Osama Bin Laden Dead

[+Link of Hyrule]

So the Global Lawman will go swaggering into Dodge, slinging its guns, and the world will as usual cower before the might of Team Six, just the same as it's ever done. And Mr. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize will sit on the shelf and be polished regularly by his armies of lackies. And the huddled masses of the world will, as usual, look up at the beacon of hope and integrity that is the U.S. And the US President will speak unto the world from his position of moral high ground. And the terrorist Menace will be over, and peace and prosperity will reign. And no one will ask for any proof that it was indeed Bin Laden, because Obama has assured us, and Obama cannot lie.

Hi 747,

Allow me to pose a question for you, if you don't mind. Moving aside facts of what actually happened, if you were in President Obama's shoes, what would you have done in his situation? Outline for me in brief detail what you would have done instead?

Thanks,

P.S - hopefully I'll still be online when you reply, but I'm getting pretty close to bed so I may have to get back to you tomorrow.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'd have been scrupulous to show to the world that I valued the rule of law, and not the Law of the Gun, and that, difficult, perhaps near impossible as it may be, Obama would be given as much of a fair trial as was possible. And above all, if it had been unavoidable to kill him - if it really had been a kill or be killed situation - I'd have made sure to show, in as irrefutable a way as possible, that it was indeed bin Laden, by having his identity independently verified. This, I feel, might have outweighed any indignation there might have been that his body was not disposed of strictly according to islamic custom.

[Space Commander Travis]

**Correction: Osama would be given as much of a fair trial as was possible, not Obama.

[ChloeB]

Yep. A name's a name.

Accordingly to what I've read, the CIA aid to the mujahedin began during 1980, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanista­n.

In 1986, the CIA had backed the ISI plan to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and MI6.

Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia (Operation Cyclone). Just to put it in perspective, the Soviets withdrew in 1989!!

Do you think this is why he wasn't taken alive and handled like Saddam Hussein? That is what my friend's mother thinks, they didn't want him talking too much about this what went on back then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy She said this is what caused Bin Laden's hatred of the US, for the US supporting him and then pulling out and leaving them high and dry.

[ChloeB]

**Correction: Osama would be given as much of a fair trial as was possible, not Obama.

LOL, those names are so close. It's easy to do that, I've caught myself doing the same.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I'd have been scrupulous to show to the world that I valued the rule of law, and not the Law of the Gun, and that, difficult, perhaps near impossible as it may be, Obama would be given as much of a fair trial as was possible. And above all, if it had been unavoidable to kill him - if it really had been a kill or be killed situation - I'd have made sure to show, in as irrefutable a way as possible, that it was indeed bin Laden, by having his identity independently verified. This, I feel, might have outweighed any indignation there might have been that his body was not disposed of strictly according to islamic custom.

Thanks for that. Now, considering the response you gave, based on that response can I ask two follow up questions (well, three, but two are closely related):

1- So you complete your objective and capture him, and his terrorist followers begin to start blowing up civilian targets with demands that he be released! How do you deal with it?

2a- You miss your objective and are forced to kill him, and by holding his body against Islamic custom, his followers begin to start blowing up civilian targets in retribution for the disrespect shown by "the enemy". What is your response?

2b- Assuming 2a to be true, how would you explain yourself to the American public if you could have avoided the bloodshed by trying to appease at least some measure of Islamic customs, and bury the body within 24 hours (without leaving a shrine for his followers to revere).

There were other questions I considered asking, but they move more into "theories" as to what may or may not have happened, so I'll hold them to these alone. Thanks for your time

~ Regards,

edit:

**Correction: Osama would be given as much of a fair trial as was possible, not Obama.

Yah, I figured that's what you meant. They are easy to mix-up, lol. Obama got Osama.... Edited May 4, 2011 by Paranoid Android

[Space Commander Travis]

Thanks for that. Now, considering the response you gave, based on that response can I ask two follow up questions (well, three, but two are closely related):

1- So you complete your objective and capture him, and his terrorist followers begin to start blowing up civilian targets with demands that he be released! How do you deal with it?

2a- You miss your objective and are forced to kill him, and by holding his body against Islamic custom, his followers begin to start blowing up civilian targets in retribution for the disrespect shown by "the enemy". What is your response?

2b- Assuming 2a to be true, how would you explain yourself to the American public if you could have avoided the bloodshed by trying to appease at least some measure of Islamic customs, and bury the body within 24 hours (without leaving a shrine for his followers to revere).

There were other questions I considered asking, but they move more into "theories" as to what may or may not have happened, so I'll hold them to these alone. Thanks for your time

~ Regards,

edit:Yah, I figured that's what you meant. They are easy to mix-up, lol. Obama got Osama....

(1) Well, the most important thing would be to maintain the moral high ground. Governments always use "We will not give in to terrorists" as their motto, after all, and this would be your chance to show that you were morally different to your enemies.

... Unless the fear was that there wouldn't be any reprisals, in which case what would that say about the terrorist menace, or the importance of Bin L ... ?

2(a & b ): even if it was imperative to dispose of him within 24 hours, it must surely have been possible to have had his identity verified at least by independent sources in that time, even if full DNA testing wasn't possible - testimony from survivors in the house, for a start - and to have it verified by independent news sources. Not make it look as if he was just bumped off like it was a routine Mafia hit. This at least must have been possible within 24 hours, and in any case, seeing that the U.S. has been at war with the Islamic world for 10 years in any case, it seems a bit late, not to say hypocritical, to be suddenly so concerned with not infringing one particular part of the law.

Edited May 4, 2011 by 747400

[Wookietim]

(1) Well, the most important thing would be to maintain the moral high ground. Governments always use "We will not give in to terrorists" as their motto, after all, and this would be your chance to show that you were morally different to your enemies.

... Unless the fear was that there wouldn't be any reprisals, in which case what would that say about the terrorist menace, or the importance of Bin L ... ?

2(a & b ): even if it was imperative to dispose of him within 24 hours, it must surely have been possible to have had his identity verified at least by independent sources in that time, even if full DNA testing wasn't possible - testimony from survivors in the house, for a start - and to have it verified by independent news sources. Not make it look as if he was just bumped off like it was a routine Mafia hit. This at least must have been possible within 24 hours, and in any case, seeing that the U.S. has been at war with the Islamic world for 10 years in any case, it seems a bit late, not to say hypocritical, to be suddenly so concerned with not infringing one particular part of the law.

DNA testing was done.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/125030/dna_samples_used_to_verify_bin_laden.html

[Space Commander Travis]

DNA testing was done.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/125030/dna_samples_used_to_verify_bin_laden.html

When, and by whom? The people who did the hit? Did they have time to get it verified independently? That's the important thing.

[Wookietim]

When, and by whom? The people who did the hit? Did they have time to get it verified independently? That's the important thing.

Hmmm.... Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you would also have found OJ Simpson "Not Guilty" even though authorities presented DNA evidence? What more do you need?

After all, even if Bin Laden was still alive I might suggest that the CTers would say "It's an impostor paid by the govt"...

Edited May 4, 2011 by Wookietim

[Corp]

Maybe the government should have learned from the whole birther movement and instead packed up Osama's body and go to every house in America to show people the body.

[Wookietim]

Maybe the government should have learned from the whole birther movement and instead packed up Osama's body and go to every house in America to show people the body.

Well, then the CTers would say that it was an impostor's body and the DNA evidence was faked... And if it was shown that the DNA evidence wasn't faked, then it would be that somehow Bush killed Bin Laden and Obama had kept bits of Bin Ladens DNA for this...

You see, it works like this : If Obama were to turn water into wine, his critics would then declare him an alcoholic... Logic and reality doesn't really enter into their hatred of Obama.

[+HerNibs]

Maybe the government should have learned from the whole birther movement and instead packed up Osama's body and go to every house in America to show people the body.

Eh, but even that wouldn't stop those who are just determined to not believe (especially the President/gummint).

They would claim the feet are too big/small.

No matter what, can't please/convince everyone. I think the best choices were made.

Nibs

Edited May 4, 2011 by HerNibs

[questionmark]

Maybe the government should have learned from the whole birther movement and instead packed up Osama's body and go to every house in America to show people the body.

Yeh, well we could have revisited the old Genghis method and impale his head at the mall so all could come and see it.... or we could choose not to let cranks run our lives.

[conspiracybeliever]

This really does have our government written all over it. They would do the same thing to any of us if we got in there way, just shoot us in the head and throw us overboard.

[Space Commander Travis]

Hmmm.... Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you would also have found OJ Simpson "Not Guilty" even though authorities presented DNA evidence? What more do you need?

After all, even if Bin Laden was still alive I might suggest that the CTers would say "It's an impostor paid by the govt"...

Hmmm? What's Hmmm about wanting to see proper legal procedure followed? The whole point I'm trying to make is that Obama'd save himself a whole lot of suspicion if he'd show that there is no doubt. If feeling that this does not yet seem to have done places one in the CT camp along with mr. Trump, well, we are making some assumptions, but whether or not they'd be correct is another matter.

[Wookietim]

Hmmm? What's Hmmm about wanting to see proper legal procedure followed? The whole point I'm trying to make is that Obama'd save himself a whole lot of suspicion if he'd show that there is no doubt. If feeling that this does not yet seem to have done places one in the CT camp along with mr. Trump, well, we are making some assumptions, but whether or not they'd be correct is another matter.

The govt has presented DNA evidence. Therefore, for a sane person that tends to remove any doubt as to who it is.

When a person looks like Osama, has Osama's DNA, and was in a place that we suspected Osama to be in, it is no longer that insane to agree that is was Osama that was killed.

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, then the CTers would say that it was an impostor's body and the DNA evidence was faked... And if it was shown that the DNA evidence wasn't faked, then it would be that somehow Bush killed Bin Laden and Obama had kept bits of Bin Ladens DNA for this...

You see, it works like this : If Obama were to turn water into wine, his critics would then declare him an alcoholic... Logic and reality doesn't really enter into their hatred of Obama.

is that what it comes down to? If you're not convinced that Obama is the new Washington, then it's just out of pure hatred for him? Speaking personally, I'm sure there'll be people able to tell you that I wasn't a great fan of Bush either. And i don't think that Obama has behaved in this matter, so far, in any way that would enable him to take the moral high ground over Bush. Other than finding Osama, that is. How convenient that was for him is up to an entirely unbiased observer to decide.

[Space Commander Travis]

The govt has presented DNA evidence. Therefore, for a sane person that tends to remove any doubt as to who it is.

When a person looks like Osama, has Osama's DNA, and was in a place that we suspected Osama to be in, it is no longer that insane to agree that is was Osama that was killed.

Who took this DNA sample from him? That's what I've asked several times now. The point I'm trying to make is that for there to be no doubt, it would have to be someone independent, and not the same persons as bumped him off. Surely you can see that from a legal point of view, that's reasonable. And that's why this 24 hour rule seems so convenient as an excuse for doing everything with such haste.

[Wookietim]

is that what it comes down to? If you're not convinced that Obama is the new Washington, then it's just out of pure hatred for him? Speaking personally, I'm sure there'll be people able to tell you that I wasn't a great fan of Bush either. And i don't think that Obama has behaved in this matter, so far, in any way that would enable him to take the moral high ground over Bush. Other than finding Osama, that is. How convenient that was for him is up to an entirely unbiased observer to decide.

Well, first off I am not "convinced that Obama is the new Washington" - I am simply not convinced he is the anti-christ secret muslim terrorist that many of his detractors seem to think he is.

And when it comes to you deciding to concoct a far fetched conspiracy theory just to avoid accepting that he was the president under whose watch Bin Laden was found and killed, yeah - that comes down to simple hatred of him and not much more.

And I don't care if you were a big fan of Bush or not. I am simply pointing out that you have decided that a completely unsupportable conspiracy theory is somehow more believable to you than common sense... Which means that you are willing to ignore all evidence rather than accept what Obama is saying. That is not exactly a sane position. That is like me concocting a theory that says you are actually a White House operative working on this board to engender antipathy towards the Obama detractors by presenting a theory that goes completely against common sense and then adhering to that in the face of any evidence to the contrary.

And what "Entirely unbiased observer" would you choose? After all, any person you admit into testing the DN (A second time) woudl be admitted by the govt to do it and therefore subject to your conspiracy theory...

[Space Commander Travis]

Who's concocting conspiracy theories? Sounds like people are busy concocting conspiracy theories about people concocting conspiracy theories. What is this conspiracy theory, and why is it unsupportable? Why is it not sane to not automatically accept what someone, even the President, tells us without some corroboration? And i don't know why I keep having to ask this, but who took the DNA sample, is it reliable in view of the speed with which it must have been done, and was the person who did it one who didn't have a vested interest in proving that they'd killed the right person? If, indeed, it was unavoidable to kill him at all. And that, too, is another question.

[Wookietim]

Who took this DNA sample from him? That's what I've asked several times now. The point I'm trying to make is that for there to be no doubt, it would have to be someone independent, and not the same persons as bumped him off. Surely you can see that from a legal point of view, that's reasonable. And that's why this 24 hour rule seems so convenient as an excuse for doing everything with such haste.

Except the problem is that since you are willing to accept a conspiracy theory that isn't reasonable.

Any independent person who would perform that test a second time would be subject in your CT to becoming part of the conspiracy. So if that test agreed with the govt's test, then your theory would state that that person was part of the govt's test and that another independent person ought to perform it. Then if another person were brought in and agreed you would say they were part of the conspiracy too.

Which means that to you, the continued existence of the conspiracy theory is now more important than the actual evidence. And no amount of evidence will dig you out of that hole.

[Corp]

Yeh, well we could have revisited the old Genghis method and impale his head at the mall so all could come and see it.... or we could choose not to let cranks run our lives.

As a history major I kind of like impaled head idea

[Wookietim]

Who's concocting conspiracy theories? Sounds like people are busy concocting conspiracy theories about people concocting conspiracy theories. What is this conspiracy theory, and why is it unsupportable? Why is it not sane to not automatically accept what someone, even the President, tells us without some corroboration? And i don't know why I keep having to ask this, but who took the DNA sample, is it reliable in view of the speed with which it must have been done, and was the person who did it one who didn't have a vested interest in proving that they'd killed the right person? If, indeed, it was unavoidable to kill him at all. And that, too, is another question.

Well, since you are assuming that the evidence presented to you of the DNA test is not valid because it was conducted by the govt, I would say that you are the one constructing a conspiracy theory.

[ExpandMyMind]

Just to mention that the Pakistani Muslim shop owner I spoke with earlier, when I mentioned how fast they got rid of the body, stated along the lines of "I know, talk about getting rid of the evidence and sweeping the whole thing under the carpet". He didn't seem to care if they had held onto this Muslim's body long enough to actually prove that it was him.

A few points:

1. The US has never cared much for Muslim sensibilities (until now ).

2. I don't think that many Muslims would have given a crap about the holding onto the body of a mass murderer, someone who had become the most wanted man in the world. And considering the amount of innocent families the US has blown up in the region these past years, I really find it hard to believe they care about creating more enemies. In fact to suggest such a thing is farcical, to say the least.

3. Are murders in the Muslim World solved in only a day? There are never any exceptions to this rule? Police in these countries don't hold onto bodies as a means to gather evidence? Really, they don't?

All in all, the reasons given for the hush job, on the surface, may look reasonable, but, when scrutinised, they are simply ridiculous in my opinion.

Edited May 4, 2011 by expandmymind