Guilt Feelings About Osama bin Laden


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

This is breaking now...

apparently all twenty-five Seals had helmet cams and they were all working here.

No fire fight occured in the house. First Seal missed in the hallway. Second Seal hit him in the chest and the third Seal hit him in the eye [right I believe] and exited by his left ear. Ammunition exploded in his brain.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The White House has been keeping other categories of photos from us, too.

I thought of opening a new thread with this, but the "guilt feeling" theme somehow seemed appropriate. :)

Here ya' go-a-go, (yeah baby):

Pornography found in bin Laden hideout

By Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria

May 13, 2011

Reuters

From the article:

A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.

The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.

The soul is willing but the flesh is weak.

Ah me... what's a feller to do between bouts of murdering innocent civilians?

That praying 5 times a day stuff only goes so far when you're on a sacred crusade.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama seems to be using this to introduce the idea to the world community of just assassinations carried out as official government policy (not using those terms, of course).

NATO, at least, seems to like the idea in its attacks on Gaddafi. After all, it is only "serving justice."

What other leader or famous person is next?

If this concept catches on in other countries, that's exactly how world wars start.

Sometime what seems is not real. It seems to you that your President is introducing 'just assassinations' as official policy. It seems to me that targeted assassinations have been policy for a long, long time.

As you know, US ally Israel has a fairly explicit policy to kill heads of terrorist groups (and head lieutenants). That is why Hamas head organizer is in Damascus, why Hizbollah's head is heavily guarded in Lebanon. Considering that a raft of heads of state and government and party were assassinated in Lebanon, starting with Gemayal and recently with Hariri, and that death squads killed less well-known leaders such as Izz El-Deen Khalil (Hezbollah), Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman (Syrian) and Imad Mughniyeh (Hamas), it is kind of an open secret that the USA, its enemies and its proxies have used targetted assassination since, oh, at least the accession of Castro.

As for Libya, the current euphemistic catchphrases are 'attacking command and control.' This has plausible deniability. If the head of a military is believed to lead his forces, and uses a phone to direct operations, and the operations are against civilians (such as incontestably is the case in Misurata), then the legalities are nicely covered when kaboom goes one of the many military facilities in the Gaddafi compound at Bab al-Azizia. Why do you think Uncle Curly was pictured all trembly and insignificant in this morning's news, seated in a heavily secured hotel in Tripoli? Well . . . perhaps because that is where the journalists are penned up, and he has no rathole left.

The cover is, of course, the protection of civilians. I look forward to the news that a NATO attack on a 'command and control' facility in Libya turns Gaddafi to mush -- though the INC in Benghazi says it prefers he be captured and tried. When the Gaddifi dies, is captured, or flees, his regime collapses and the wholesale assaults will stop. That is what I want. I don't give a shit what blab blah blah the Russians and Chinese have to say about, since they have filthy hands themselves . . . if four hundred demented Pakistanis out of 130 million want to yap and dance, they can have at 'er.

No one in the Middle East gives a shit about Gaddafi. He is finished. No one of any importance in any of those lands cares about the legalities of killing the Libyan head of state, let alone bin Laden. Apart from particularly stupid remarks from the particularly stupid and brutal Hamas and the particularly stupid Hizbollah minions, as well as some pro-forma bumf from the Brotherhood ranks in Egypt, events have moved on from bin Laden. It is only the good old Americans, led by such tireless dissidents as Chomsky and assisted by hand-wringers and comfy-butts who are expending the energy to examine legalities in that particular case.

Or so it seems to this peaceable Canucki.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one in the Middle East gives a shit about Gaddafi. He is finished. No one of any importance in any of those lands cares about the legalities of killing the Libyan head of state, let alone bin Laden.

William,

He can still do damage, though.

His forces have been holding a South African photo-journalist, captured with two American journalists, for about 40 days.

The fear is that he will use them as bargaining chips when he knows he's finished.

(I don't know Anton Hammerl, but I see his father sometimes.)

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Gaddafi] can still do damage, though.

His forces have been holding a South African photo-journalist, captured with two American journalists, for about 40 days.

The fear is that he will use them as bargaining chips when he knows he's finished.

(I don't know Anton Hammerl, but I see his father sometimes.)

Tony, yours is a good point to consider. I have wondered why the journalists penned up in Tripoli bother, since they cannot report and since they all apparently cannot wait to get the heck out of Libyan confinement. What if, as the end approaches, Uncle Curly and/or his mad minions decide to seize some of them? he knows that this would be another war crime to add to the ICC roster, but would he be mad enough to something like that? What will he offer? "Hi, I have two hundred foreign citizens in a bunker. I want to trade them for continued power. Whaddaya say?"

You are in Africa. I gotta tell you that I think the funniest/saddest Libyan commentary comes from the AU peacemakers. "We are the only people who have a viable peace plan! Oh, poor Libya! Why will no one listen to us?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

When I said "official" in this context (inciting a world war), I meant something akin to no longer keeping an "open secret" (as you rightfully called it), and just letting it all hang out. And I meant heads of state, not heads of terrorist organization.

In other words, the way I see Obama parading this around to the world, a precedent is being set. Now the USA will be able to look at a government it doesn't like and basically give a "thumbs down" on the "justice" score, which will mean the assassination teams are on the way and the leader is open game for any ally who wants to participate in the sport.

If no pretense of civility and sovereignty at all is kept, it will be very easy for any openly targeted leader to whip up his citizens into a frenzy and declare war, use nukes, etc.

This is why I think Obama should keep his rhetoric to "act of war" and not include "act of justice." (I.e., they made war on us, so we took the war to them--something like that. Not, "justice has been served" by an assassination carried out by USA armed forces and reported widely to the public.)

Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Obama is doing. I think he is playing with some really big fire that will burn a hell of a lot more than his delicate little fingers.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That praying 5 times a day stuff only goes so far when you're on a sacred crusade.

I don't think praying is the only thing he was doing 5 times a day.

guitarwank.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Harking back to the time one was either a "Hawk", or a "Dove", the progressive liberal has constantly to find euphemisms for war. 'Justice' is one more.

Like any normal human, I have a gut loathing for violence, but "we" should be clear about what is war, and which is assassination, and conduct them both (when essential) quickly and without remorse.

All these half-wars and neo-wars are self-destructive, I feel.

Justice and war don't mix.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

You are seeing what I see.

I have been trying to make that point for some time, but the words always get in the way. :)

At least someone is seeing it, though.

And, even though the mainstream culture has butchered words and concepts like justice beyond all possibility of clarity, I'm sure other words of clarity will eventually surface so that anyone can understand this idea.

Whether one agrees or not is another issue.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Tony,

My view of these matters is that, if you have to fight a war, you fight a war.

If you believe war must always be avoided, then you do whatever you must to avoid it. Including capitulate or surrender or accept slave status, should it come down to any of those.

What you ought not to be doing is confusing war with something else, such as the operations of a criminal justice system.

(Nor, for that matter, should you be confusing the operations of a criminal justice system with waging war. Governments have been known to do the latter as well.)

Osama bin Laden waged war on a bunch of us.

He was taken out by warlike means, in a military raid, as was fitting.

Jack Wheeler, in the days after 9/11, wanted Osama captured so he could be "boiled alive in pig fat." What was actually done to him was more humane.

The commandos killed Osama and a few members of his entourage. They didn't reduce his neighborhood to rubble, or nuke Abbottabad.

I often think that shooting the top remaining Nazis, as soon as they were in range and could be clearly identified, would have been a much better way to proceed than capturing them and subjecting them to "war crimes" trials.

As for how his body was disposed of, if Osama was as bad a Muslim as many Muslims believe he was, he didn't deserve to be wrapped in a shroud while prayers were said over him in Arabic.

And if he was as good a Muslim as some Muslims believe he was, he didn't either.

I do think that burying him at sea was the right way to go, because it helped to preclude the establishment of a shrine to him by any persons so minded.

As for Barack Obama not publicizing a photo of the dead Osama, I agree that his motive is basically "I know something that you don't." Ultimately, this is why Obama refused to circulate his original birth certificate. (When "birtherism" got going, Obama secondarily concluded that he could prolong it, and exploit it for political advantage, by continuing to hold back. What Donald Trump finally did was pose enough of a political threat that Obama felt he'd better quit holding back.)

Photos of the dead Osama should be published. Those who don't want to look at them will not be required to.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I am in 100% agreement with you. I have tried to convey these same thoughts (along with some disdain for bin Laden).

We may not be fighting a formal war, but we are fighting a de facto one against an enemy that has declared war on us. This is a war that needs to be fought because I, for one, do not consider surrender an option. I believe many Americans feel the same.

I think it is extremely dangerous to characterize this effort, including the killing of bin Laden, as anything but war.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Tony,

My view of these matters is that, if you have to fight a war, you fight a war.

If you believe war must always be avoided, then you do whatever you must to avoid it. Including capitulate or surrender or accept slave status, should it come down to any of those.

What you ought not to be doing is confusing war with something else, such as the operations of a criminal justice system.

(Nor, for that matter, should you be confusing the operations of a criminal justice system with waging war. Governments have been known to do the latter as well.)

Osama bin Laden waged war on a bunch of us.

He was taken out by warlike means, in a military raid, as was fitting.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Oh, yes.

My view of war is that it's so exceedingly irrational, that it is an aberration. NOT to say that it can't be declared morally, and rationally fought.

I don't think this is hair-splitting.

As an aberration, by its very nature, it can and must only be conducted in a "nasty, brutal, and short", manner.

With clear-cut objectives - civil capitulation, destruction of the enemy's military might - and avoiding loss of civilian life, but not at any and all costs. Then getting out.

Everything goes during that period of insanity, including targeted 'hits' on enemy commanders.

I am still reeling from the ease with which a commando mission of 25 men (OK, with huge logistics and intelligence behind them) accomplished one major objective of this war, and can't help thinking: What if?... could this have been the correct strategy 10 years ago? (But you have well considered this, and I'm rubbing salt in the wounds. )

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still reeling from the ease with which a commando mission of 25 men (OK, with huge logistics and intelligence behind them) accomplished one major objective of this war, and can't help thinking: What if?... could this have been the correct strategy 10 years ago? (But you have well considered this, and I'm rubbing salt in the wounds. )

Tony,

Those 25 men had to know exactly where to go.

They also deployed, so far as we know, from bases in Afghanistan (though I would imagine this wasn't crucial).

In any event, I don't see anything wrong with targeting the leader of the other side in a war. It sure beats targeting 2,000 or 100,000 or 50 million non-leaders.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don't see anything wrong with targeting the leader of the other side in a war. It sure beats targeting 2,000 or 100,000 or 50 million non-leaders.

Robert,

Good God!

Am I hearing the voice of sanity?

:)

You do realize that many people in our neck of the woods don't think it's the leaders. They think people are automatons run by religion or philosophy (except themselves, of course), so they would feel far better going after the 50 million...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don't see anything wrong with targeting the leader of the other side in a war. It sure beats targeting 2,000 or 100,000 or 50 million non-leaders.

Robert,

Good God!

Am I hearing the voice of sanity?

:)

You do realize that many people in our neck of the woods don't think it's the leaders. They think people are automatons run by religion or philosophy (except themselves, of course), so they would feel far better going after the 50 million...

Michael

And if the target lives in the middle of a large city and is extremely well guarded? Or if his whereabouts are not exactly known? How do we get rid of him then?

My proposal is to nuke the city (as long as it is not in Europe or North America). There is some collateral damage but the mission is accomplished.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I don't see anything wrong with targeting the leader of the other side in a war. It sure beats targeting 2,000 or 100,000 or 50 million non-leaders.

Robert,

Good God!

Am I hearing the voice of sanity?

:)

You do realize that many people in our neck of the woods don't think it's the leaders. They think people are automatons run by religion or philosophy (except themselves, of course), so they would feel far better going after the 50 million...

Michael

And if the target lives in the middle of a large city and is extremely well guarded? Or if his whereabouts are not exactly known? How do we get rid of him then?

My proposal is to nuke the city (as long as it is not in Europe or North America). There is some collateral damage but the mission is accomplished.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And that of course is absurd from a strategic position, a humane position or an individual position.

It is the act of an irrational mind..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still reeling from the ease with which a commando mission of 25 men (OK, with huge logistics and intelligence behind them) accomplished one major objective of this war, and can't help thinking: What if?... could this have been the correct strategy 10 years ago? (But you have well considered this, and I'm rubbing salt in the wounds. )

Tony

As for the mission itself, there was a lot of failure behind it. Think of Iran, 1979.

I don't see "huge logistics," I see huge capability and, above all, great intelligence.

If killing bin Laden was a major objective of the war, he won, we lost. We went into Afghanistan 9 1/2 years ago. We should have left 8 1/2 years ago--and not invaded Iraq.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that of course is absurd from a strategic position, a humane position or an individual position.

It is the act of an irrational mind..

Sometimes crazy works. Consider the history: The U.S. nuked two large Japanese cities and what do you know? The Japanese surrendered. Transforming hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and babies into hot gas did the trick. You see, killing lots of (innocent?) people accomplishes the goal. As long as the act of the irrational mind produces the desired results, what do you care? I sure don't.

What would have happened if the U.S. decided not to nuke the cities. Answer: a million more American casualties maimed or dead and ten million more dead Japanese. Rational produces a higher body count.

Rand realized that in a war, morality exits.

Irrational has its uses. Immoral has its uses. Death has its uses. We just have to discover what the uses are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff teams up with Yaron Brook in his podcast this week, they do a Monday morning quarterbacking of the bin Laden affair. I started to transcribe a sentence of Peikoff’s, but it got too messy, there’s no way to do it and have it come out readable.

“Hang him publicly in front of the White House, set fire to him, cremate him, throw him over the Aral sea…”

Look out though, this is just part one of two.

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/05/16/interview-with-yaron-brook-on-osama-bin-laden-part-1-of-2/

Transforming hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and babies into hot gas did the trick. You see, killing lots of (innocent?) people accomplishes the goal.

Speaking of Monday morning quarterbacking, maybe we could have invited a Japanese delegation to the test of the A-bomb? Or given them a chance to surrender before dropping the second one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Emperor surrendered and his people did as he ordered.

Brant,

This actually proves the point about leaders. The nukes only served to convince the Emperor, not the people. If the Emperor had said fight to the death, I believe the Japanese people would have done so.

Who's going to order the Muslims to surrender?

You do it country by country, making sure that you convince the leaders of those countries.

But there's one caveat. The people must love their leader or feel pride in him/her for them to follow voluntarily.

Instead of making sure this was the case in the Muslim world, the USA has shamefully propped up bloody dictators that the people don't want to follow--at best. A large portion of the population usually hates the dictator.

The result is there for all to see.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still reeling from the ease with which a commando mission of 25 men (OK, with huge logistics and intelligence behind them) accomplished one major objective of this war, and can't help thinking: What if?... could this have been the correct strategy 10 years ago? (But you have well considered this, and I'm rubbing salt in the wounds. )

Tony

As for the mission itself, there was a lot of failure behind it. Think of Iran, 1979.

I don't see "huge logistics," I see huge capability and, above all, great intelligence.

If killing bin Laden was a major objective of the war, he won, we lost. We went into Afghanistan 9 1/2 years ago. We should have left 8 1/2 years ago--and not invaded Iraq.

--Brant

Brant,

I've spoken with some Special Forces irregular soldiers (ex-Selous Scouts of then Rhodesia, a few British SAS types, also S.African 9th Battalion 'reccies', notorious in the Angolan conflict) who back then even, reluctantly admitted that they considered the US Navy Seals as the best of the best.

Surely, the evolution of modern warfare places such motivated, highly trained and intelligent fighters at the forefront. The point of the spear, if you like.

It seems that the days of "putting boots on the ground" in the shifting sands of Mid- East national conflicts - where yesterday's friend becomes today's foe, and vice-versa -has become a subjective exercise in futility. Not to mention a terrible waste.

Today, the enemy has to be identified, and selectively targeted. It is obviously not the entire Muslim world, and usually, it is not a nation, but rather, one or other organization. Name, and scare - if not shame - them. Then send in the Seals.

I can only speculate what ten years of missions of elite squads, with the best Intel and technology, based on aircraft carriers in the Med and Persian Gulf, striking unpredictably inside any country that harbors the organizations, getting in and out fast, could have accomplished by now. Using the identical tactic terrorists employ - fear and uncertainty, - many 'hearts and minds' would follow, I reckon.

Or is this over-simplified?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FEAR their leader, Michael. Fear and respect or fear and despise, it doesn't matter which. The Brits made the mess, stupidly setting up all those countries with arbitrary borders. Maximum arrogance. Then they gave it to us. The greatest seminal historical event that made the modern world was World War I. The Brits were clever by half, but it was Bismark who was prescient: he knew the most important thing concerning the future of Europe was that the North Americans spoke English. He didn't know about India/Pakistan and the Middle East, an Anglo mess of the first order. Lord Balfour (sp?--who cares?) is still jerking the American chain.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes crazy works. Consider the history: The U.S. nuked two large Japanese cities and what do you know? The Japanese surrendered. Transforming hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and babies into hot gas did the trick. You see, killing lots of (innocent?) people accomplishes the goal. As long as the act of the irrational mind produces the desired results, what do you care? I sure don't.

What would have happened if the U.S. decided not to nuke the cities. Answer: a million more American casualties maimed or dead and ten million more dead Japanese. Rational produces a higher body count.

Bob K,

That was in 1945. No "smart" munitions, among other things.

Just taking out General Tojo and his entourage might have achieved the objective a lot quicker. But the means to do it weren't available.

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes crazy works. Consider the history: The U.S. nuked two large Japanese cities and what do you know? The Japanese surrendered. Transforming hundreds of thousands of Japanese women and babies into hot gas did the trick. You see, killing lots of (innocent?) people accomplishes the goal. As long as the act of the irrational mind produces the desired results, what do you care? I sure don't.

What would have happened if the U.S. decided not to nuke the cities. Answer: a million more American casualties maimed or dead and ten million more dead Japanese. Rational produces a higher body count.

Bob K,

That was in 1945. No "smart" munitions, among other things.

Just taking out General Tojo and his entourage might have achieved the objective a lot quicker. But the means to do it weren't available.

Robert C

Might have been the worst thing. The same rather young army officer claque that put Yamamoto to sea to save him from assassination prior to Pearl Harbor might have then prevailed and the war gone on. It almost happened any way.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now