No doubt there’s a certain well-warranted moral satisfaction in hearing the news of Bin Laden’s overdue demise. However, it would have been more useful to take him alive, then interrogate him for a few months before summary execution.
Killing him spares the Obama administration the embarrassment of having to apply its politically correct rhetoric about Geneva protections and due process rights to America’s most notorious enemy.
JOHN BUGAY SAID:
ReplyDeleteSeemed strange, too, that they gave him an immediate burial at sea. I can see lots of Muslims asking the question, "where's the beef?"
5/02/2011 9:17 AM
Reports are that the intent was to capture but that's kind of hard when he's shooting at you, you know.
ReplyDeleteAs for burial at sea, makes perfect sense. No physical site to become a shrine or desecrated. After all, where would you bury him? Who'd want it in their area? "Sure, for tourists along with the Dew Drop Inn and Cafe we also have the grave of Osama Bin Laden."
As for Muslims (or anyone else doubting) it would be simple enough for Al Queda to release video with an alive OBL with a subsequent newspaper proving he's alive. Don't think we're going to be seeing that.
For years I've thought that if they ever did kill Bin Laden that they shouldn't make it known to the public for a generation or two. Making it public *now* would just fire up current jihadists to double their efforts. As well as to create more recruits. Especially if Muslims around the world and within Western countries see Westerners are rejoicing not so much over justice being served, but out of a racist and/or religious hatred.
ReplyDeletePsychologically speaking, in this modern war against terrorism (unlike past wars) if you make these kind of enemies think they're seriously losing the battle (either by revealing the truth, or by use of disinformation in PSYWAR), they'll be that much more desperate and determined rather than losing heart.
Also, if you publicly admit that the terrorists are winning, then that would also encourage them to stay the course because it's working (this doesn't apply for games like chess [etc.] where you can use their overconfidence against them).
It seems to me that if the U.S. makes it clear that it's making great progress against the war on terror, then terrorists will be more careful hiding their communications and movements. Instead, the U.S. should hide "how well" and "in what ways" it is able to detect and neutralize terrorist activity. I suspect U.S. operatives and analysts (in the CIA and other dept.) are doing just that. But that in the case of Bin Laden, because he's one of the major leaders in the movement, it was just too good for the President and his administration not to reveal it. I suspect, unfortunately, that this will be to the greater injury and death of American citizens.
I'm not sure what I would advocate if they had captured him. I guess treat him according to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
What do you all think about the idea of not making public his death?
GRIFMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Reports are that the intent was to capture but that's kind of hard when he's shooting at you, you know."
If Obama's preference was to capture bin Laden alive, why not use tear gas or sleeping gas?
Grifman: As for burial at sea, makes perfect sense. No physical site to become a shrine or desecrated. After all, where would you bury him? Who'd want it in their area?
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the things that was said in the news reports, that no one would want the body.
But I do hope they at least release some photographic evidence or something.
Because of fears of retaliation by terrorists, governmental departments are stepping up security. Which means more money will need to be spent. So in addition to possible lose of more lives (if that weren't enough), making public Bin Laden's killing is going to cost us even more financially as a nation.
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you all think about the idea of not making public his death?
I tend to think it will have a great demoralizing effect on terrorists. Along the lines of "strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep". Here's from one report:
Talat Masood, a former Pakistani army general, said the killing of Mr. bin Laden will have a huge impact on al Qaeda's morale, even if he was not involved in the day-to-day running of the organization. "It's a huge setback for al Qaeda forces in psychological and military terms," Mr. Masood said. "They'd built a myth surrounding him. He's a leader who is supposed to be irreplaceable."
More from that same article:
ReplyDelete"Without Osama, and what he represents—the only man to take down the U.S.—young Muslims may not be as enthusiastic to join terrorist networks," said Nasrullah Stanekzai, President Hamid Karzai's legal adviser.
"For the Taliban this is a big blow, as it is for Al Qaeda," he added. "This will hurt the Taliban's morale, but it won't stop their increased attacks on NATO and American forces."
A senior Western diplomat in Kabul was more optimistic.
"It could be a game changer, in terms of boosting the confidence of Americans and the international community, that this war was not fought in vain, that the sacrifices of our troops' lives have not been wasted," said Vygaudas Usackas, the European Union's special representative for Afghanistan. "It will be a substantial boost to embrace reconciliation efforts throughout the region."
I have to say I have doubts that he's really dead. Some shenanigans going on, that he'd be buried at sea one day later w/o the chance for independent corroboration? What the heck!??!?
ReplyDeleteGrifman said:
ReplyDeleteAs for burial at sea, makes perfect sense. No physical site to become a shrine or desecrated. After all, where would you bury him? Who'd want it in their area? "Sure, for tourists along with the Dew Drop Inn and Cafe we also have the grave of Osama Bin Laden."
As for Muslims (or anyone else doubting) it would be simple enough for Al Queda to release video with an alive OBL with a subsequent newspaper proving he's alive. Don't think we're going to be seeing that.
1. All this is off topic.
2. But just to play along for the moment, your second point could be nullified by your first point. If we assume OBL is still alive (not that I do but since you bring it up), it could be that he wants people to believe he's dead. It could be that he wants people to think he's a martyr. For example, one would think OBL would be in a better position to orchestrate future terrorist attacks and the like if people thought he were truly dead.
Patrick Chan said:
ReplyDelete"1. All this is off topic."
I didn't raise the topic, I merely responded to what John said. Why didn't you respond to John's raising of this issue?
"2. . . . it could be that he wants people to believe he's dead"
Except that he's done everything he could to keep himself in the eye with his videos and public pronouncements. And it would be hard make the world think he's dead if he' still pulling strings behind the scenes because word would get out among the jihadi's and hence eventually to the West. Al Queda operatives swear personal allegiance to OBL, not the organization (just shows the guys ego).
Sure you can speculate about anything, and a lot is "possible" but unlikely.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"If Obama's preference was to capture bin Laden alive, why not use tear gas or sleeping gas?"
Somebody's been watching too many action movies.
Tear gas is problematic for several reasons.
1) It doesn't knock you unconscious, it just makes your situation intolerable. The most likely scenario is OBL running out the room firing his gun (he swore to never be taken alive). If he wanted to surrender to begin with, tear gas wouldn't be necessary to induce that.
2) Also, there were a lot of people firing guns, some outside. Which one is OBL? Which one do you use the tear gas on and which do you kill?
3) You're already fighting at night with NV. You want your men to also wear gas masks which further hamper/obstruct vision?
4) OBL could just have a gas mask nearby to use.
5) Tear gas is readily absorbed by clothing. The assault team's clothes would get contaminated. Once they're back in the choppers, the clothing would start off gassing the tear gas. Night flying is very hazardous. I don't think you want your chopper pilots wearing gas masks while flying.
Sleeping gas is largely a fictional trope:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantSedation
1) It's a medical anesthetic and likely to kill you unless dosage is highly controlled (as has happened when the Russians tried something similar).
2) Most uses have been through introduction into ventilation systems. How much would the US have had to bring along to work in a building that big? Would they have know enough about it to know where to introduce it? In a quick covert op would they have time for all of this?
All of this overcomplicates what needs to be a very simple, precise quick operation.
I can also see some US soldier getting killed because of this and then people screaming, why did you risk our soldiers lives trying to capture him. Just kill him and be done with it. So at that point, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, in fairness, Reuters is reporting the following:
ReplyDelete"U.S. team's mission was to kill bin Laden, not capture"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502
I guess we'll know more for sure in the following days
Rhology:
ReplyDelete"I have to say I have doubts that he's really dead. Some shenanigans going on, that he'd be buried at sea one day later w/o the chance for independent corroboration? What the heck!??!?"
You're right, the President, NSC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Navy Seals are all in on the plot. And throw in the Illuminati and Tri-lateral Commission and Bilderbergs while you're at it! :)
It's not as if all those ppl would be in a position to KNOW. I'm saying it's very suspicious that he was buried at sea after 1 day. Why?
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the President, NSC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Navy Seals are all in on the plot. And throw in the Illuminati and Tri-lateral Commission and Bilderbergs while you're at it! :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, but can't you imagine some Islamists asking the question? This might become a moot point if they release some really good, clear photographs. But on the other hand, why leave any room at all for doubt?
I don't know how accurate this is..
ReplyDeleteWhy was Bin Laden Buried At Sea So Quickly
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/02/why-was-bin-laden-buried-at-sea-so-quickly/
I understand why he would be buried "at sea" -- that part of it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteBut my question about this has to do with the "immediate" part -- and the fact that a lot of the Arab world would be less inclined to accept the results of "DNA testing" than they would, say, video of an open coffin funeral or even some good clear photos.
That whole "we have to bury him within a day" is beyond weak. I can't even express how ludicrous it is.
ReplyDeleteI'd've preferred burying him at Guantanamo.
John Bugay, interesting quotes. But will that really happen to serious Muslims (as opposed to nominal ones)? While there are Arminian-like counterparts in Islam, part of the zeal that strong predestinarian Muslims have is based on their confidence that Islam will prevail and eventually conquer the world (similar to the motivations that spur on Christian postmillennialists). Boettner quotes E.W. Smith, "The early and overwhelming onrush of Mohammedanism, which swept the East and all but overthrew the West, was due to its devotees' conviction that in their conquests they were but executing the decrees of Allah."
ReplyDeleteTo really understand what I mean, one can read Chapter 18 section 2 on the Practical Results [of a strong view of predestination and providence] in Boettner's dated, but classic book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.iv.html
AP: I'm guessing that you are referring to the quotes from the WSJ that suggested that Muslims would be demoralized by the death of Bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteBut will that really happen to serious Muslims (as opposed to nominal ones)? While there are Arminian-like counterparts in Islam, part of the zeal that strong predestinarian Muslims have is based on their confidence that Islam will prevail and eventually conquer the world (similar to the motivations that spur on Christian postmillennialists).
What I have in mind is "the Arab street" (and maybe "the Afghani street") whence "those who might be 'enthusiastic to join terrorist networks"" might come. And it seems to me that these are very "serious" Muslims.
And the answer is that yes, I believe that many idealistic young Muslims, who might otherwise be inclined to terrorism, would find this to be discouraging. Remember Bin Laden's own "strong horse" quote.
I'm not making this inference based on a predestinarian vs an "Arminian-like" belief within Islam, but more, again on Scripture ("strike the shepherd") and just observations of how a thing like this can take the wind out of some enthusiastic sails.
Looking at that last sentence from Boettner, "Only when he is brought to feel his entire helplessness and dependence upon sovereign grace does he seek help where alone it is to be found." I'm sure that a thing like this will affect many young Muslims who are decidedly not perceiving an "early and overwhelming onrush of Mohammedanism," but something quite the opposite these days.
John Bugay, you may be right. I don't have more time to defend my suspicions. I'll just point out that it only takes a dozen or so fanatics to kill thousands of people in a terrorist attack. Especially if they are already in the country they'll be attacking. Terrorists just need to be more creative.
ReplyDeleteThe youth are impressionable and both extremely irrational (due to their emotions) and (strangely) at the same time can be coldly logical. The corruption of this world, their own sinful corruption, nihilism, and the guarantee of paradise (via Jihad) is just too enticing for some youths.
I'm thinking in terms of successful terrorist attacks within Western countries. Maybe you're thinking in terms of of the war in those countries were Islam already has a foothold. You could be right about that. But even then, so long as those countries have a low standard of living, they will continue (for generations) to blame the West, Christians, and Jews for their problems rather than their religion that often (not always) keeps them stuck in the 7th and 8th centuries. This is a multi-generational war on terror. And Islam is the fastest growing religion (due to the number of children they are having). While the secular, Christian, and Jewish West are barely having enough children to replace themselves in the population.
Thank God there's a revival going on in China, Central/South America, and in some parts of Africa that might offset the rise of Islam. Otherwise, I fear in a few generations there might be a 2nd Dark Ages (but this time Islamic). Christ might not return for a few more millennia. Secularists so short-sighted. They don't realize that their greatest ally is Christianity. They should wait till Christian ideology defeats Islamic ideology and THEN take on Christianity.
Waste from pig farms washes into the ocean. No more fitting burial, I'd say, than to surround his body as it decays in pig excrement.
ReplyDeleteSTEVE SAID:
ReplyDeleteGRIFMAN SAID:
“Tear gas is problematic for several reasons. 1) It doesn't knock you unconscious, it just makes your situation intolerable. The most likely scenario is OBL running out the room firing his gun (he swore to never be taken alive).”
i) If he didn’t wish to be taken alive, why not shoot himself? Evidently he wasn’t that eager to die. Rather, he defended himself.
ii) The whole point of tear gas is to smoke them out into the open.
“If he wanted to surrender to begin with, tear gas wouldn't be necessary to induce that.”
Surrender would be a last resort.
“2) Also, there were a lot of people firing guns, some outside. Which one is OBL? Which one do you use the tear gas on and which do you kill?”
The assault team was supposed to know what the target looked like. That's part of the mission.
“3) You're already fighting at night with NV. You want your men to also wear gas masks which further hamper/obstruct vision?”
i) One doesn’t use tear gas to go inside, but to make them to go outside.
ii) Likewise, use of NV where–inside or outside?
“4) OBL could just have a gas mask nearby to use.”
Or not.
“5) Tear gas is readily absorbed by clothing. The assault team's clothes would get contaminated.”
For some odd reason you keep assuming the assault team is going inside, rather than driving OBL outside.
“1) It's a medical anesthetic and likely to kill you unless dosage is highly controlled (as has happened when the Russians tried something similar).”
If the alternative is to kill him, then there’s nothing to lose if he dies from sleeping gas. There is, however, something to gain if you can capture him alive (i.e. intel).
“2) Most uses have been through introduction into ventilation systems. How much would the US have had to bring along to work in a building that big? Would they have know enough about it to know where to introduce it? In a quick covert op would they have time for all of this?”
You think we don’t have technology to scan the interior of buildings?
“I can also see some US soldier getting killed because of this and then people screaming, why did you risk our soldiers lives trying to capture him.”
If that was Obama’s concern, just send a cruise missile to destroy the compound. Instead, Obama apparently wanted to have an identifiable body, which required the assault team to go onto the premises and fight hand-to-hand with his security detail. Clearly Obama wasn’t making the safety of our troops his #1 priority.
“Just kill him and be done with it.”
In which case you lose all of the potential intel.
“So at that point, damned if you do, damned if you don't.”
Not if that’s properly explained.
The reason why they bried him immediately is simple. Islamic (and Jewish) burial customs require burial within 24 hours. No conspiracy needed to explain it. Listen to Grifman, he seems to understand these things.
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed,
ReplyDeleteyou write: "...The corruption of this world, their own sinful corruption, nihilism, and the guarantee of paradise (via Jihad) is just too enticing for some youths. "
When I read that a couple of portions of Scripture verses came to my mind to post.
Here:
2Ti 2:22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
2Ti 2:23 Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
In that, there is hope if the Spirit helps us, to reach the impressionable jihadist youth being driven and captured by him, (Satan), to do his will!
We ought to lift up the grand and noble life of sufferings and the actual death of our Lord to as many of these youth as possible. Seeing they are being inculcated to give their lives already for a cause, what better virtue is there than to instill within their minds the Virtue of Christ suffering for their sakes too? Isaiah 2:1-5
And here, too, in these verses, once we have the fish in hand, this:
Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
Heb 5:13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
I suppose, no matter, age is relevant to the powers of discernment by constant practice to distinguish good from evil! These young jihadists just are not getting the memo that Christ is the Resurrection and the Life and their fight should be and the load of suffering they bear by said sufferings should be for the glory of the Lord, not a presumed prophet of God's?
But, who knows? Maybe as the Church rises to the occasion of their lives, these young jihadists, winning them over by the power of the Spirit of Grace will become our addiction and all to the Glory of the Lord?
In the mean time, it seems to me, the youth of the United States and many other Western cultures are having a difficult time with practicing to have their senses trained to discern between good and evil, and, instead, are being wasted to the supposed common good, which is evil all the while God's Good is being evil spoken of! grrrr
There are some people who doubt that Osama bin Ladin (there are numerous other spellings) is really dead. They want proof!
ReplyDeleteBut think about it: there are basically four possibilities:
1) The Government is telling the truth, Osama is dead. Whether he was killed recently or died years ago, he is dead now.
2) Osama is not dead, but he has been captured. He will be subjected to various enhanced interrogation techniques in an effort to get more useful information for eliminating Al Qaeda.
3) Osama has defected. He will be voluntarily cooperating with the government to provide useful information for eliminating Al Qaeda.
4) The Government is just plain lying, and Osama is fine - he's hiding in a cave somewhere for fear of his life.
If (4) is correct, Osama will surface in a few months, release a video discussing his so-called death and make the U.S. government look extremely stupid. The U.S. government has to realize that this would be the result. As a consequence, it is hard to imagine that they would do such a thing.
If (3) is correct, may God be praised. But it does seem unlikely that Osama would defect. If he was going to defect, however, he would fully cooperate with the government to permit them to create a Hollywood-quality fake picture of his body. In fact, with Osama's cooperation, any amount of photographic or videographic evidence could be staged. If (3) is correct, there is no reason for the government to withhold the "proof" you want to see.
If (2) is correct, the government's approach is very strange. Why not kill all the witnesses and destroy the building in such a way that it makes it hard to tell whether Osama's body is still there? Why not employ a targeted air strike to conceal the evidence of the capture? If (2) is the case, the government seems to have taken a very elaborate and unexpected approach to it.
That leaves (1): Osama is dead. It seems to be the most probable option.
Notice that there is no proof here, just probability. There may be reasons for certain people to explore options (2) or (3), but not for most of us. There doesn't seem to be much benefit to explore option (4). Nevertheless, on the whole, it makes the most sense to just trust Obama.