Osama Apparently Dead

[Booster4324]

 

True to form, Fox Intergalactic News "accidentally" reported that Darth Vader had been killed...

 

Make sure you check out the comments, some real gems there.

[DC Tom]

Make sure you check out the comments, some real gems there.

 

My favorite was along the lines of "How dare you compare Obama to Darth Vader; you should have picked a good guy, like Mace Windu."

 

Uhhh...okay. It's called "satire", and it's not supposed to be taken seriously...?

[shrader]

Make sure you check out the comments, some real gems there.

 

Those people are really dedicated to those movies. The comments are probably the best part.

[DC Tom]

Those people are really dedicated to those movies. The comments are probably the best part.

 

What do you mean, "those" people?

[shrader]

What do you mean, "those" people?

 

The Wookies?

[Chef Jim]

What do you mean, "those" people?

 

Geeky nerds??

[DC Tom]

Geeky nerds??

Oh. Okay...

[/dev/null]

The Wookies?

That does not make sense

[Booster4324]

That does not make sense

 

 

Of course, the posts would all be, "Yarhg nnngh"

[shrader]

That does not make sense

 

Look at the monkey!

[OCinBuffalo]

Absolutely not. But there is nothing wrong with reflecting on what he probably was, before becoming a terrorist. Had things been different, he easily could have been one of the people who perished on 9/11. He wasn't though, and we did what had to be done.

 

A great tragedy is that people like Osama Bin Laden and Adolph Hitler could have been great boons to the world. They had the brain power and leadership ability to do this.

Sure there is, because:

1. who gives a f? he did become a terrorist leader

2. other than an exercise in moral relativism, what possible value does pondering this add to anyone's life?

 

Possible evidence that Adam is now attending Western Civ class in college now...and has some professor who favors theory/wishful thinking over reality?

I heard a throw-away comment on the news yesterday from a talking head that everyone in the interview seemed to have missed: a whole bunch of al Qaeda gomers in Pakistan went on the run after the raid...and were scooped up at the Afghanistan border.

 

Haven't seen it confirmed anywhere else...but if it's true, that's huge. That's would be a MUCH bigger coup than merely killing bin Laden.

This is why I have reserved judgment on whether releasing the "we got a treasure trove of intelligence" thing was political hackery at its worst, or, whether it's a well-executed tactic.

You are obviously not part of the subset that I was referring to. You are also certainly entitled to your opinion on the merits of waterboarding.

Is he also entitled to draw conclusions based on the facts we know? As in: we know that waterboarding had at least an indirect effect on this, if not a direct one?

Is there a reason we have to use slurs in here? Very disappointed.

More evidence that Adam is now in college. He's learning that taking the phony moral superiority high ground in conversations makes you look cool. And, there is that "socially conscious" chick 2 rows down in Western Civ class he is trying to impress....so leave him alone DC Tom.

 

 

and why aren't the war mongerers demanding a fight with pakistan for harboring the most wanted terrorist in the history of the world??

Oh, look, the guy with a Marx photo is talking about war-mongering. Does it even matter that people like you have supported more war/killing of millions of innocents in history than anyone else? You can blow that "warmonger" appellation right out your totalitarian ass...

 

We have more to fear from people like you, and every other National Socialist, or Marxist, etc., than we will ever have to fear from corporations. History, not social science wishful thinking, makes this clear.

you still have not answered the question. how ironic can it get: sadaam did not harbor al qadae and had no nukes, yet we invade and topple him based on the assumption that he was harboring al qadae and did have nukes. now, an alleged ally, pakistan, is found to have harbored the most wanted terrorist in the history of the world for YEARS and there are no calls for war against that government

See? Here he goes again: supporting war, while claiming others are warmongers, one post later.Hysterical how many leftists are suddenly all bad-ass now that their President's campaign platform is going to be predicated on his use of military force. The same idiots who were all pacifists in 2003-7 and were isolationists as soon as the economy went south, are going to be war hawks from now until the election. Now that the #s have come back, and they realize that winning depends on it, and of course, their leaders have told them what to think/say, again .

 

Corporate Greed^TM is nothing compared to Leftist Power Hunger.

 

Ask yourself: why have leftists been against every war we have ever fought except one(WWII)? And then ask: why were they against getting into that war until Germany attacked the USSR? And then ask: why are these same people suddenly open to war in general now? See? That's the difference between knowing your history...and knowing...what, exactly?

"Pakistan" is hardly some sort of unified entity that we could invade for harboring anyone. Really...the ISI, the armed forces, and the civil government not only take completely different actions without consulting each other but work towards completely different policies - it's entirely possible, even likely, that a small part of the government knew Obama Osama [dammit!] was there and kept it from everybody else. Probably the ISI, they've done it before.

 

So...what, you want to invade Pakistan because a bunch of mid-level guys in the ISI are a bunch of !@#$-ups?

Of course he does Tom: it's the cool thing now, everybody's doing it! Who cares about the disproportionate #s of inner city youth that will be sent to their deaths in a new war? (or the rest of the phony "moral" arguments they have been making since 2001) Obama's Presidency and the entire leftist agenda is on the line! They are are ready to throw off their "deep, moral commitment to pacifism" faster than a prom dress now that they think they can use military exigency as a political tool.

 

I don't have a problem with President Obama on this one...I have a problem with the usual tactics from the usual suspects.

Edited May 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going to McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger.

It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown.

[pBills]

Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going to McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for the hamburger.

It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit, not the clown.

 

 

Still have to give him some credit for giving the green light to go in and do it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Still have to give him some credit for giving the green light to go in and do it.

Again, I agree. Somebody still has to make the call, and has to take the hit if it fails. This goes doubly so for an overly political entity like Obama. He had to know that if we failed, he had just Jimmy Cartered himself, and yet he did it anyway.

 

Either that, or, he had a very good damage control plan waiting in the wings, or, the military/intel community did a hell of sales job starting last August.

 

Most likely all those things and more. But, somebody has to make the call. Same was true for Bush. Same will be true for the next person.

[3rdnlng]

Again, I agree. Somebody still has to make the call, and has to take the hit if it fails. This goes doubly so for an overly political entity like Obama. He had to know that if we failed, he had just Jimmy Cartered himself, and yet he did it anyway.

 

Either that, or, he had a very good damage control plan waiting in the wings, or, the military/intel community did a hell of sales job starting last August.

 

Most likely all those things and more. But, somebody has to make the call. Same was true for Bush. Same will be true for the next person.

 

 

I wonder if that call was at 3:00am?

[DC Tom]

Again, I agree. Somebody still has to make the call, and has to take the hit if it fails. This goes doubly so for an overly political entity like Obama. He had to know that if we failed, he had just Jimmy Cartered himself, and yet he did it anyway.

 

Sad thing is that the measure of the "courage" of the decision was sending in men instead of blind bombing.

 

 

...wait, what? Since when did the definition of "courage" become "not being craven and cowardly"? Congratulations, Obama...you had the courage and fortitude to avoid making a stupid decision...

[UConn James]

There is now a voice out there saying that the "New Yorker" article by Nicholas Schmidle detailing the attack and OBL's demise was not accurate. It has apparently come to light that he did not talk to a single SEAL TEAM 6 member who was actually on the mission.

 

Correcting the ‘fairy tale’: A SEAL’s account of how Osama bin Laden really died

 

A new book written by a former SEAL who said he has talked with men who were part of the assault says that:

1) the helicopter did not crash before the attack, but rather, happened as they were leaving. (And in this regard, I wonder if there's something going very unsaid that is behind the level of acrimony b/w the US and Pakistan. Was it mechanical or...?)

2) The SEAL team did not approach exclusively from the ground and work their way up to the third story. One team lined onto the roof, one team lined onto the ground.

3) OBL was not shot shortly after he popped over a stairway like a Whack-a-Mole. He had about 90 seconds after the SEALs were on the roof and he was shot in the chest and head as he was scampering over his bed toward an AK he kept above the headboard.

4) Reports of a CIA interpreter telling Pakistanis the equivalent of "Move along. Nothing to see here!" were wrong. The interpreter could not do the "fast rope" and was not even on the ground.

4) Contrary to Obama Administration figures who say this was exclusively a kill mission, including then-CIA Director Leon Panetta, Pfarrer argues that OBL would have been taken prisoner if he hadn't posed an immediate threat (reaching toward a gun) or put his hands up. He takes a little umbrage with the notion that the SEALs are the president's hit squad. To be sure, much of the time, they do visit death on their targets, but that's because their targets are fighting back.

5) It is Pfarrer's belief that Obama's near-immediate press conference announcing OBL's death was the wrong tactical move, given the amount of hard intel discovered in the room that became almost instantly inactive once the announcement was made. There were also phoney statements made by political and administration officials who didn't know stevestojan from Shinola, but knew they had to flap their gums and make it sound interesting in order to get their faces on the teevee.

 

“And I think that there were so many of these leaks that were incorrect, the administration couldn’t walk them all back,” Pfarrer explained. “And so, in the middle of May, they froze everything.”

 

It was that freeze-out that left Chuck Pfarrer with nowhere to turn for the real story but the SEALs themselves.

 

-----

 

Again, I agree. Somebody still has to make the call, and has to take the hit if it fails. This goes doubly so for an overly political entity like Obama. He had to know that if we failed, he had just Jimmy Cartered himself, and yet he did it anyway.

 

That still doesn't make him any better than Carter, for as much as the president has to do with things. Carter didn't make a bad call; his military thought they could do the mission and it went badly. Just the same, if they hadn't gotten OBL, Obama's wouldn't have been a bad call, IMO. About the only decision on the presidential level there would be to do nothing. And if a president wants to maintain his/her standing with the military (especially when they have no military experience themselves), their hand is pretty much forced.

Edited November 8, 2011 by UConn James

[/dev/null]

There is now a voice out there saying that the "New Yorker" article by Nicholas Schmidle detailing the attack and OBL's demise was not accurate. It has apparently come to light that he did not talk to a single SEAL TEAM 6 member who was actually on the mission.

 

Correcting the ‘fairy tale’: A SEAL’s account of how Osama bin Laden really died

 

Most people I know never bought the OBL "Fairy Tale". Once the President (or any politician) interjects themselves the truth gets blurred and it all becomes a campaign ad.

 

That said we'll never know what really happened. Sure there will be articles and books now and in the future. Some guy will eventually write a book claiming to have been on SEAL 6 or even having been the trigger man.

 

Until the video is declassified and released to the public the details of the Bin Laden raid will be a collection of urban myths.

 

5) It is Pfarrer's belief that Obama's near-immediate press conference announcing OBL's death was the wrong tactical move, given the amount of hard intel discovered in the room that became almost instantly inactive once the announcement was made. There were also phoney statements made by political and administration officials who didn't know stevestojan from Shinola, but knew they had to flap their gums and make it sound interesting in order to get their faces on the teevee.

So much lost intel for brief bump in the polls

[shrader]

5) It is Pfarrer's belief that Obama's near-immediate press conference announcing OBL's death was the wrong tactical move, given the amount of hard intel discovered in the room that became almost instantly inactive once the announcement was made. There were also phoney statements made by political and administration officials who didn't know stevestojan from Shinola, but knew they had to flap their gums and make it sound interesting in order to get their faces on the teevee.

 

Al Qaeda had to have known pretty quickly that the building was hit. Whether it's people in the area or any potential sources within the Pakastani government/army, they had to know within a matter of hours that the US got to Bin Laden. I forget the exact timeline. How quickly after the strike was the announcement made? I'd have to imagine that they already knew at that point.

[3rdnlng]

Al Qaeda had to have known pretty quickly that the building was hit. Whether it's people in the area or any potential sources within the Pakastani government/army, they had to know within a matter of hours that the US got to Bin Laden. I forget the exact timeline. How quickly after the strike was the announcement made? I'd have to imagine that they already knew at that point.

 

Some might have known almost immediately but the public announcement by Obama lessened the need for communication amongst the bad guys. Monitoring communication is one of the ways we nail them. Obama made the announcement for his own selfish reasons.