s social care policy for all needy citizens (4), but even in 1990 the total number of orphanages in Iraq did not exceed 25, serving a total of 1,190 children (Yousif, 1995).

[abneo3sierra]

Diesel..fundamentalist Christians have not 1)flown airplanes into buildings to kill civilians

2)strapped bombs onto their person,walked into a bus,train,mall,etc to kill,again,civilians 3)burned down embassies,churches,homes,etc to protest any of the MANY insults to Christians that are rampant in the world 4) well..heck..must I really give you more examples?

Also, Israel was there, long before the Arabs and Palestinians..Israel is the only real democracy in the region still, giving Arabs a vote(there are many Arabs in the Israeli parliament knesset) While in radical Islamic countries, one must actually BE a muslim to vote...assuming they even vote,as they do not in many of them.

Regarding Iraq..you are correct, they were/are secular..in Iraq, the killings were done for secular, not religious reasons..as I was talking about radical Islam, that was not the same thing..however, even in Iraq, NOW, radical Islam is fast gaining ground in the south.

Mostly though, just am insulted by your opening sentence, as never in history, at least since the 1700s,shall we say, has CHRISTIAN (which was not 'fundamental Christian' even at that time) nations fought wars or attacked people because of religion,while Islam's most holy book, orders them to, their Imams, etc, preach it on a daily basis even still..you will never walk into a Christian church where people are calling for "holy war" "kill the infidels"

[dieseltaylor]

Sorry I did not realise that method was a criteria. : )

However I was actually thinking and linking to the bit I quoted and did not address at all methods of violence. It had not crossed my mind that comparing Christian and other religions methods of attack would be very fruitful. Through history most religions have done some foul things , or had them done in their name.

My instinctive response for fundamental Christians is here - though truth be told it does not actually say what religion most of the perpetrators are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

As for killing civilians, and airplane attacks I think we can say the Japanese[shinto] popularised it, and the [Jewish] St. Davids Hotel attack showed how to use buildings to make a point. A more recent exponent of civilian targetting is the IRA with the money and arms of its supporters.

And for hundreds of years Christians have been attacking the original US constitution adding religiousness to the coins and oath. : )

BTW if you have a formal warmaking structure then of course your wars may well be mainly for the god Mammon but of course coated with a veneer of civilisation or a suitable casus belli . In societies where they are not so well organised appealing to the religious rather than nationalistic chord is understandable.

You mention a requirement to be Muslim to vote which I found dubious so I have had a look at the Middle East. Wikipedia is good on age so further research was required.

Incidentally in Israel the Arabs make up 20% of the population but return 10 MP's or roughly 8% of the Knesset makes you wonder , other than trying to ban two Arab parties at the last election, what other reasons might apply. It is of course possible that Arabs vote tactically.

In Egypt according to the CIA Factbook suffrage is universal and compulsory.

In Iran " Five other seats dedicated to Iran's Jewish, Zoroastrian and Christian minorities have been decided." Wikileaks.

Lastly you say their Imans are calling for Holy War. Perhaps as we know this is not true for the huge majority of Muslims you ought to be more specific as how many radical Islamist are out there.

And finally if I were a Muslim the actions of Bush and Blair in invading Iraq might well be seen as an unprovoked attack on a weakened Muslim state to wrest its oil wealth for the benefit of the West. Blair and Bush had cosy little prayers together and one wonders if attacking an Arab/Muslim country is actually easier than if it were Christians that were to be casualties.

[Magpie_Oz]

..you will never walk into a Christian church where people are calling for "holy war" "kill the infidels"

You are forgetting the Crusades and a good 2000 years of various acts performed in the name of Christianity

[dieseltaylor]

We were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target.”

Ok lets talk a mangled psuedo gobbledy-gook to impress.

Anyway a little summary - of the misstatements [lies] provided. Personally I think there are more holes to be picked but ....

http://www.alternet.org/story/150857/7_deceptions_about_bin_laden%27s_killing_pushed_by_the_obama_administration?akid=6926.215334.5UfdWj&rd=1&t=5

[Vanir Ausf B]

Blair and Bush had cosy little prayers together and one wonders if attacking an Arab/Muslim country is actually easier than if it were Christians that were to be casualties.

I don't think so.

[dieseltaylor]

VAB - Nice link but I never said was it possible I just asked if it were easier. : )

Incidentally if my memory serves me well there was a lot of pressure to stop the genocide from countries who supply the world with oil. And I reckon a full-blown invasion counts for more soul-searching than a limited aims role to prevent something.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Incidentally if my memory serves me well there was a lot of pressure to stop the genocide from countries who supply the world with oil.

Perhaps. And what religion are most of those countries, and why did they care?

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://www.alternet.org/story/150857/7_deceptions_about_bin_laden%27s_killing_pushed_by_the_obama_administration?akid=6926.215334.5UfdWj&rd=1&t=5

I'd love to know how they fit 79 people on two Blackhawk helicopters.

[dieseltaylor]

VAB - you really ought to read all the article : )

They say there were four helicoptors - which still seems very skinny if something were to go wrong as 25 people seems to be the highest figure I have seen for a normal model.

As for Yugoslavia I believe it was a humanitarian interest. In any event it got results rather than standing by saying how awful it was that Christians were massacring Muslims.

[abneo3sierra]

You are forgetting the Crusades and a good 2000 years of various acts performed in the name of Christianity

NO, I am not, this is why I specifically said since the 1700s at least, to rule out all of the "old thinking"Christians. The problem is,that most Muslims, are "old thinking" Muslims still.

[abneo3sierra]

Diesel.. A FEW anti-abortion acts by single or even a dozen people..ok..compare that with Islam turning out hundreds of thousands, killing,burning..for burning the Koran, or even more millions!! for a newspaper's cartoon reference to Muhammed..just as recent,easy examples..the Movie 2012..had originally planned to show the destruction also of Mecca..stopped because they did not want to inflame people..if the people are so peaceful,why would they be inflamed by the imaginary destruction of a "holy site"? The movie DID show the destruction of St Peter's Basilica in Rome,and how many Catholics rioted? hmm..I do not recall any..

There are parody references to Jesus, etc in all kind of TV shows..do Christians go on a rampage and burn things for it? NO..

There IS a difference, and if you are unable to see it, perhaps it would help if you opened your eyes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

VAB - you really ought to read all the article : )

It's funny you should say that, because although the article claims 4 helicopters the ABC report they link to as their source says:

In the course of the operation that cost the al Qaeda leader his life, one of the two Blackhawk helicopters that carried the SEALs into bin Laden's Pakistani compound grazed one of the compound's wall and was forced to make a hard landing.

My understanding is that there were 4 helicopters total for the operation: 2 Blackhawks that carried the assault team, 2 Chinooks on standby just outside Pakistani airspace. When the one Blackhawk went down one of the Chinooks was called in.

Although it may be possible to fit 25 members of a midget circus on a Blackhawk they are only rated for 11 troops + equipment. So when the Times says there were 79 members of the "assault team" I think they are using the term rather loosely. I think there were 24 or 25 SEALs who were the assault element that choppered in and everyone else would have been pilots or CIA (probably) operatives in the area surrounding the compound who were already on the ground long before the SEALs arrived. I doubt any of them would have entered the compound before the SEAL assault element had secured it, if indeed they ever did enter it.

So the article's questioning of the size of the assault force is itself a misstatement (lie) since it seems to imply there were 79 dudes and a dog standing around in bin Laden's bedroom deciding what to do with him.

[bump]

OK, granting 9/11 was not an inside job, how do you justify the illegal invasion of two countries and the subsequent death and torture of hundreds of thousands of people based on that criminal act? Now that the dubious official story claims OBL is dead we have brought justice to the crime and can now return home to live peacefully once more... right? What a joke...