PDA

View Full Version : Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011



Juniper
01 May 2011, 19:18
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/01/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/?iref=allsearch

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/01/breaking-osama-bin-laden-is-dead/?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/01/bin.laden.dead/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13256676

So surreal! Listening to the Radio right now.

Celest
01 May 2011, 19:42
watching on CNN....wow...just wow

Ophidia
01 May 2011, 21:22
I'm incredulous. Anymore, bin Laden is like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

Roknrol
01 May 2011, 21:58
Osama is trying to assert his Presidency. AFAIC, if this is the sort of thing we can expect to see every time he delivers bad news (raising taxes, this time around), I say keep up the good work...that's better than any of the formers have given us.

Medusa
01 May 2011, 23:56
Hassan Bin Laden will be taking over now....

B. de Corbin
02 May 2011, 03:17
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/

FantasyWitch
02 May 2011, 03:47
Yup, it was on here last night. About time this 10 year long game of hide and seek came to a close.

B. de Corbin
02 May 2011, 04:11
yeah - I didn't see the other posting until after I posted this. I never get to be the first one with good news...

Monk
02 May 2011, 04:13
:) :) :) YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:) :) :)
I could say more but I believe this sums it up. :) :) :)

Just wanted to add, outstanding work SEAL team 6! And same to all your support teams too.

Dufonce
02 May 2011, 04:21
yeah go us! we pissed off al queda some more! it doesn't end with osama... we need to take out his whole organization.

Monk
02 May 2011, 04:49
One down many to go.

But it's good one to add to the "Finished" column. :) :) :)

thalassa
02 May 2011, 05:53
yeah - I didn't see the other posting until after I posted this. I never get to be the first one with good news...

lol, I merged them...I think its exciting enough news to post twice.

...although, I have some question as to the productivity of celebrating someone's death, regardless of how hated they are, and how deserving of that hatred they may be...

B. de Corbin
02 May 2011, 06:20
Yeah - it's unfortunate that there are people in the world who do things so monumentally horrendous that entire nations end up wanting them dead...

Did the destruction of the towers achieve the ends that Usama wanted? All I can say is - I hope not.

ThatKrazy
02 May 2011, 06:30
I really don't think this will change all that much. He was already pretty powerless, hiding in the mountains. With all the drones we've been sending out, I think the bigger piece of news is that he was still alive until yesterday. Terrorist organizations do not rely on a single leader. The death of Bin Laden does not mean the end of terrorism or the beginning of peace in the Middle East anymore than the death of Saddam Hussein did. There will still be terrorism and conflict and war. I don't find this worth celebrating.

DanieMarie
02 May 2011, 08:10
I woke up to the news all over Facebook and Twitter (though, most of my Twitter is News outlets). BIG deal!

FantasyWitch
02 May 2011, 09:23
There is going to be a street party in Glasgow on Friday celebrating his death :p x

Roknrol
02 May 2011, 11:30
‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - Martin Luther King, Jr

Juniper
02 May 2011, 12:42
‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." - Martin Luther King, Jr

That's pretty much how I feel.

Gardenia
02 May 2011, 12:56
Hm, I think this quote I've been seeing around better sums up my feelings on the matter... :p

"I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." – Mark Twain

Roknrol
02 May 2011, 14:00
People are celebrating. That's, to me, speaks volumes.

Medusa
02 May 2011, 19:25
People are celebrating. That's, to me, speaks volumes.

Let them have their day. They are still realizing it can't bring back the dead he's personally been responsible for killing. They've been mourning for 10 years. One day. Let 'em have it.

Gardenia
02 May 2011, 19:32
Let them have their day. They are still realizing it can't bring back the dead he's personally been responsible for killing. They've been mourning for 10 years. One day. Let 'em have it.

I agree. I know some are celebrating, I know some are still sad or mad because their loved ones are still dead, or their husbands or wives still away fighting, and many are having mixed emotions... However someone takes the news, if they want to celebrate, cry, or not care at all - I say, let them.

Roknrol
02 May 2011, 21:38
I never said they couldn't celebrate. I agree: Let them.

I just didn't expect so many people that valued life to be so happy, is all.

B. de Corbin
03 May 2011, 02:11
There's a big difference between valuing life, and valuing Life (with a capital "L").

In the first case, it's the living thing itself which is valued - the entitiy.

In the second case, it's life itself (the quality of being alive) which is valued.

In the first case, because it deals with actual things (individual entities) it is possible to value all living things, but to place some of those things at a higher value than others.

In the second case, the "value" is absolute because the quality of being alive exists equally in all living things, and a thing which is equally present in all living things is equal in all things in which it is present.

I have no problem valueing life in the first sense, and of determining the relative value of the life of bin Laden in comparison of those who he has harmed, or who he would have harmed in the future. And in this sense, I can be glad he's dead.

I don't value him in the second sense, though. The fact that he once breathed doesn't make him special in my book.

Dufonce
03 May 2011, 04:58
the difference is its celebrating the death of a mass-murderer. Its much different than it just being you kill me i kill you back. Its a victory over evil. People just need to realize it doesn't win the war. We cut the head off a hydra...

Monk
03 May 2011, 04:59
Hm, I think this quote I've been seeing around better sums up my feelings on the matter... :p

"I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." – Mark Twain
I like this ^

I can feel no remorse for such a "Person" as Bin Laden. That would be like feeling sorry for Hitler or Stalin or any other mass murder. This will not bring the much bantered about "Closer" that the press likes to talk about for his many victims and their family's around the world. But what it will mean to them is some form of justice was served in an appropriate (a few seconds of fear and confusion,then death) manner. He had flatly stated many times that it did not matter who he and his henchman killed or maimed as long as it served his purposes. I say let the people rejoice in their heart, in their homes, and in their streets.
It is so sad that anyone who profess to be so very religious can so twist and distort that (ANY) religion in such a perverse manner. I have no hatred for any religion or it's followers, but I can feel hatred for those who willingly corrupt that religion and it's beliefs for their own demented view of our world.

Let the lighting bolts commence.

Tylluan Penry
03 May 2011, 10:58
I know this may not be a popular viewpoint.... but I wish they had put him on trial instead of just shooting him.

If you look at old footage of the Nuremburg trials after WW2 it was great to see these once haughty men on the receiving end of the justice they had denied to so many others.

B. de Corbin
03 May 2011, 12:07
I know this may not be a popular viewpoint.... but I wish they had put him on trial instead of just shooting him.

If you look at old footage of the Nuremburg trials after WW2 it was great to see these once haughty men on the receiving end of the justice they had denied to so many others.

I know what you're saying, but, actually, "killed while trying to escape" is really the best option here. After WWII the Nazi party was pretty much a dead party (for the time being). The Nazis weren't really terrorists although they did use terror as a weapon (like the bombing runs on England). They were fighting largely according to the European standards of war. What these two things mean is that those men who were on trial in Nuremburg were like the severed tentacles of a dead octopus - there was no head left, and the other severed tentacles couldn't do much on their own.

However, Osama has left a live octopus behind him, one that doesn't fight according to European conventions. People have already mentioned that we can expect reprisals, but if bin Laden was in captivity alive, those reprisals would be much worse, because the octopus would be trying to get it's tentacle back.

thalassa
03 May 2011, 12:22
kind of funny... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110503/ts_atlantic/marktwaindidntsaythingaboutobituaries37279)

though I think Proverbs is still apt:

Proverbs 24:17-18 (New International Version, 2011)

17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
18 or the LORD will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from them.

DanieMarie
03 May 2011, 13:25
I know this may not be a popular viewpoint.... but I wish they had put him on trial instead of just shooting him.

If you look at old footage of the Nuremburg trials after WW2 it was great to see these once haughty men on the receiving end of the justice they had denied to so many others.

I do agree, but from the news I've read he really wasn't going to go. Hitler also chose to die over a trial (just at his own hand rather than resisting an arrest).

Gardenia
03 May 2011, 14:27
kind of funny... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110503/ts_atlantic/marktwaindidntsaythingaboutobituaries37279)

Heh, I was just coming to post this after seeing it on twitter. I read the linked Atlantic article yesterday, but in the comments they were debating if MLK actually did say that at a speech or in a book, or was it a first draft of something similar he said, and so on, so I didn't know what to make of it in the end. (Although I did find the first thread of comments on the Atlantic article pretty funny. :p)

I guess this is why I never put much stock in quotes...


So in my own words? He's dead, and to be honest? I just... don't care. No, his death isn't going to magically fix everything and make it all right - but if it makes people happy, and they want to celebrate, and it makes them feel better in some cathartic way, or if it helps them to move on? So what? I don't think now is the best time to be telling people that no, actually their feelings are wrong or bad or whatever. Sometimes it is okay to feel relief, or even happiness over someone's death, so if that's how some people are taking the news? Fine with me.
(It's not to say I haven't seen some things that, I find, are - well, in bad taste? But...)

Roknrol
03 May 2011, 14:45
I guess this is why I never put much stock in quotes... Even if the quotes are misattributed, that doesn't mean that what they have to say is incorrect.



I don't think now is the best time to be telling people that no, actually their feelings are wrong or bad or whatever. Sometimes it is okay to feel relief, or even happiness over someone's death, so if that's how some people are taking the news? Fine with me.
(It's not to say I haven't seen some things that, I find, are - well, in bad taste? But...)
I never told anyone that they were not entitled to feel as they'd like. I simply commented on the amount of pleasure being reflected in some of the posts. Of course, you wouldn't remember many of these, but I have seen dozens of Abortion/Death Penalty threads come up on this Forum in the past. This thread is offering an interesting window into the minds of some who have debated the "life" issue with me in the past.

<shrug> It seems like way more people are getting their panties in a wad over this than I was...I was simply making an observation (and then explaining it, and then repeating myself...but that's how these things go...)

Gardenia
03 May 2011, 15:40
Even if the quotes are misattributed, that doesn't mean that what they have to say is incorrect.

This is not my issue with quotes - but I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I have, so perhaps I'll leave that for another time, because I think it could make for an interesting topic in itself.



I never told anyone that they were not entitled to feel as they'd like. I simply commented on the amount of pleasure being reflected in some of the posts. Of course, you wouldn't remember many of these, but I have seen dozens of Abortion/Death Penalty threads come up on this Forum in the past. This thread is offering an interesting window into the minds of some who have debated the "life" issue with me in the past.

<shrug> It seems like way more people are getting their panties in a wad over this than I was...I was simply making an observation (and then explaining it, and then repeating myself...but that's how these things go...)


I see two people showing what I'd call pleasure before your post. Then a vague comment about 'people' celebrating and another vague comment about the 'people' who value life. No, I would not remember those threads, or what was said in them, because I have not spent much time in the debate section in the past. If you've got something specific to say about a post here, or about someone specific, then do it. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people don't/can't follow the point you're trying to make.

Roknrol
03 May 2011, 16:33
Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

Medusa
03 May 2011, 18:29
kind of funny... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110503/ts_atlantic/marktwaindidntsaythingaboutobituaries37279)

though I think Proverbs is still apt:

Proverbs 24:17-18 (New International Version, 2011)

17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
18 or the LORD will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from them.
Thankfully I don't believe in this Lord dude. So let the gloating commence.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------


Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

Double whammy post for me!!!
I get ya. You were making an observation in my opinion.

Gardenia
03 May 2011, 18:43
Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

If your point is that some people here are acting hypocritical because in one thread they defend life, and in another they celebrate a guy dying... then yeah, I didn't see that as your point until, you know, you actually said that in your last comment. (I might have got it with your third comment, if I had ever read those threads.)

As for justification? I am not celebrating, and so have nothing to justify.


And just so it's clear, that post (31) was not aimed specifically at you, since you're not the only one here who's brought up the not celebrating death bit. It's obviously something a lot of people are talking about in general as well, with those two 'quotes' have been flying around the internet.


I know this may not be a popular viewpoint.... but I wish they had put him on trial instead of just shooting him.
If you look at old footage of the Nuremburg trials after WW2 it was great to see these once haughty men on the receiving end of the justice they had denied to so many others.

I've been thinking about this since I heard something about not having a trial on the news that night (I forget the exact line). I also wonder if it would have gone well? Would it have been more fuel on the fire than the current situation?

magusjinx
03 May 2011, 18:57
Getting to the party a bit late ... Sorry folks ...

Without reading thru all the 4 pages of posts I will put my $ .02 in ...

If he is indeed dead, not gonna cry over it ... To me, no great loss ...

Why was he buried at sea? ... Was he really killed? ... DNA proof it was him? ... Where did the comparative DNA sample(s) come from? ...

Let's see who fills the void ... Remember Nature abhors a vacuum ...

Gardenia
03 May 2011, 19:10
Why was he buried at sea? ... Was he really killed? ... DNA proof it was him? ... Where did the comparative DNA sample(s) come from? ...

I heard his body was offered to Saudi Arabia (and perhaps a few other places?), but they didn't want him. They buried him within 24 hours because of Islamic custom, so they didn't have much time to do too much more I guess? However, some are saying burial at sea is also against Islamic custom...

There was a DNA test - they got the DNA from his half sister, which I guess they had her DNA because she had brain surgery somewhere in the states... but I have read that only proves the person was a relation, but necessarily Bin Laden. I am not sure about all that... They also had people ID a picture of the body, if I remember right. It was the reason they sent a team in, rather than doing an air strike, so they could be more sure that they did get him.

Tylluan Penry
03 May 2011, 23:42
I've been thinking about this since I heard something about not having a trial on the news that night (I forget the exact line). I also wonder if it would have gone well? Would it have been more fuel on the fire than the current situation?

It's a very difficult one, Gardenia, which is why I hesitated before posting. I can well understand that people are relieved he has been removed from the planet... but his ideology, his message, remains. That's important. We haven't cut the head off the hydra because you simply can't do it. Putting a hydra behind bars (assuming that it was possible of course) could show that it was only smoke and mirrors in the first place. (Though I accept that's by no means certain.)

The terrorism of 9/11 was a terrorist act on a large - unimaginable - scale. Large scale attacks are designed to paralyse the enemy by striking fear into their very bones (think of the SS wiping out Lidice, for example).

But one death, one thousand deaths.... each one was a tragedy for those concerned, for their friends, families and the community at large. In the UK we have lived with political terrorist attacks for decades (mostly concerning northern Ireland, but the 7/7 attacks were linked to the same ideology as those in the US) - with one important difference. The 9/11 attackers were not American citizens. The 7/7 attackers were British born and bred. And that raises the spectre of the enemy within - something altogether more subtle, more dangerous because they are so much more difficult to identify and because they are protected by the same rights that I take for granted.

Maybe it would have been impossible to have captured Bin Laden and got him out of Pakistan. But was it considered? Because what I fear most for the US is that you will find that having got rid of the 'other' (i.e. Bin Laden, the foreign hate figure, easy to identify and blame) you will suddenly discover a whole host of his supporters who are in fact US citizens, (unknown, impossible to identify with certainty and who can ultimately do more damage, both in terms of attacks and paranoia generally) and that the enemy has been brought within your own boundaries, something I would hate to see happen.

Would a trial have made any difference? I don't know. In my bones I think it would because it would have diminished him. Martyrs to a cause - any cause - rarely abide by the same rules as the rest of humanity.

But that's just my current opinion.

---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 AM ----------


I know what you're saying, but, actually, "killed while trying to escape" is really the best option here. After WWII the Nazi party was pretty much a dead party (for the time being). The Nazis weren't really terrorists although they did use terror as a weapon (like the bombing runs on England). They were fighting largely according to the European standards of war. What these two things mean is that those men who were on trial in Nuremburg were like the severed tentacles of a dead octopus - there was no head left, and the other severed tentacles couldn't do much on their own.

However, Osama has left a live octopus behind him, one that doesn't fight according to European conventions. People have already mentioned that we can expect reprisals, but if bin Laden was in captivity alive, those reprisals would be much worse, because the octopus would be trying to get it's tentacle back.

I understand where you're coming from, although I do think you have a rather rose view of European conventions, especially with regard to war. So although I am going slightly off track here, I am going to try and deal with that, because I think that WW2 was rife with terrorism of one sort or another, and that this terrorism actually had its roots deep within European attitudes to warfare.

For example.... you could say that moving into a town and killing every single inhabitant (often by burning alive while locking in a town hall of church) was an act of terrorism. It was war against unarmed civilians, anyway. It certainly happened in WW2. But it had happened much earlier too. Take the sack of Magdeburg in the 17th century - twenty thousand civilians killed, only 400 escaped. Whether you are killed by an airplane crashing into your office or slashed to death with a cutlass, the end result for the individual is just the same.

You could also say that European standards of war prevented nations from turning on their allies.... but in WW2 Britain sank the French navy (its allies) with the loss of about 2000 men. This was to prevent it from falling into the hands of Germany after France fell. It was an unprecedented act, to kill one's own allies. (And I'm sure the French never forgave us.)

You could also say that European standards of war would have prohibited the massacre of unarmed POWs... but again, that was fairly common practice for centuries.

Another thing was concentration camps - the Germans didn't invent these. I hesitate to say who did, but the British were certainly using them in South African in their war against the Boers at the end of the 19th century. Thousands of people - including women and children - died as a result.

I'm only giving these few examples to show that European conventions of war are not - and never were - as gentlemanly as they are sometimes portrayed. :)

DanieMarie
04 May 2011, 00:24
It's a very difficult one, Gardenia, which is why I hesitated before posting. I can well understand that people are relieved he has been removed from the planet... but his ideology, his message, remains. That's important. We haven't cut the head off the hydra because you simply can't do it. Putting a hydra behind bars (assuming that it was possible of course) could show that it was only smoke and mirrors in the first place. (Though I accept that's by no means certain.)

The terrorism of 9/11 was a terrorist act on a large - unimaginable - scale. Large scale attacks are designed to paralyse the enemy by striking fear into their very bones (think of the SS wiping out Lidice, for example).

But one death, one thousand deaths.... each one was a tragedy for those concerned, for their friends, families and the community at large. In the UK we have lived with political terrorist attacks for decades (mostly concerning northern Ireland, but the 7/7 attacks were linked to the same ideology as those in the US) - with one important difference. The 9/11 attackers were not American citizens. The 7/7 attackers were British born and bred. And that raises the spectre of the enemy within - something altogether more subtle, more dangerous because they are so much more difficult to identify and because they are protected by the same rights that I take for granted.

Maybe it would have been impossible to have captured Bin Laden and got him out of Pakistan. But was it considered? Because what I fear most for the US is that you will find that having got rid of the 'other' (i.e. Bin Laden, the foreign hate figure, easy to identify and blame) you will suddenly discover a whole host of his supporters who are in fact US citizens, (unknown, impossible to identify with certainty and who can ultimately do more damage, both in terms of attacks and paranoia generally) and that the enemy has been brought within your own boundaries, something I would hate to see happen.

Would a trial have made any difference? I don't know. In my bones I think it would because it would have diminished him. Martyrs to a cause - any cause - rarely abide by the same rules as the rest of humanity.

But that's just my current opinion.[COLOR="Silver"]



I think these are important points!

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------




I understand where you're coming from, although I do think you have a rather rose view of European conventions, especially with regard to war. So although I am going slightly off track here, I am going to try and deal with that, because I think that WW2 was rife with terrorism of one sort or another, and that this terrorism actually had its roots deep within European attitudes to warfare.

I'm only giving these few examples to show that European conventions of war are not - and never were - as gentlemanly as they are sometimes portrayed. :)

YES. Living in Germany, I've learned a LOT of WWII history and practices and things of the Nazi party in power, both at war and at home. "Terror" is almost an understatement for some of the things they did. They had absolutely no concern for honor, or value of the life on the other side (and often, not even their own citizens). Winning and dominance were their only priorities.

And I have no doubt that Germany would have turned on their allies had they been victorious. Nazi Germany wasn't exactly known for its honour, or keeping its word.

B. de Corbin
04 May 2011, 01:57
Off topic, just to clear something up------

Tylluan, all you say is true - and I know all that. I know I wasn't clear about what conventions I ws refering too, but what I had in mind was the way in which war was fought - with military objectives, an army with conventional military weapons. and a means of winning (which means that there is also a means of defeat) - none of these is a characteristic of terrorism. This is what General Rupert Smith defines as "large scale industrial war between nations."

The point that I wanted to make was that a defeated Germany wasn't going to launch a campaign of terrist attacks to free Goring because, by every military standard, they had been defeated and rendered helpless.

Terrorism operates in a completely different way - not just different in terms of degree to which they use terror, but in the very nature of what they do & why they do it.

Tylluan Penry
04 May 2011, 03:21
Yes, thanks for clearing that up, de Corbin, I had a feeling I had misunderstood! :)

DanieMarie
04 May 2011, 09:32
Yeah I misunderstood too!

Though I think (though the objective of winning is still true) some of the fronts, like the Russian, got a little chaotic and saw guerilla warfare. And even the battle of Berlin got a little less organized, and at that point they were kind of low on stuff like weapons.