Osama Bin Laden is dead

[miniPhil]

Wait, hold on. Gimmie a sec here. So, assuming I've got this right, the PSN goes down for two weeks and you finally catch Bin Laden and kill him? Jesus, imagine what you Americans could do if there was no more porn.

[Wio]

Except I never said that Dr. King would celebrate it, and never suggested that he would. I actually never mentioned King.

I know. I'm just saying it's not a poorly conceived notion. It's not as bad as say, believing Thomas Jefferson used the internet.

Afghanistan was actively supporting Al'Qaeda, and vice versa. So it was only illegitimate in so far as we technically declared war against an organization, albeit one sponsored by a nation state that refused any cooperation with the US. But lets not pretend they were easily delineable from each other, they had exceedingly close ties, dismantling Al'Qaeda without dismantling the Taliban government in Afghanistan would have been a "victory" at best. They simply would have had to find a new terrorist organization to sponsor.

On the other hand, the Iraq invasion was based almost solely on the testimony of one informant who most deemed dubious at best but fit in with the Bush administrations aspirations and preconceived notions. Is attacking a country based on the word of a single man, or even a few men legitimate? I'd argue not. We did eventually find Chemical WMDs, but we knew he had those, and they were not the story about dirty bombs and city busters that Colin Powell sold congress or the UN.

That's a big technicality there. You can't fight a war against a terrorist organization. You'd save more lives (and money) declaring war on the boogeyman and the monsters who hide under our beds. Increasing anti-terrorist defenses and security is one thing, but the Afghan invasion was just handing terrorist organizations the anti-American sentiments they needed.
Had we left Iraq in 2003/2004 as we should have, it would have been legitimate in that we fought an actual army.

[animegirl2365]

Yay!! I hope that means everyone can go home now lol

[Anoleis]

I know. I'm just saying it's not a poorly conceived notion. It's not as bad as say, believing Thomas Jefferson used the internet.

Yes, however both quotes are equal in truthfulness; they're false. Thomas Jefferson never said that as King never said that quote either. I could stick several names behind that particular quote and still get its meaning across, but none of them said it. Hence my humorous (false)quote from Jefferson.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

That's a big technicality there. You can't fight a war against a terrorist organization. You'd save more lives (and money) declaring war on the boogeyman and the monsters who hide under our beds. Increasing anti-terrorist defenses and security is one thing, but the Afghan invasion was just handing terrorist organizations the anti-American sentiments they needed.

What would be the defining difference between, say, Al'Qaeda/Taliban and the Vietcong. If you're saying it's costly and semi-sisyphean to engage in warfare against a guerrilla force I'll agree with you, but that doesn't mean that an armed force controlling a country and it's closely related paramilitary allies aren't an army de facto.

Had we left Iraq in 2003/2004 as we should have, it would have been legitimate in that we fought an actual army.

It occurs to me that you seem to be talking about legitimacy as a matter of taste or fairness, where as I am talking about legitimacy in terms of the quality of the casus belli.

[Wio]

It occurs to me that you seem to be talking about legitimacy as a matter of taste or fairness, where as I am talking about legitimacy in terms of the quality of the casus belli.

It's a bit more than that though. Terrorism can't be effectively prevented by war, it can only be hindered by fixing the systematic flaws which made the terrorist act possible. A potential WMD attack meanwhile can effectively be prevented by a preemptive war. In addition, victory is much more succinctly understood: You defeat the standing army, dispose of any weapons or confirm nonexistence, and get out.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

It's a bit more than that though. Terrorism can't be effectively prevented by war, it can only be hindered by fixing the systematic flaws which made the terrorist act possible. A potential WMD attack meanwhile can effectively be prevented by a preemptive war. In addition, victory is much more succinctly understood: You defeat the standing army, dispose of any weapons or confirm nonexistence, and get out.

I disagree, forcing the higher ups of Al'Qaeda to fight defensively from their bunkers has probably done more for our national security then letting them have a country to scheme safely in and simply throwing more money at our security problems. Strategy vs. Tactics.

[Wio]

I disagree, forcing the higher ups of Al'Qaeda to fight defensively from their bunkers has probably done more for our national security then letting them have a country to scheme safely in and simply throwing more money at our security problems. Strategy vs. Tactics.

Results are getting a country tied up on a military front and having reinforced propaganda supporting your cause. Al'Qaeda could have planned another terrorist attack--it's not as if they can only carryout one order at a time. The problem is that the U.S. was much more weary than we were when 9/11 happened. If they didn't get said results, they would loose necessary momentum. Or do you perhaps believe people are signing up because they hate our freedoms?

[DOOM!]

...I LOVE YOU OBAMA BIN LADEN, I knew I could count on you!

Boy, have I news for YOU.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Results are getting a country tied up on a military front and having reinforced propaganda supporting your cause. Al'Qaeda could have planned another terrorist attack--it's not as if they can only carryout one order at a time. The problem is that the U.S. was much more weary than we were when 9/11 happened. If they didn't get said results, they would loose necessary momentum. Or do you perhaps believe people are signing up because they hate our freedoms?

Except for the Islamic reaction to our invasion of Afghanistan was largely positive-to-neutral.

And even in the "cell" structure terrorists favor there is still sharing of resources/manpower/expertise, and disrupting one cell (or the higher ups) interferes with that and makes every other cell less adventurous.

And people are/were signing up because what they (understandably) view as our blatant imperialism in Iraq.

[Forgotten Show]

Afghanistan was actively supporting Al'Qaeda, and vice versa. So it was only illegitimate in so far as we technically declared war against an organization, albeit one sponsored by a nation state that refused any cooperation with the US. But lets not pretend they were easily delineable from each other, they had exceedingly close ties, dismantling Al'Qaeda without dismantling the Taliban government in Afghanistan would have been a "victory" at best. They simply would have had to find a new terrorist organization to sponsor.

On the other hand, the Iraq invasion was based almost solely on the testimony of one informant who most deemed dubious at best but fit in with the Bush administrations aspirations and preconceived notions. Is attacking a country based on the word of a single man, or even a few men legitimate? I'd argue not. We did eventually find Chemical WMDs, but we knew he had those, and they were not the story about dirty bombs and city busters that Colin Powell sold congress or the UN.

All of this should be reread. The moment Al'qaeda attacked the U.S., Afghanistan became involved because of the ties between the Taliban and Al'Qaeda, and the Taliban stating they would protect Al'Qaeda. We didn't go to 'war' with anyone: we employed our nation's military to catch or destroy a threat that another nation was shielding. No declaration of war was ever made because we were not after a sovereign nation, but as you said Wio, a terrorist organization.

Just because the bad guys didn't wear uniforms doesn't change that their still the bad guys, and conflict with an organized army doesn't automatically make that conflict legitimate. Your concept of legitimacy based on fighting a standing army ignores the very blatant fact that not all organized threats to a nation will come from another nation (...like we see with Al'Qaeda).

Yes, there is collateral for us being overseas. No, not everybody is lining up at AQ or Taliban recruitment centers to join the fight. The Taliban are seen by the Afghans as a lesser of evils, not as role models, and Osama was hunted by damn near everyone because that's what Afghanistan/Pakistan believe[d] would end U.S. involvement there. What people are joining the fight about is, like MP2k said, because of our extra curricular activities in the region. This view may be changing depending how we react to the recent pushes for more democratic governments in the Middle East.


Bad Memory

[Assiduous✡Aristocrat]

Just to update those who don't know:
Photos will not be released.

[Meenah]

Doesn't anyone think this could just be a scam? >.< because I don't think a body was found...if one was, link to source please >.<

Its real funny because when I heard about the news, I told this to people "pics or it didn't happen". It was an appropriate time for me to say that.
However, I think no one would publish the pictures. I just think its kind of crossing the line with things and whatnot. It seems like I'm contradicting my words, I don't mean to in anyway. But, you know. ;P I still say "pics or it didn't happen".

[Forgotten Show]

Before people begin crying picks or it didn't happen, consider the differences between the guys who got Osama versus, say, the ones who got Saddam.


BM

[eternal_elk]

Alright ladies and gentlemen, here's how I'll put it:

I'm an active member in the United States Navy SEALS since 2006, I know the ins and outs of the military and of the government. Since the President himself declared that the enemy was found and killed, BELIEVE IT people! The chief of state does not announce these things on his own accord- it takes a lot of confirmation from a whole chain of command of soldiers and government officials from both the United States and Pakistan before it even reaches the possibility of being publicly announced.

What we really should think about is this: now that he's dead, where will the war on terrorism lead to now?

[Skilero]

What we really should think about is this: now that he's dead, where will the war on terrorism lead to now?

I'm sorry, but Osama's death is just one of the many acts of war that need to be executed before the war on terrorism is successful. We've only taken a baby step, if anything, in getting closer to ending this war on a good note (that is to say, leaving the regions of fighting in peace and without terroristic activity).

[eternal_elk]

Of course it has to be executed. I'm just wondering what the rest of the world will do now? What will the terrorists do? What will the UN do? Or The US?

[AishiteIru]

I think it's true. If so, they still gave him ten years to plan what might happen when he died. Retaliation? I'd say most definitely. (

[Skilero]

Of course it has to be executed. I'm just wondering what the rest of the world will do now? What will the terrorists do? What will the UN do? Or The US?

• The rest of the world will remain neutral in the matter if they weren't already in support of the action. However, a number of Middle Eastern countries will defend Pakistan's criticism of the United States' execution of the killing when the time comes for Pakistan to need such backup in peace talks and the like.
• "The terrorists" who were already on the fence in deciding to attack the U.S. will probably attempt to do so. On a related note, United States airports have beef'd up security in response to the news of Bin Laden's killing.
• The UN will be occupied with discussions and reviews of the United States' actions and execution of the mission as to whether or not it was a legal or done correctly, with Pakistan and others probably against them, and they may have to deal with the increasingly strangled tensions between the United States and Pakistan (just recently a top U.S. military official accused a Pakistani spy agency of having relations to a powerful Afghan Taliban faction, where Pakistani officials called the statement "negative propaganda" and an exchange between the two countries was given).
• The U.S. will be deciding what to do with the photos of dead Bin Laden (I'm putting money down on them releasing the unclear images that aren't as brutal as the most recognizable one), and what to do about Pakistan (and company)'s accusations.

[Wio]

Just because the bad guys didn't wear uniforms doesn't change that their still the bad guys, and conflict with an organized army doesn't automatically make that conflict legitimate. Your concept of legitimacy based on fighting a standing army ignores the very blatant fact that not all organized threats to a nation will come from another nation (...like we see with Al'Qaeda).

How can you say I'm ignoring the fact that a terrorist organization can execute terrorist attacks when I already explained how such threats should be prevented?

A terrorist attack is vastly different than a mobilized army or a weapon of mass destruction.
To stop an army, you must render it inoperable. If you've beaten it down to the point where they enemy must resort to guerrilla tactics, then that army is no longer a threat as an army. Usually you can get the nation to surrender before it gets to that point. With WMDs you can go to war with the nation, seize the development of said weapons and you're done. If the weapons are already fully developed and prepared, then you have to be diplomatic.
A terrorist attack is fundamentally different from these two. It's completely dependent on the existence of systematic flaws in security. Worse yet, those flaws are independent of any organization. In other words, even if Al'Queda never existed, another terrorist organization could just as well exploit the flaws needed to pull off a 9/11. On the other hand, if country X is defeated, then X's army and X's weapon will no longer exist.
The only way to win a "War on Terror" is to defeat every terrorist organization out there. It's as absurd as a war on shoplifting. You don't go to war with terrorist organizations, you fix the flaws security flaws to the extent people will allow.

I'm an active member in the United States Navy SEALS since 2006, I know the ins and outs of the military and of the government. Since the President himself declared that the enemy was found and killed, BELIEVE IT people! The chief of state does not announce these things on his own accord- it takes a lot of confirmation from a whole chain of command of soldiers and government officials from both the United States and Pakistan before it even reaches the possibility of being publicly announced.

All this really amounts to though is a "You should believe, because I sure do and you can take my word for it!" If you want people to believe something, you have to provide hard evidence. What's annoying about this administration is that transparency was one of its slogans, yet it seems to be as opaque as possible for as long as politically viable. It's not just Osama but the birth certificate and healthcare bill whose page count was on an order of 10^3.

[Assiduous✡Aristocrat]

(that is to say, leaving the regions of fighting in peace and without terrorist activity).

Like that can happen.

I'm just wondering what the rest of the world will do now? What will the terrorists do? What will the UN do?

Whine and complain, like they normally do.
Terrorize and kill, like they normally do.
Do nothing, like they normally do.

[Robin Sena]

Forgive me for asking a dumb query, but did the news tell the name of the SEAL the personally shot Osama?

[GameGeeks]

No, the army wont release the name till they retire from the Navy.

[Robin Sena]

They only had 24hrs to bury him according to their beliefs and they gotta act fast before they get majorly jumped for his body. If we didn't do it the way they do it over there as a proper burial they would've been 10x's more mad at us than they are already. We buried him at sea without all the media coverage because they are just going to become really rowdy and say it's disrespectful and they are not a group to be messed with much more than we already have. At sea it'll be much harder for his burial site to be made a shrine and for the crazies to go dig him up.

I hope when you die everyone says you're not dead and doesn't pay you a single bit of respect :|

Nothing is really gained for lying about his death. It's just Americans are blowing it out of proportion.

Burying someone like that, much less doing so woithout any clergy, is violation of the dead.
So they tossed him in the ocean without a priest or rabbi to pray over him? I wager someone's going to dive underwater and get his body back and creamate it in the name of Allah.

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------

No, the army wont release the name till they retire from the Navy.

Not ever? But he will get a medal, a big bloody paycheck and meet thr president sod as well as the 9/11 survivors who will thanks the sod for what he did.
I was hoping he'd go on the talk show circuit and get a ticker tape parade.
I suppose there's a reson why the name is confidential--to prevent stalkers, but not TAOD from making an assassanation on the chap's bum.

[GameGeeks]

Not ever? But he will get a medal, a big bloody paycheck and meet thr president sod as well as the 9/11 survivors who will thanks the sod for what he did.
I was hoping he'd go on the talk show circuit and get a ticker tape parade.
I suppose there's a reson why the name is confidential--to prevent stalkers, but not TAOD from making an assassanation on the chap's bum.

I'm going with assassination attempts by the Taliban. And something tells me he'll still get what ever metal. Either in a closed ceremony or when he retires.