Osama Bin Laden Dead.

Chat about stuff not covered by other forums.
User avatar
Blaster
Posts: 2500
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2001 4:32 am
Location: Vancouver.

Post by Blaster » Thu May 05, 2011 6:53 am

Rurudyne wrote:Wow, that's vintage Ban Hammer worthy material there!
Ban-Hammer then return under an alt-id as most trolls are known to do.



Hey wait...
Image
"You’re still a slave, Angron. Enslaved by your past, blind to the future. Too hateful to learn. Too spiteful to prosper."

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Thu May 05, 2011 1:01 pm

Notabot wrote:There's some appeal to that, but that makes us no better than the evil that we're trying to fight. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is so insidious because it tends to spiral out of control. It's hard to rise above it, and some would say there's no point in standing against it, but if we really want to end terrorism (idealistic, I know), we can't become terrorists.
The thing with that is that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are at war with America surely - therefore this is a military counterstrike. It's like the Gibraltar Rock Incident (where the SAS shot three unarmed IRA members, IMHO rightly because they were terrorists who had committed bombings and were planning to do so again, though this gets negative press because the Irish are all leprechauns, invented Guinness and so on). A good rule of thumb is that if you've done something bad enough to get special forces hunting you down, you can't really expect to be taken alive.
Sir Auros wrote:Keeping him alive would have probably been the worst option if only because of the legal nightmare it would pose and potential for increased attacks. Also pretty good that his body was dumped in the ocean to avoid giving his idiot sympathizers a spot to make a "holy" spot. It's only too bad we didn't use a gutted pig as his coffin.
This is how I feel... In an ideal world he would have been put on trial, Al-Qaeda could all be put in jail and we could keep the lot of them under lock and key. But the world doesn't work like that; the options were Bin Laden alive, Al-Qaeda commit acts in order to free him and maybe succeed or Bin Laden dead, Al Qaeda commit acts in reprisal which they would probably do anyway, but less Bin Laden and whichever other members were taken in the storming.

And I agree with the burial at sea too - no shrine. My only real reservation is that burial at sea is a dignified service used by many navies and in a way it's a little tainted by someone who blew up women and children sharing it, but again I don't think there's a better alternative.

User avatar
Rurudyne
Protoform
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: North Texas
Contact:

Post by Rurudyne » Thu May 05, 2011 1:56 pm

Blaster wrote:Ban-Hammer then return under an alt-id as most trolls are known to do.



Hey wait...
You think that guy came back?
Standup Philosopher

"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball"

User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4196
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: Leicester, in the Heart of England

Post by Clogs » Thu May 05, 2011 4:51 pm

So many conradictory stories in circulation...

Personally, and I am not usually a conspiracy theorist, I think bin Laden's apparent years long personal silence indicated that he had been taken out of circulation. There were people declaring that they were carrying out his orders, but he was inexplicably absent.

Just wondering what has really gone on.

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Thu May 05, 2011 6:07 pm

Clogs wrote:There were people declaring that they were carrying out his orders, but he was inexplicably absent.
Possibly because he was being hunted down by US Special Forces, which would obviously compromise any Al-Qaeda operations by simple dint of his presence?

User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 23885
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek » Thu May 05, 2011 7:27 pm

Big Daddy wrote:The thing with that is that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are at war with America surely - therefore this is a military counterstrike. It's like the Gibraltar Rock Incident (where the SAS shot three unarmed IRA members, IMHO rightly because they were terrorists who had committed bombings and were planning to do so again, though this gets negative press because the Irish are all leprechauns, invented Guinness and so on). A good rule of thumb is that if you've done something bad enough to get special forces hunting you down, you can't really expect to be taken alive.
There's a big difference between what happened with Bin Ladden (shot as a result of a massive fire fight between two heavily armed groups), and Gibraltar (three unarmed people are shot whilst on holiday when they could just as easily been arrested considering it's British territory. Them being bastards doesn't change that).
TRANSFORMATION: ON THE BALL
BLUDGEON SETS THE WORLD IN MOTION IN MY LOOK AT ROTF 13!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!

User avatar
Summerhayes
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: Nagano, Japan

Post by Summerhayes » Thu May 05, 2011 7:30 pm

Yeah, the problem for him was that if he were to even remotely reveal himself in public, he'd have given the people looking for him something to work with.
I like bears.

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Thu May 05, 2011 9:27 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:There's a big difference between what happened with Bin Ladden (shot as a result of a massive fire fight between two heavily armed groups), and Gibraltar (three unarmed people are shot whilst on holiday when they could just as easily been arrested considering it's British territory. Them being bastards doesn't change that).
They weren't on holiday, they were planning a bombing operation and had the materials ready (they were killed before the bomb was planted) - it's dangerous ignorance to pass if off as "holidaying". The SAS didn't know they were unarmed, and when the IRA members (sorry, the "holidaying" IRA members, because they stop being terrorists if they take a weekend break in Gibraltar... even if they're planning a bombing) made suspicious moves the SAS opened fire - it turns out prematurely as they were unarmed, but they prevented the bomb being planted, and if the cost of that is three terrorists' lives, well... Again, it comes ack to if you're bad enough to have the SAS on your case, you can kiss goodbye to being given a sporting chance.

What is it about the IRA that attracts such white-washing of their atrocities? And what is it about the British that makes them side against their own defence forces doing their job (cf. Belgrano, Iranian Embassy)? I mean, you expect it from the fake Shamrock American-"Irish" crowd who see it as some great romantic struggle, but really...

The circumstances, of course, are different (as is often the case in two seperate incidents), but the morality is the same, as is the correct nature of the action taken - terrorists blow up innocents in an indiscriminate fashion (unless the Royal Anglican Regiment's band were the ones who fired on the crowd at Croke Park); a military unit discriminately kill terrorists before they have chance to kill further innocents.

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Thu May 05, 2011 10:28 pm

Big Daddy wrote:What is it about the IRA that attracts such white-washing of their atrocities?
1 - They're white.

2 - They're mostly Christian.

User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 23885
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek » Fri May 06, 2011 6:21 am

Big Daddy wrote:They weren't on holiday,
Well yes, that was me being flippant rather than completely accurate.

Again, it comes ack to if you're bad enough to have the SAS on your case, you can kiss goodbye to being given a sporting chance.
The problem with that is that the IRA (or insert any terrorist organisation) could use exactly the same argument. "If you're on our list, tough shit". The Gilbralta thing was badly handled, the SAS are not an assassination squad and are perfectly capable of capturing men in those circumstances. That they didn't, be it through human error (which happens to everyone) or sinister conspiracy stuff the net effect was to make a tense situation in Ireland even tenser, give the IRA a good rallying cry for new members and to make the situation for the troops there more difficult.
What is it about the IRA that attracts such white-washing of their atrocities? And what is it about the British that makes them side against their own defence forces doing their job (cf. Belgrano, Iranian Embassy)? I mean, you expect it from the fake Shamrock American-"Irish" crowd who see it as some great romantic struggle, but really...
Whoa there, how is me thinking the British troops making one mistake in any way an endorsement of the IRA? Or are we supposed to be nothing but 100% supportive and cheerleading even if we think they've gotten things wrong? I think generally our troops members do an extraordinary job with frankly pathetic resources, that isn't the same as they being perfect.

If you've taken from that post that I'm somehow "anti" a group that includes/has included several close family members over the years (most recently my sister in law just qualified for the RAF. And to the best of knowledge none of them are down with shooting unarmed people even if they are scum) that says more about you than me.

Only ever had one reletive in Special Forces (and he was a relative of a relative really, he divorced out of his tenuous family connection a few years ago), but the one thing that came across was how meticulous the work is. Spending months undercover as a drugs barron in Afghanistan to get close the big dealers, very, very careful research and info gathering. When they act, it's with precision and things very, very rarely go wrong. If they're going into capture someone rather than kill them they'll usually manage it. It's not running around blowing the crap out of things and then going "Well, they had it coming anyway".

One thing thing that's actually impressive about the Bin Laden operation is that, considering how many things could have gone wrong, was how well it went. In a house with children and (not really the right term, but for want of a better one...) "Non-comabtants" they only killed the people they went in for and anyone who actively attacked them. That's a hard job done exceptionally well.

It's a shame the PR side of things hasn't been handled so well, with contradictory stories having come and gone from official sources ("He was/wasn't armed, he did/didn't use a woman as a human shield, we got the info on where he was from torture/no we didn't") it's giving the impression of a massive cover up and conspiracy. The main reason I'm assuming there isn't one is that it's beeing done so badly. If they really had something to hide it wouldn't have been that hard to get everyone together before the press were told and go "Right, no one can know the truth about Bin Laden and the robot suit, here's the story we're telling, everyone stick to it, OK"?
TRANSFORMATION: ON THE BALL
BLUDGEON SETS THE WORLD IN MOTION IN MY LOOK AT ROTF 13!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Fri May 06, 2011 7:34 am

inflatable dalek wrote:Well yes, that was me being flippant rather than completely accurate.
Do you really think that this is a subject that deserves flippancy? Or do you need flippancy along the lines of saying a group on a terrorist mission are 'holidaying' to get things across? Or did you have your facts wrong and are now back-tracking?

I'm trying hard to see what was to gain by being flippant, because all you've really acheived is to make the post look stupid. What was your motivation in being flippant? Does your argument not stand without it?
The problem with that is that the IRA (or insert any terrorist organisation) could use exactly the same argument. "If you're on our list, tough shit". The Gilbralta thing was badly handled, the SAS are not an assassination squad and are perfectly capable of capturing men in those circumstances. That they didn't, be it through human error (which happens to everyone) or sinister conspiracy stuff the net effect was to make a tense situation in Ireland even tenser, give the IRA a good rallying cry for new members and to make the situation for the troops there more difficult.
The SAS are not an assassination squad? I think you'll find it is one of the things they train for, even if they're rarely (if ever) deployed in that fashion. The SAS are a multi-task unit. Or was that being flippant too?

Of course they were perfectly capable of capturing the IRA members in those circumstances, but only by taking their chances that they weren't reaching for concealed weaponry or a detonator. Do you have an idea how often that sort of thing happens in situations with guns? What would you have honestly expected to happen? The SAS troops wait and see what happens and possibly die as a result?
Whoa there, how is me thinking the British troops making one mistake in any way an endorsement of the IRA? Or are we supposed to be nothing but 100% supportive and cheerleading even if we think they've gotten things wrong? I think generally our troops members do an extraordinary job with frankly pathetic resources, that isn't the same as they being perfect.

*goes on at considerable length*
Apologies here, I didn't mean to imply you supported the IRA in any way, shape or form - what's happened is that your flippant remark made you look like a deeply stupid person, and describing a three-person IRA bomb team on a mission in Gibraltar as 'holidaying' tends to suggest a certain amount of either bias or ignorance. This sort of thing tends to happen in a text-based medium where people deploy things like flippancy in situations where there's no need or place for it.
It's a shame the PR side of things hasn't been handled so well, with contradictory stories having come and gone from official sources ("He was/wasn't armed, he did/didn't use a woman as a human shield, we got the info on where he was from torture/no we didn't") it's giving the impression of a massive cover up and conspiracy. The main reason I'm assuming there isn't one is that it's beeing done so badly.
Yes, I'm guessing someone at the White House was so delighted with the basic result that the first garbled reports were put out before the dust had really settled and all information had been gathered.

The "pictures of the body" thing is another part that's been badly handled - while the reasons for not releasing them are sound (it's a little like... gloating) the announcement they'd be on their way, and then that they wouldn't was badly done. While I don't buy into it at all, you can see where CTists get their ideas from.

User avatar
inflatable dalek
Posts: 23885
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Kidderminster UK

Post by inflatable dalek » Fri May 06, 2011 8:29 am

Big Daddy wrote:Do you really think that this is a subject that deserves flippancy? Or do you need flippancy along the lines of saying a group on a terrorist mission are 'holidaying' to get things across? Or did you have your facts wrong and are now back-tracking?

I'm trying hard to see what was to gain by being flippant, because all you've really acheived is to make the post look stupid. What was your motivation in being flippant? Does your argument not stand without it?
At what point is a subject not serious enough to be OK to joke about then? I assume that my as repeating of the Osama in a robot suit silliness in the last post passed without comment it's at least OK to be throwaway about the main subject of this thread, but not the IRA? Because I'd have thought with all the horrible international long term consequences of 9/11 (including long term wars in multiple countries) ol'Bin Laden would be considered at least a fairly serious subject?


The SAS are not an assassination squad? I think you'll find it is one of the things they train for, even if they're rarely (if ever) deployed in that fashion. The SAS are a multi-task unit. Or was that being flippant too?
Well yes, exactly, they're multi taskers, not an assassination squad (which sort of implies just the one job description). So you're basically agreeing with me there then?
Of course they were perfectly capable of capturing the IRA members in those circumstances, but only by taking their chances that they weren't reaching for concealed weaponry or a detonator. Do you have an idea how often that sort of thing happens in situations with guns? What would you have honestly expected to happen? The SAS troops wait and see what happens and possibly die as a result?
In terms of our army this sort of thing actually happens pleasingly rarely, especially given all the potential troops/civillian face offs in Ireland. That's why when things do go wrong like in this situation it gets a lot of attention.

In case my information (which I admit is at its most recent threeish years old, based on coverage around the twentieth anniversary) was now antiquated I've done a quick scan through the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flavius

Assuming accuracy (never a certaintly with wikipedia of course, and if anything here is wrong I'll happily accept correct links), it doesn't mention fear of them reaching for a weapon being given the reason for the shooting (and indeed, by the time someone has wrestled a gun out of their suitcase/handbad and aimed it there's been enough time for the SAS to assertain they are really armed and to take them out).

So it boils down to the detonator thing. How feasible was it with the tech of the time, and how much would the SAS troopers present known about how feasible it was? That seems to be what the issue basically boils down too, with the official inquest and the more recent European one coming to different conclusions on it.

Personally I've never been a big believer in conspiracies, generally they can be put down to straightforward incompetence. I think what happened here was a terrible mistake, but that they didn't go into in planning to kill everyone no matter what.

One thing that's slightly puzzling from reading that through is that Irish papers have apparently "alleged" that the Garda helped out MI5 on the mens' movements in Ireland. As the police, isn't helping apprehend terrorists generally something they're supposed to do?

Apologies here, I didn't mean to imply you supported the IRA in any way, shape or form - what's happened is that your flippant remark made you look like a deeply stupid person
Well, as long as I only look stupid [/flippant].
TRANSFORMATION: ON THE BALL
BLUDGEON SETS THE WORLD IN MOTION IN MY LOOK AT ROTF 13!
PLUS: BUY THE BOOKS!

User avatar
Summerhayes
Posts: 1384
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: Nagano, Japan

Post by Summerhayes » Fri May 06, 2011 9:23 am

This is getting a bit heavy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBWh28mD9cA
I like bears.

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Fri May 06, 2011 12:16 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:At what point is a subject not serious enough to be OK to joke about then? I assume that my as repeating of the Osama in a robot suit silliness in the last post passed without comment it's at least OK to be throwaway about the main subject of this thread, but not the IRA? Because I'd have thought with all the horrible international long term consequences of 9/11 (including long term wars in multiple countries) ol'Bin Laden would be considered at least a fairly serious subject?
What exactly about claiming they were 'holidaying' was funny? 'Flippant' and 'joke' are two different things. Robot suit? Obviously funny, blatant Wolfenstein reference. 'Holiday?' Not seeing where the humour comes from there in any way shape or form.

You dropped a clanger. Be a man about it instead of trying to wriggle out of things and hide behind red herrings
So you're basically agreeing with me there then?
Yes and no - we're unlikely to ever know (within our lifetimes at least) what task the SAS team of Flavius were assigned to; it could have been assassination, it could have been arrest, it could have been "alive if possible but don't take any chances". Your assertion "the SAS are not an assassination squad" is incorrect, unless that's another joke.



In terms of our army this sort of thing actually happens pleasingly rarely, especially given all the potential troops/civillian face offs in Ireland. That's why when things do go wrong like in this situation it gets a lot of attention.
So it boils down to the detonator thing. How feasible was it with the tech of the time, and how much would the SAS troopers present known about how feasible it was? That seems to be what the issue basically boils down too, with the official inquest and the more recent European one coming to different conclusions on it.
Was the technology feasible? Probably not, but it's all pretty fairly covered by a trained reaction to suspicious movement - if an SAS squad jump out at you, it's not a good idea to then reach in your pocket for anything, be it a hidden remote detonator or a stick of gum.

Bearing in mind that these were three known terrorists who were planning to plant a bomb (the big problem is that the SAS got to them before they actually did it; I doubt there would have been as much controversy had they blown up the band and then been shot... You can't tell me there's nothing wrong there - a lesser evil, if you will), not a trio of Irish people who were shot and then found to be perpetrating an IRA plot.
Personally I've never been a big believer in conspiracies, generally they can be put down to straightforward incompetence. I think what happened here was a terrible mistake, but that they didn't go into in planning to kill everyone no matter what.
Yes - I do enjoy reading a lot of conspiracy theories, but have yet to found one that really sets alarms off, usually just being a case of unrelated coincidences. There probably are a lot of secrets hidden away at higher levels, but it's probably all mundane unexciting stuff.

In this case, I think Thatcher's government announcing it as some glorious victory, falsifying or misreporting initially (another similarity to bin Laden) and so on was a big misstep and a bad underestimation of how much trouble it would stir up.

User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4196
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: Leicester, in the Heart of England

Post by Clogs » Fri May 06, 2011 1:10 pm

Big Daddy wrote:What is it about the IRA that attracts such white-washing of their atrocities?
They're now, officially, a political party...

User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9613
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound » Fri May 06, 2011 1:15 pm

Big Daddy wrote:You dropped a clanger. Be a man about it instead of trying to wriggle out of things and hide behind red herrings
Alright, that's enough of that. You guys want to discuss the IRA or whatever fine, but one more shot like that and you get some time away.

I mean it. Not open for discussion.

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Fri May 06, 2011 1:47 pm

Whatever.

User avatar
Sixswitch
Posts: 8295
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 5:00 am
Location: Sent to outer space, to find another happy place.
Contact:

Post by Sixswitch » Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm

Big Daddy wrote: You dropped a clanger. Be a man about it instead of trying to wriggle out of things and hide behind red herrings
People are flippant about everything on these forums. It's one of the reasons I like posting and browsing here. People never take themselves so seriously.

I'm not gonna have a pop, because you're a new poster and your posts seem to be well thought out and reasonable for the most part. Every internet community has a 'flavour' and this is part of this one's nature.

-Ss
Image
I found God. Then I lost him. He'll probably turn up down the back of the sofa someday.
"The early bird gets the worm, but the early worm is ****ed."
"I'm not oppressing you Stan, but you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

User avatar
Big Daddy
Protoform
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Post by Big Daddy » Fri May 06, 2011 4:54 pm

Oh yes, I'm hooked into the flavour now.

User avatar
Sades
Posts: 9218
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:00 am
Location: In a hut by a river on top of a big ol hill.

Post by Sades » Fri May 06, 2011 7:38 pm

At this point I think the term "be a man about it" can be applied to this situation as well. I'd advise dropping it.

No more along this tangent, Back to being on-topic please. And play nice, peeps.
This is my signature. My wasted space. My little corner. You can't have it. It's mine. I can write whatever I want. And I have!

Post Reply