Bin Laden Dead #2

  • #41
They really anger me right now. They have a lot of nerve criticizing our mission there when many times when we notified them in advance, they obviously tipped off the target in advance....

They aren't worth your agitation, my friend.

The Pakistanis are really embarrassed right now. They got caught with their pants down in two ways: (i) they were shielding Bin Laden and/or didn't know he was right under their noses (depending on which Pakistanis we're talking about), and (ii) their country was invaded and a raid was successfully made within walking distance of their main military academy. Imagine if a Canadian combat unit landed in West Point, NY, shot several people and flew away with a corpse and computers!

They have to do a little chest beating before they go back to cashing our checks and playing both sides.
 
  • #42
A big bonus here was the computers and other info we got. I believe they said he was planning on retaliating on the ten year anniversary. Imagine we were months away from another attack. Now we have to get rid of the terrorist cells that have been hiding here for many years.
 
  • #43
I don't have a link at hand, but one shouldn't be hard to find. Late last night, Wednesday night, I was falling asleep with the TV on CNN when I heard a government spokesperson describe the details of the killing. He was very frank and upfront. Seals shot and killed a man in the guardhouse. He was the only one in the compound who fired on the Seals. All of the shots fired inside the house came from our side. Osama's 19 year-old son was shot to death on the staircase. He was unarmed. Inside Osama's bedroom, a woman rushed at the commandos, and she was shot. The next shots were fired at Osama, one in the head and one in the chest. The spokesperson also made it very clear that weapons were in Osama's bedroom, though he had no time to use them. The attack was swift and clean (my words). The words roused me from my near slumber, and I was taken aback, but impressed, by how frank they were. I'll look for that llink now.

I saw that same interview. It may have been Anderson Cooper
 
  • #44
Boy they are wanting their time in the media aren't they? First they will show the tape of obl then they will publically name the successor. Then the successor will make his statement. All with appropriate waiting periods to keep everyone's mind on them.

Yep. It all appears to be so civilized and smart, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
 
  • #45
They really anger me right now. They have a lot of nerve criticizing our mission there when many times when we notified them in advance, they obviously tipped off the target in advance.

The fact of the matter is, they need our billions so the Taliban doesn't completely take over via a coup but they have sympathies or some kind of relationship with terrorists, kind of how the Saudi Royal family is the official governing body of Saudi Arabia, but to prevent a coup and possibly due to tribal affiliations or lingering sympathies, they grant the terrible religious police a ton of power there.

The atrocities committed against especially women and children in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan sicken me but the corruption and the tribal, backward culture of many of the villages of those countries makes me feel hopeless about ever being able to make any kind of a difference over there.

I feel like our military is engaged in an endless game of cat and mouse as tribes shift their support from democracy to Taliban and back and our boys over there can never really know who to trust. It feels very hopeless to me at times. If we can't get the support of the population, it will be almost impossible to stem the tide of extremism and the terror it embraces
.

BBM: I have been thinking along these lines as well. The war on terror is unlike any other war in history. It is not a fight over land or taxes, or even for a specific philosophy--it is a war against extremism, and that will not be easy, if it is even possible, to wipe out.

I consider the billions--or is it trillions?--of dollars going toward these current wars and I cringe over the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. World wars have been fought and ended with some semblance of victory. All wars cost megabucks, but a war that never ends means never-ending cost.

So, with never-ending costs as we fight a never-ending battle, what will become of our country? Our infrastructure is failing. American families are losing their sources of income and their homes. Our citizens' needs have been put on hold, as is always the case in wartime. The difference now, though, is that in past wars putting our citizens' needs on hold was always temporary, while the current battle is ongoing with no end in sight.

Face it--it makes no sense to attempt to fight to the end when dealing with something that really has no end. There will always be extremists, factions with one goal--to instill fear. So why not bring our troops home and put our defense budget to work defending our soil, our citizens and the freedom that we have all grown accustomed to? Fix our highways and rebuild our decaying bridges! Fund education and health care--two fundamentals that US citizens want, need and deserve!

I do not have a problem with offering financial aid to other countries in certain circumstances temporarily but to pour endless millions or billions into a lost cause makes about as much sense as agreeing to by a man a fish every day for the rest of his life rather than teaching him to catch his own fish. The fact that it is on a much larger scale makes it all the more imperative to take stock now, to move quickly toward having Iraq and Afghanistan realize that they must become self-supporting, that they will have to take care of their own.

Neither war can be won. Both will either never end or will end with very little accomplished to rid the world of extremists.
 
  • #46
Wonder how many of these flower children are still alive? Any idea? ;-)
osama2.jpg

Osama bin Laden 1971, second from right, on a family outing in Falun, Sweden.

OT: Gitana you Gypsy....love Shakira in her native tongue.
 
  • #47
a little levity for the weekend...

Newser.com Bob Woodward on the takedown in today's Washington Post; among the details:

- When US officials tracked the courier to bin Laden's compound, they observed a tall man who walked the grounds for an hour or two each day. They dubbed him "the pacer." Woodward notes "His routine suggested he was not just a shut-in but almost a prisoner."

- One adviser put the odds that the pacer was bin Laden at 40%: Even so, he said, that's "38% better than we have ever had before.”

- Bin Laden was known to be taller that 6-foot-4; US intel could only narrow the pacer's height to between 5-foot-8 and 6-foot-8./

- When bin Laden’s corpse was laid out, one of the Navy SEALs was asked to stretch out next to it to compare heights. The SEAL was 6 feet tall. The body was several inches taller.

After the information was relayed to Obama, he turned to his advisers and said: “We donated a $60 million helicopter to this operation. Could we not afford to buy a tape measure?”

ETA: fix quote
 
  • #48
BBM: I have been thinking along these lines as well. The war on terror is unlike any other war in history. It is not a fight over land or taxes, or even for a specific philosophy--it is a war against extremism, and that will not be easy, if it is even possible, to wipe out.

I consider the billions--or is it trillions?--of dollars going toward these current wars and I cringe over the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. World wars have been fought and ended with some semblance of victory. All wars cost megabucks, but a war that never ends means never-ending cost.

So, with never-ending costs as we fight a never-ending battle, what will become of our country? Our infrastructure is failing. American families are losing their sources of income and their homes. Our citizens' needs have been put on hold, as is always the case in wartime. The difference now, though, is that in past wars putting our citizens' needs on hold was always temporary, while the current battle is ongoing with no end in sight.

Face it--it makes no sense to attempt to fight to the end when dealing with something that really has no end. There will always be extremists, factions with one goal--to instill fear. So why not bring our troops home and put our defense budget to work defending our soil, our citizens and the freedom that we have all grown accustomed to? Fix our highways and rebuild our decaying bridges! Fund education and health care--two fundamentals that US citizens want, need and deserve!

I do not have a problem with offering financial aid to other countries in certain circumstances temporarily but to pour endless millions or billions into a lost cause makes about as much sense as agreeing to by a man a fish every day for the rest of his life rather than teaching him to catch his own fish. The fact that it is on a much larger scale makes it all the more imperative to take stock now, to move quickly toward having Iraq and Afghanistan realize that they must become self-supporting, that they will have to take care of their own.

Neither war can be won. Both will either never end or will end with very little accomplished to rid the world of extremists.

It makes sense to me. We must fight them on their own turf. We have no choice if we intend to protect ourselves. We certainly cant depend on these countries that we send billions to because they wont do it.

The civilian causalities like in all wars fought will not be our own if fought on foreign soil. We are to protect the US from terrorism at all cost and yes, the cost is insurmountable but if we do not eradicate as many of them as we can over on their soil they will be over here more easily.

We are not fighting for Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan. We fight to protect our own and every man and woman in the military knows that all too well when they enlist. If we do not keep hunting them down then they will only become stronger. We must try to keep them splintered and disorganized or we will see 911 repeated again. Before 911 there was nothing being done to protect us from terrorists even though the government knew all along they plotted to murder us in our own country. We cannot become complacent again.

Wars also creates a lot of jobs too. So you cant just say the war cost so and so and not consider the many job positions it creates.

The victory is when each terrorist's death occurs and when each plot has been uncovered before it could be carried out.

IMO
 
  • #49
It makes sense to me. We must fight them on their own turf. We have no choice if we intend to protect ourselves. We certainly cant depend on these countries that we send billions to because they wont do it.

The civilian causalities like in all wars fought will not be our own if fought on foreign soil. We are to protect the US from terrorism at all cost and yes, the cost is insurmountable but if we do not eradicate as many of them as we can over on their soil they will be over here more easily.

We are not fighting for Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan. We fight to protect our own and every man and woman in the military knows that all too well when they enlist. If we do not keep hunting them down then they will only become stronger. We must try to keep them splintered and disorganized or we will see 911 repeated again. Before 911 there was nothing being done to protect us from terrorists even though the government knew all along they plotted to murder us in our own country. We cannot become complacent again.

Wars also creates a lot of jobs too. So you cant just say the war cost so and so and not consider the many job positions it creates.

The victory is when each terrorist's death occurs and when each plot has been uncovered before it could be carried out.

IMO

Yes, when all the terrorists are dead, our war against terror will be won.

But how can that happen when new terrorists are born every day. There has always been terrorism, and there always will be. To say that other countries will not deal with it so we have to, is tunnel vision. This is a worldwide threat and therefore is a worldwide responsibility.

The World Trade Center was targeted for two main reasons: (1) The terrorists wanted to make a statement that would be noticed worldwide, and (2) the terrorists wanted to hit the US economy hard. They have accomplished this. Our federal deficit is at an all-time high and continues to climb, and federal deficits affect the budgets of each and every state in our nation.

It is not a stretch to consider that the intent of the terrorists goes way beyond the hit to our economy on 9/11. If our infrastructure fails because there is no money to put into it, the terrorists win. US citizens will either have to be taxed to death or will have to accept a lower standard of living over time. Neither is an acceptable choice, IMO.

Fighting until there is nothing left to fight is a double-edged sword because in a situation we are in now we stand too much chance of being left with nothing ourselves. I cannot close my eyes to the very real fact that there are many financial issues here in the US that have been placed on the back burner while this war on terrorism is first and foremost. Considering this is a war that I do not believe will be won anytime soon (if it all!) I fear for future generations who will bear the brunt of fixing all that is broken due to neglect.

If you are going to have it, you have to maintain it. At some point US infrastructure will have to become a priority. What happens then? Do we continue to ignore it and just let everything fall apart?

We went after OBL to avenge those who died at his hand on 9/11. We may never win this war, but we have won that battle. If now is not a good time to begin bringing our troops home, when will be a good time? When all the terrorists are dead? In ten years if they are not all dead, should we still be there fighting? In twenty? Fifty?
 
  • #50
The Pentagon has released five small snippets of video, with the sound removed, of Osama Bin Laden. The videos were part of the bounty recovered from the 'compound' when Bin Laden was killed. CNN has been showing them, MSNBC showed them earlier.
 
  • #51
The Pentagon has released five small snippets of video, with the sound removed, of Osama Bin Laden. The videos were part of the bounty recovered from the 'compound' when Bin Laden was killed. CNN has been showing them, MSNBC showed them earlier.

Personally I would rather they didn't do that. What value does that have in telling the story? Yet those videos could easily inflame the terrorists. As in "the last pics of the leader" type thing. Not to mention the magnification of the control the US has over the pics and their ability to take away obl's words.
 
  • #52
  • #53
A vain Osama bin Laden shown in new videos


snip....Bin Laden, it seems, was also obsessed with his public image.

snip....A final analysis of DNA calculates the odds of it being anyone else at one in 11.8 quadrillion.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/07/eveningnews/main20060808.shtml#ixzz1LiZSYP46

I do think it is interesting that obl did his videos in rundown rooms and caves and encampments. Yet he lived in what would be luxury for that part of the world. Wanting to seem to be a "man of the people" maybe?
 
  • #54
Avenging bin Laden: Taliban Unleash Spring Offensive in Afghanistan

Taliban fighters carried out a series of coordinated attacks across the embattled southern Afghan city of Kandahar Saturday — a campaign that Afghan President Hamid Karzai characterized as "revenge" for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2070283,00.html#ixzz1LifBOJck
 
  • #55
  • #56
When the 'root causes' of terrorism are eliminated..then the war against terrorism will be won. Unequal societies breed terrorism.
 
  • #57
US releases photographic evidence that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Funny that one. Can hear Elton John singing 'Sandals In The Bin'.

US-releases-photographic-evidence-that-Osama-Bin-Laden-is-dead.jpg
 
  • #58
  • #59
  • #60
A senior U.S. official said the U.S. has been denied access to bin Laden's wife because she needs medical attention. The official characterized that as a stalling tactic. Asked about the U.S. request to see bin Laden's wife, a senior Pakistani security official told ABC News, "With what face can they ask that now?"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/young-wife-defended-osama-bin-laden-navy-seals/story?id=13525087

IMHO she has protection, and they are afraid of any repercussions if they do allow US military to question her.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
132
Guests online
2,755
Total visitors
2,887

Forum statistics

Threads
632,624
Messages
18,629,272
Members
243,224
Latest member
Mark Blackmore
Back
Top