Drunkard's Walk Forums

ordnance11 Wrote:No! and Oh Hell NO! Capture him and bring him back? And have every jihadi trying every type of terror operation to try and get him back? It'll be more trouble than it's worth! The problem with Al Quueda is that you got all these splinter cells running under one umbrella, not Terror Inc. Dammed hard to track. we probably vacuumed him hideout for everything of importance anyway.

Indeed, that's a f***fest that we can do without.  US Government made the right call in making this quick and clean.  Not only does it do right by Islam, it makes it hard for bin Laden's followers to make anything out of it.
For certain he's going to be eulogized as a martyr and that's going to motivate some of the more rash cells to attack - hopefully with ill-thought out plots.  This will be good in a ways.  The stupid ones we can catch easily enough.  We have in the past and will in the future, so long as the TSA aren't making themselves out as morons again.  And it is my hopes that they'll represent the majority.  (IIRC, some of them aren't even literate, or is that a bad rumor?)
Honestly, I'm more worried about the really smart ones.  These will be the ones that realize that the days of Al Qaeda are numbered and that they should simply disappear.  Of course, we all know that simply will not do for these people, so they will do the next best thing: they'll start invading the politics.
They've already begun to do so in Pakistan, although it was with the primary intent of skewing the game in their favor (cells tipped off to raids, supplies vanishing and appearing in their hands, etc).  Instead, they'll seek unstable political environments where they can establish yet another Taliban.  And this time they will do it right by supporting Islamic terrorist groups in the strictest of secret.  Going after Al Qaeda, after all, was pretty much the main reason we went to Afghanistan and cleaned house there - and only because the Taliban was openly aiding and abetting them.  This mistake will not be repeated.

Quote:ordnance11 wrote:No! and Oh Hell NO! Capture him and bring him back? And have every jihadi trying every type of terror operation to try and get him back? It'll be more trouble than it's worth! The problem with Al Quueda is that you got all these splinter cells running under one umbrella, not Terror Inc. Dammed hard to track. we probably vacuumed him hideout for everything of importance anyway.

You do realise that every other first world democratic country tries captured terrorists (including al-Q ones!) in civilian courts, right? Spain can do it, but the U.S. is just too fragile and vulnerable to try a terrorist? The rule of law applying to everyone equally is theoretically what your entire country is built on. 

Fear is the mind-killer and all that. 

Quote:blackaeronaut wrote:

---

Ayiekie Wrote:Eh, to be honest, al-Q's been fairly irrelevant for years now. Not much a small group can actually do when they're hiding in the mountains in Pakistan. I suppose some of that pressure will be off now that the US got the top guy, but it remains to be seen if they even possess enough remaining assets to be a factor in Afghanistan, let alone further afield.

Not as small as your state.  They still have active cells in all the hot spots - most worrisome to me is Somalia and Pakistan.  (In fact, I'm never gonna feel anything but leery about Pakistan until that place has a revolution all its own.)

I really can't agree. Al-Qaeda as an organisation has been moribund for years. They blew all their assets on several large flashy attacks early on and then suffered from probably the largest manhunt in the history of the world, and predictably dropped off the radar. It's true random jihadis have called themselves al-Qaeda in various places, but they usually don't seem to have anything to do with the recently deceased leadership in Pakistan. Nor have they shown any evidence of being well-organised or even particularly well-funded (by terrorist standards). Al-Q aren't comic book supervillains or ubermensch; they were a small group of well-funded people with political goals who pulled off spectacular strikes with sleeper agents they'd inserted when nobody thought they were a big deal. But all those sleeper agents are dead or imprisoned, and you can't replace that kind of asset when you're being hunted. 
Still, time will tell who is right.

Quote:

Quote:Ayiekie wrote:

---

As far as Bin Laden goes, in theory I'd have preferred it if he'd been 
taken alive and tried in a proper court, but LOL at the concept of rule
of law applying to Barack Obama's America.

Oh, as if that never applied to the Bush Jr. administration.  I can point out all kinds of things there.  This is tame by comparison. 

This is the second or third time that's happened and it's kind of funny to me. Blackaeronaut, I have to ask: do you seriously think that by expressing my incredibly low opinion of Barack Obama's administration that I am praising Bush, as if they're some sort of "pick one or the other" choice? I dislike the Obama administration because on the issues of primary concern to me, notably international policy and civil rights, it is exactly like the Bush administration. In fact, in many ways it is worse, but it is a matter of degree, and that's certainly no compliment to Bush.
I do not call out Obama for being an authoritarian piece of shit who wipes his ass with your precious constitution because I think Bush was better. How quickly people forget I am one of the most left-wing posters here when I criticise Barack Obama. It's funny, but it's also sad, and cuts to the exact problem of what's so broken with the two-party system in the US. Anyway, long story short: I disagree - Obama's administration is not "tame" in comparison to Bush (insofar as respecting the rule of law goes), but just as bad. A pox on both their houses. 

Quote:

Ayiekie Wrote:Despite Bin Laden's general 
irrelevance, he had value as a symbol and would certainly have plotted
to kill more people had he remained alive to do so, so it's good he's
gone

Definitely agree with you on that one.  With him out of the way, Al-Q's lost some serious momentum - their figurehead, so to speak.  While the war is going to be far from over (plenty of 2nd-in-commands to snipe) I definitely feel we've hit a mid-way point.

There I have to disagree as well. This isn't a struggle that really has an end, because it's not driven by any particular cause but rather by colliding geopolitical imperatives. You can kill everyone who's ever so much as read Bin Laden's newsletter, but this will not stop or even particularly stem resistance against US control of the region. Bin Laden was just a guy. A guy who did some very bad things, but not only did he not run said resistance against the US, he and other notable "names" in the struggle were not even particularly in agreement on much of anything. Furthermore, he was even less in agreement with the huge majorities of the populace in the Middle East who are generally hostile to the US and its goals in the region, but who are not currently engaged in violent activity in the US (for instance, the vast majority of the population of the recently democratic Egypt, who are witheringly anti-US). 
No single man, nor even any group of men, will by their death change that attitude toward the US. Only an actual change of policy will, and that won't happen under Obama. Or, most likely, his successor. 

A couple of links to articles that might be of interest:

A reasonably concise summary of what is known and/or believed known about the op and its implications, from Mother Jones

From The New Yorker, an examination of the Pakistani government's role in Bin Laden's ability to evade the manhunt until now. And according to a Time interview with CIA chief Leon Panetta:

Quote:Months prior, the U.S. had considered expanding the assault to include coordination with other countries, notably Pakistan. But the CIA ruled out participating with its nominal South Asian ally early on because “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets,” Panetta says.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

It was noted by some media outlets that during the compound sweep various electronic storage devices (computers, USB drives, etc.) were seized.  This might prove to be the true value of the endeavor if the information contained therein can be recovered.
I will admit to a dichotomy about these events; I am uncomfortable with the chest-thumping, celebratory displays over the death of another human being under those circumstances; but the wise-arse in me wants to assuage that horror with humour.
For example - one news outlet reported that additional, previoiusly unreleased messages from Bin Laden are likely to surface in the coming days - meanwhile in the Arabian sea...
Exactly.
One thing that does surprise me is the collected heads of knuckle proclaiming that the whole thing was theatre of the absurd and Bin Laden was not killed in the attack.  Sure - a grand conspiracy that can be undone by the expediency of one person popping up ground-hog style from a hole and waving.

Rev Dark Wrote:One thing that does surprise me is the collected heads of knuckle proclaiming that the whole thing was theatre of the absurd and Bin Laden was not killed in the attack.  Sure - a grand conspiracy that can be undone by the expediency of one person popping up ground-hog style from a hole and waving.

A web forum I used to frequent was overrun by conspiracy mongers a few years ago, and after that I'm not surprised by anything those nuts believe. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that inside a month you'll have people insisting that bin Laden is still alive and that he was killed to cover up the U.S. government being behind 9/11--and claiming both of those things simultaneously.

Ayiekie: A major difference is that many such countries actually enact laws forbidding membership in certain organizations (such as named terrorist groups). The US does not, quite, take that step, although the Patriot Act comes closer to it than we have since the McCarthy days. It's very thin constitutional ground, as it violates the protection of freedom of association.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

Okay, frankly I'm not sure what to make of this.
I mean, the story might be true, but I’ll need a lot more convincing. This is telling too many people what they want to hear. Plus I've never even heard of this socyberty.com blog before. I was just "blog-surfing" and followed the link from a conservative blogger (whose own suspicion about the credibility of the source informs my own. This is a guy I trust to mostly get it right.)
In a way, I really hope this is bogus, because if it’s for real... 

Quote:Was it Leon Panetta – not a waffling Barack Obama, supported
in his indecision by Valerie Jarett – who finally ordered the
assassination of bin Laden. We don’t know the truth of this. We
weren’t there. But a “White House insider” quoted on Socybrty says the following:

Quote:Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by
military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in
military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that
accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I
have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that
meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the
president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have
been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama,
simply because there was no specific position from the president to do
so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an
absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound
for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary
Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary
opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her
opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama.
Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction,
almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his
position. This situation continued for some time, though the division
between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most
notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s
failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to
the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two
primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the
president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and
the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of
aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the
Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?
A:  Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid
having one.  Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to
make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the
stalling would begin again.  Hillary started the ball really rolling as
far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who
ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of.  Panetta was receiving
significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as
Petraeus-originating Intel.  Petraeus was threatening to act on his own
via a bombing attack.  Panetta reported back to the president that a
bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin
Laden, and little risk to American lives.  Initially, as he had done
before, the president indicated a willingness to act.  But once again,
Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani
lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left
attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy.  Again Obama hesitated –
this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with
Panetta.  A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials,
including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but
Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act.  It was at
this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he
may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. 
Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation
through...
...I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing
the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct
contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. 
There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour
earlier.  The operation was at this time effectively unknown to
President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until
AFTER it had already been initiated.  President Obama was literally
pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be
informed of the mission.  Upon his arrival there was a briefing held
which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of
the military.  When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as
looking “very confused and uncertain.”  The president was then placed
in the situation room where several of the players in this event had
already been watching the operation unfold.  Another interesting tidbit
regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on
the operation.  A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had
personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s
events before the president was.  The now famous photo released shows
the particulars of that of that room and its occupants.  What that photo
does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in
that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary
Clinton or Robert Gates.  The president’s role was minimal, including
their acknowledging of his presence in the room...

I know Obama is a waffler and feckless. But he can't be THAT bad, can he?

Logan Darklighter Wrote:I know Obama is a waffler and feckless. But he can't be THAT bad, can he?

Witness unto thee the dog's breakfast that is Healthcare Reform and you tell me.
I will grant you this: I had no idea Obama was this close to not going through with the attack.  I guess Petraeus's threats to bomb the place and Gate's threat to resign made an impact.
It could be said, I guess, that our current President is not one for war - he's more about economics and politics in general.  However he needs to understand that the advice of his military and intelligence providers must be strongly heeded.  If a majority of your administration is saying to attack, then chances are you need to attack.

Yeah, Logan, that story has about as much evidence backing it up as the Birthers have for their conspiracy theories. Yet, like Fox News, you felt the need to report it anyway. Though I'll grant that couching it in a cloak of suspicion is a new angle for you. Perhaps the next time you see a wild conspiracy theory on the internet with zero evidence in support of it you can keep it to yourself.
----------------
Epsilon

I got my suspicions on the story:

1. The story at it's most sounds like an exaggeration of a policy debate. There will be debate on the best course of action. This was a high risk-high gain operation. Thinking it over is not the same as waffling.

2. Working around the President to get it done? It'll be the same as conducting a rogue operation. And this Administration does not have the history of fiefdoms that previous adminstrations had. Same thing for the "washington insider" thing. Who ever this guy was was probably outside of the loop intil after it was over.

3. As far as reporting directing to Panetta only...that would be normal. As DCI, Panetta had day-to-day knowledge of what's going..not the President.

I'ved been wondering why none of the current GOP (save John McCain) has congratulated the Oresident for this accomplishment. Even their current operatives say so (albeit, they also said to quickly move on to the next topic). Now by deflecting credit from him, by saying his team worked around him?...*eh*
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

Sounds like somebody's been reading too many Tom Clancy novels again, Logan.

I have to agree with Ord, this sounds more like someone who's just bitter that Obama will get the credit for it.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

In another, less relevant, direction, there is speculation that helicopters of heretofore secret design were used on the raid, based on photos of the one that went down.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

Oh great. Just heard that the administration has decided NOT to release the photos of Bin Laden's body. 

(Facepalm) WTF? Are they TRYING to get the conspiracy kooks going? This is going to come back and bite them badly. The biggest possible way to screw this up was to refuse to release the photo/video. So naturally that's what they chose to do. Even if they go back and change their minds again and release them after all, the die is cast and the same types of people who thought 911 was an inside job and that the moon landings were a fake will forever believe that either a) we didn't actually kill him, or that b) he was dead years ago and this was a conspiracy made to look like we'd just killed him. 

*sigh* 

*checks photos* Wow, so they lost an Airwolf on this job? Heads will roll at the Firm...
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

Logan Darklighter Wrote:Oh great. Just heard that the administration has decided NOT to release the photos of Bin Laden's body. 

(Facepalm) WTF? Are they TRYING to get the conspiracy kooks going?

The "conspiracy kooks" would claim the photos were faked, so there's no real reason to subject the rest of us to a photo of somebody killed by a shot to the head.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

ECSNorway Wrote:*checks photos* Wow, so they lost an Airwolf on this job? Heads will roll at the Firm...

HA! Well-played sir! Well-played indeed.

It's interesting to note that the Obama administration is having issues keeping the story straight as to the events that occurred...Narrative of events has gone through a lot of changes...

Although I do wonder what the designation of the Stealth helo is...And losing it in Pakistan is kind of embarrassing as Pakistan tends to be a bit leaky as far as trade able technology is concerned...
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

Which is probably why the part of the chopper that was inside the compound was rendered into charred rubble if the photos I've seen are any indication.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

Quote:Oh great. Just heard that the administration has decided NOT to release the photos of Bin Laden's body. 

(Facepalm) WTF? Are they TRYING to get the conspiracy kooks going?

Logan, as your own post of a 'discrediting conspiracy' story, trying to delegitimize the actions of the President in regards to the death of Bin Laden aptly demonstrates; you should know that the release of the photos of Osama (or the long for Birth Certificate for that matter) will do nothing to silence the conspiracy kooks or those seeking to somehow poison the perception of the President's actions.  The President could have Ron Jeremy skull-screw the exit wound on live TV and the cries of Fake, Totally CG (and of course ew...) would start before the money shot exploded out the entry wound.
The Administration has done a very good job of using diplomatic jiu-jitsu in regards to the event.  They denied the faithful a shrine, while still following reasonable practices in regards to showing respect to the religion (whether real or percieved) of the deceased.  By not releasing the photos they are denying the opportunity for manufactured outrage - or rather that in the event of the manufactured outrage surfacing, they are perceived as the calm and reasonable ones; not the outraged.  Releasing the graphic images of the flow-through-ventilation would damage this.
Very smart.  Very civilized.
Shayne

Rev Dark Wrote:The Administration has done a very good job of using diplomatic jiu-jitsu in regards to the event.  They denied the faithful a shrine, while still following reasonable practices in regards to showing respect to the religion (whether real or percieved) of the deceased.  By not releasing the photos they are denying the opportunity for manufactured outrage - or rather that in the event of the manufactured outrage surfacing, they are perceived as the calm and reasonable ones; not the outraged.  Releasing the graphic images of the flow-through-ventilation would damage this.
Very smart.  Very civilized.

Agreed.  Glen Beck and his ilk would have a field day with something like that.  (IMHO, however, they're probably having a field day with it anyhow.  I dunno because I'm at home with like minded people that prefer to watch a combination of CNN and BBC World News.  I'm thinking about adding NHK to that list, too, if only to keep up on all things Japanese and how they see current events.)
Dealing with sensationalists and conspiracy theorists sucks.  The rational ones are few and far between.  I have recently seen a documentary about 9/11 being a conspiracy that makes an alarming amount of sense, but I'm not about to go running out to start buying tin-foil hats.  I will say that I find a lot of things about the Bush Jr. administration to be questionable, at best.
In all fairness, however, each administration has done things that are questionable.  That's all I have to say on the matter without going into more detail and off-topic.

True enough.

I'll note that the military end of things was handled very effectively.

Where the Obama administration has been screwing up is on the political end of things particularly when one considers that the story as reported by the Administration has contradicted itself and shifted at least 4-5 times since they announced they had gotten Osama.

As for conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 there are quiet a few out there. Some very plausible but most of them seem to require an implausibly large amount of people to really work. As well as in some cases when you take a look at what would be required to carry out they fall apart.
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

werehawk Wrote:Where the Obama administration has been screwing up is on the political end of things particularly when one considers that the story as reported by the Administration has contradicted itself and shifted at least 4-5 times since they announced they had gotten Osama.

That's actually completely normal for a situation like this, which happens quite frequently. The unusual thing is that it involves Osama bin Laden, who people care about and therefore pay attention to the shifting stories. If this was just another SWAT raid where some poor guy with dark skin was killed, it would never even have made it to the front page and almost nobody would care enough to notice the story changing.

...and the helicopter story has hit the big media outlets, with CBS radio news dedicating a fair portion of their 8 AM broadcast this morning to discussion of the previously-secret stealth helicopters used on the raid.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

Bob Schroeck Wrote:...and the helicopter story has hit the big media outlets, with CBS radio news dedicating a fair portion of their 8 AM broadcast this morning to discussion of the previously-secret stealth helicopters used on the raid.

The phrase "stealth helicopter" is the biggest oxymoron to come out of the Armed Forces since "military intelligence."
  
Ebony the Black Dragon
http://ebony14.livejournal.com

"Good night, and may the Good Lord take a Viking to you."