What's new

Bin Laden is dead

Also, speaking on the "conspiracy" thing that I'm sure we'll get waves of over the coming days, weeks, months and so on (which I'm not accusing anyone here of), there's absolutely some questions regarding how they went about discarding the body and lack of evidence at this point, but you have to look at the risk factor of making a move like that. Say this is a hoax, can you imagine the humiliation, integrity hit, and devastation that this would cause to not only our government, but our country? A hoax of that magnitude would be the riskiest thing this country has done since we BECAME a nation. The consequences of making something like this would be more damaging to the United States than any single act of terrorism could do. If I'm Osama in this scenario, the single most effective attack against our country right now would be is simple as releasing a video saying "I'm alive". At that point he can just sit back, turn on the tube, and watch the country crumble from within.

I just don't see how, in any way, shape or form, that this could be fake. The risk factor is far too consequential and the rebuttal would affect not only America, but the world in ways that we can't even imagine.

I can easily see them taking him alive and putting him into a secure location for the next few years while they ravage his mind for secrets, names, locations, etc. Telling the world that they dumped the body at sea is a simple way to get people to stop talking about it and move on. Seriously, can you imagine the wealth of knowledge inside his brain that could help put an end to terrorism as we know it? He would make The Intersect seem like chicken feed.
 
I think this is important because it marks the immediate denouement of 9/11. This is closure, although the war on terror is not over. Justice for 9/11 has essentially been established-- the ****ers behind it are in the ground, and any enemy that emerges from now on is a part of a related but not exact cause.

We're not celebrating the death of Osama, we're celebrating that we've taken another step towards world peace.
 
I think this is important because it marks the immediate denouement of 9/11. This is closure, although the war on terror is not over. Justice for 9/11 has essentially been established-- the ****ers behind it are in the ground, and any enemy that emerges from now on is a part of a related but not exact cause.

We're not celebrating the death of Osama, we're celebrating that we've taken another step towards world peace.

**** that. I'm celebrating the death of Osama.
 
24912857.JPG
 
I can easily see them taking him alive and putting him into a secure location for the next few years while they ravage his mind for secrets, names, locations, etc. Telling the world that they dumped the body at sea is a simple way to get people to stop talking about it and move on. Seriously, can you imagine the wealth of knowledge inside his brain that could help put an end to terrorism as we know it? He would make The Intersect seem like chicken feed.

Oh yeah, I could see something like this happening (however likely/unlikely it may be). I'm sure millions of people would be angered by this, but ultimately it would result in good with the information and intelligence we extract. I'm saying that if our government is saying that he's dead in hopes that they find him before the truth comes out then **** is going down. To tell such a bold-faced lie in regards to the single most coveted man since Hitler would be monumentally demoralizing for our country. Aliens and gas prices are one thing, but this is the head of the single most sensitive topic of the decade and the biggest act of terror since Hitler's reign of tyranny. Along with that, considering how easy it we be for Osama to come out and disprove this (if this were fake), it would be far too serious of a risk to take for any government, let alone ours. That's why I just don't see this being a hoax.
 
A few things to add:

-I find the Jimmer pic funny and that REALLY pisses me off.

-I'd like to be more against Trout's point of view, but then I read what Thriller had to say and it actually made me gravitate more towards Trout's line of thinking and that REALLY pisses me off.

-Even if I was to continue debating Trout, I couldn't articulate my argument nearly as good as YB85 has and that REALLY pisses me off.
 
A few things to add:

-I find the Jimmer pic funny and that REALLY pisses me off.

-I'd like to be more against Trout's point of view, but then I read what Thriller had to say and it actually made me gravitate more towards Trout's line of thinking and that REALLY pisses me off.

-Even if I was to continue debating Trout, I couldn't articulate my argument nearly as good as YB85 has and that REALLY pisses me off.

You are ugly when you're angry.
 
Apparently the info that led the CIA to the courier which eventually led us to bin Laden was acquired by using the much derided water boarding technique on none other than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and was consequently confirmed by water boarding a second detainee.

Of course the AP article says nothing about waterboarding and other evidence indicates that the timeline for "waterboarding was the key" doesn't make sense.

From Marcy Wheeler: https://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/...n-laden-trail-shows-waterboarding-didnt-work/

"The AP has confirmed that intelligence leading to the courier that in turn led to Osama bin Laden came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and–as I surmised earlier–Abu Faraj al-Libi while in CIA custody. But partly because of the language AP uses to describe this–and partly because the wingnuts love torture–many are drawing the wrong conclusion about it. Here’s what the AP says:

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

Note what AP says: KSM provided the courier’s nom de guerre. The CIA got similar information from al-Libi. And they were tortured. The AP does not say torture led to this information.

Here’s what a senior administration official said last night about when they got the intelligence on the courier.

Detainees gave us his nom de guerre or his nickname and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11th, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al Qaeda who was captured in 2005.

Detainees also identified this man as one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden. They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden. But for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.

Four years ago, we uncovered his identity, and for operational reasons, I can’t go into details about his name or how we identified him, but about two years ago, after months of persistent effort, we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated.

In other words, while the CIA may have learned the courier’s nickname earlier, they didn’t learn his true name until “four years ago”–so late 2006 at the earliest. And they didn’t learn where the courier operated until around 2009.

From these dates we can conclude that either KSM shielded the courier’s identity entirely until close to 2007, or he told his interrogators that there was a courier who might be protecting bin Laden early in his detention but they were never able to force him to give the courier’s true name or his location, at least not until three or four years after the waterboarding of KSM ended. That’s either a sign of the rank incompetence of KSM’s interrogators (that is, that they missed the significance of a courier protecting OBL), or a sign he was able to withstand whatever treatment they used with him.

With al-Libi, the connection between whatever torture he experienced and this intelligence is less clear (since he was first detained in 2005), but even with al-Libi, it appears clear he either never revealed the courier’s real name or only did so after he had been in custody for a year, and almost certainly until after he arrived in Gitmo.

Update: Putting the AP’s reporting here together with the DAB, it seems like al-Libi did give up the name, perhaps earlier than reported. But still not waterboarding.

Either these men didn’t know the true name of their protégé and assistant (which is highly unlikely), or they managed to withhold that information even under torture.

In fact, two people who normally would be crowing about the success of torture are not now doing it. Donald Rumsfeld suggests the discovery of OBL came from intelligence gained at Gitmo (therefore, not in Poland or Romania). And while Cheney assumes enhanced interrogation aka torture led to OBL, he admits he doesn’t know where the intelligence came from; given that he was ordering up propaganda reports along the way to justify his torture program, yet can’t claim definitively that the intelligence came from it, is a pretty good tell that he can’t say it did.

If KSM and al-Libi revealed details about the courier (and al-Libi’s Gitmo file suggests he did; KSM’s, which is dated two years earlier, does not), they shielded the most important information about him for years.

All of which sort of makes you wonder whether the FBI’s KSM expert could have gotten it out of KSM had he ever interrogated him."

Please don't go around trying to say torturing is a good idea. That we nominally refuse to engage in these tactics on ethical grounds is the thing that makes us better than the enemy. Trying to justify our bad acts post hoc to score a political point only blurs moral lines. We all lose that way. Isn't the much better story for America that we got him without having to resort to torture?
 
I'm getting the feeling that all of a sudden Patriotism is being frowned upon in this country, maybe it's just me. Again, 3,000 innocent lives lost does not equate to the death of one murderous coward. Therefore they are not the same to me. Unfortunately the Bush Jr. administration made a traveshamockery of the word "Patriotism" and through political bantering the word "Patriot" became synonymous with "blind follower". But, why, WHY do we have to shake our heads in disgust at those celebrating a love of country and closure for thousands of people.
Careful when constructing strawmen. You can still be patriotic and love one's country while still having a solemn attitude towards war/killing/torture. That's the point, what we did was prevent more deaths, but it doesn't change the fact that killing someone is a terrible thing. Something that we should wish we never have to do.
 
We got him because of CIA "interrogators" in secret prisons, so that "story" would be false.

That is a story specifically denied by Rumsfeld and presently supported primarily by Peter King. Rep. King is one of the most notorious blowhards in the House.

As detailed above, the timeline for that narrative doesn't make sense. But seriously, this is exactly the wrong thing to defend when we're trying to keep a moral high ground.
 
We killed a washed up old terrorist who hasn't done squat in ten years. Frankly I'm more enthused about the royal wedding.
 
Back
Top