70 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Its a great day to be alive. Bin Laden is dead today.

Its an amazing day.

[chris w]

I suppose that will boost Obama's ratings a notch, but his death doesn't change that much in the long run, Al - Qaida has been a pretty decentralised franchise for a while now, and Bin Laden himself was merely a powerful symbol.

Still, this calls for a celebration with an appropriate south park video:

[rwac]

It's great that OBL is finally dead. I believe he wasn't involved in AQ activity recently though, probably far too high profile for his own good.

Edited by rwac, 02 May 2011 - 12:15 PM.

[chris w]

Some experts were of the mind that he had been in fact dead already for some time now. They should release detailed autopsy data ASAP to clear any suspicions that this might some epic publicity stunt.

http://edition.cnn.c...bin.laden.raid/

Quote

(CNN) -- In the dark of night, U.S. helicopters approached a high-walled compound in Pakistan on a mission to capture or kill one of the world's most notorious terrorist leaders.

Less than 40 minutes later -- early Monday morning in Pakistan -- Osama bin Laden was dead, along with four others inside the complex, and the U.S. forces departed with the slain al Qaeda leader's body to fulfill a vow that originated shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

And as he announced the raid at the White House Sunday night, U.S. President Barack Obama called bin Laden's death "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda."

One senior administration official called the investigative "team effort" and a "model of really seamless cooperation" across agencies.

This official and others briefed reporters on further details on the assault on the compound, which they believe was built five years ago for the specific purpose of hiding bin Laden.

The compound is in Abbottabad, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) north of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The city sits in a mountainous region of Pakistan and is not heavily populated. Many of the residents are army personnel.

While senior administration officials would not offer a breakdown of the U.S. mission's composition, a senior defense official said U.S. Navy SEALs were involved.

After years of intelligence work and months of following a specific lead, they traced a courier linked to bin Laden to the compound in Abbottabad.

When first built, the compound was secluded and reachable by only a dirt road, the officials said. In recent years, more residences built up around it, but it remained by far the largest and most heavily secured property in the area, they said.

The mission ordered Friday by Obama encountered outer walls up to 18 feet tall topped with barbed wire, with two security gates and a series of internal walls that sectioned off different portions of the compound, the senior administration officials said. The main structure was a three-story building with few windows facing the outside of the compound, and a third-floor terrace had a seven-foot privacy wall, they said.

Months of intelligence work determined that the compound was custom-built to hide a high-value terrorism suspect, almost certainly bin Laden. The officials noted there was no telephone or internet service at the dwelling, which was valued at more than $1 million, and its occupants burned their trash rather than leave it out for collection as other area residents did.

Calling the U.S. operation a surgical raid, officials said it was conducted by a small team and designed to minimize collateral damage. Upon landing, the team encountered resistance from bin Laden and three other men that resulted in a firefight.

In the end, all four of the combatants in the compound were dead, along with a woman whom one of the men used as a human shield, the officials said.

At some point, one of the assaulting helicopters crashed due to a mechanical failure, according to the officials. It was destroyed as the U.S. team flew away, they said.

Obama and the senior administration officials said no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation, which took place very early Monday morning Pakistan time.
U.S. officials said they used a number of methods to identify the body as bin Laden.

One official said it was clear to the assault force that the body matched bin Laden's description, but they used "facial recognition work, amongst other things, to confirm the identity."

A senior national security official told CNN that they had multiple confirmations that the body was bin Laden, saying they had the "ability to run images of the body and the face."

Another U.S. official told CNN that bin Laden has already been buried at sea. The official said his body was handled in the Islamic tradition, but did not elaborate.

A senior administration official also said bin Laden's body would be "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition. This is something that we take very seriously, and so therefore this is being handled in an appropriate manner."

According to the senior administration officials, intelligence work determined at the beginning of 2011 that bin Laden might be located at the compound in Pakistan. By mid-February, the intelligence was considered strong enough to begin considering action pledged by Obama when bin Laden's whereabouts had been determined.

To discuss that intelligence and develop a plan, Obama chaired five National Security Council meetings from mid-March until late April, with the last two on April 19 and April 28 -- last Thursday. The next day, on Friday, Obama gave the order for the mission, the officials said.

The key break involved one of the few couriers trusted by bin Laden, according to the officials. About two years ago, intelligence work identified where the courier and his brother lived and operated in Pakistan, and it took until August of last year to find the compound in Abbottabad raided Sunday, they said.

"When we saw the compound where the brothers lived, we were shocked by what we saw -- an extraordinarily unique compound," one senior administration official said. "The compound sits on a large plot of land in an area that was relatively secluded when it was built. It is roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area."

Noting that the courier and his brother had no discernible source of wealth to live at such a property, intelligence analysts concluded the compound was "custom-built to hide someone of extraordinary significance," the official said, adding: "Everything was consistent with what experts thought Osama bin Laden's compound would look like."

Another senior administration official told reporters that Obama's administration did not share intelligence gathered beforehand with any other country -- including Pakistan -- for security reasons. The official said that only a small group of people inside the U.S government knew about this operation in advance.

However, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said members of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, were on site in Abbottabad during the operation. There was no way to immediately resolve the apparent discrepancy.

Interesting little detail - they got rid of the body

http://www.guardian....body-buried-sea

Quote

The dilemma of what to do with Osama bin Laden's body appears to have been quickly resolved if reports that he has been buried at sea prove correct.

Burying him on land could have led to his grave becoming a centre of contention as well as raising questions about where he should be buried.

"Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult," a US official said, adding: "So the US decided to bury him at sea."

Fears about Bin Laden's burial place turning into a shrine for Islamists were probably unfounded, since the Wahhabi/Salafi tradition rejects such things. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves.

Senior US officials initially told news agencies that his body would be disposed of in accordance with Islamic tradition, which involves ritual washing, shrouding and burial within 24 hours.

Although the swift burial complies with Islamic custom and should therefore avoid causing any offence in Muslim countries, the apparent haste could lead to claims that the person killed was not really Bin Laden – though the US authorities have taken DNA samples and appear to have no doubts.

The 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial.

Burial at sea is rare in Islam, though several Muslim websites say it is permitted in certain circumstances.

One is on a long voyage where the body may decay before the ship reaches land. The other is if there is a risk of enemies digging up a land grave and exhuming or mutilating the body – a rule that could plausibly be applied in Bin Laden's case.

For sea burial, according to alislam.org, the body should be lowered into the water "in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet". The website adds: "As far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators."

Edited by chris w, 02 May 2011 - 01:38 PM.

[Elus]

Death isn't something to be celebrated, no matter the individual. In a world where we are shaped by our genes and environment, how much blame are you willing to assign? Had the man grown up elsewhere, how would he have turned out? Had he different genes, how might he have experienced his environment, and what kind of person might he have been?

I find it odd that many are so jubilant. I see nothing happy or hopeful in the fact that this man's life was extinguished. Perhaps this was the only way, since reason hardly resonates with extremist ideology, and force is necessary in a struggle to maintain the freedoms that humans cherish. However, just because these desperate measures were carried out does not warrant celebration of his death. Rather, it is a moment to reflect on the unfortunate reality of the situation - that we had to resort to violence, rather than negotiation, to achieve peace.

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead. When we direct our hatred at villains, we tend to forget that they too were once children, and that it takes other people to forge the malice that he held so dear.

I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

Brokenportal, I respectfully ask that you reconsider the perspective of your first post.

Edited by Elus, 02 May 2011 - 01:28 PM.

[The Immortalist]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

Death isn't something to be celebrated, no matter the individual. In a world where we are shaped by our genes and environment, how much blame are you willing to assign? Had the man grown up elsewhere, how would he have turned out? Had he different genes, how might he have experienced his environment, and what kind of person might he have been?

I find it odd that many are so jubilant. I see nothing happy or hopeful in the fact that this man's life was extinguished. Perhaps this was the only way, since reason hardly resonates with extremist ideology, and force is necessary in a struggle to maintain the freedoms that humans cherish. However, just because these desperate measures were carried out does not warrant celebration of his death. Rather, it is a moment to reflect on the unfortunate reality of the situation - that we had to resort to violence, rather than negotiation, to achieve peace.

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead. When we direct our hatred at villains, we tend to forget that they too were once children, and that it takes other people to forge the malice that he held so dear.

I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

Brokenportal, I respectfully ask that you reconsider the perspective of your first post.

I think it's a shame that people celebrate anyone's death. I think all the people here should be ashamed of themselves. We're here to try to prevent death but here we are celebrating it.

In this case I think Bin Laden deserved to die but I don't think we should celebrate it but rather mourn his death for life that could have been better lived.

[The Immortalist]

brokenportal, on 02 May 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

Its a great day to be alive. Bin Laden is dead today.

Its an amazing day.

Edited by The Immortalist, 02 May 2011 - 01:41 PM.

[rwac]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead.
...
I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

This wasn't just some guy who got angry. This man had a significant hand in creating, funding AQ and organizing many terrorist attacks. Hardly the helpless "product of his environment". I can't believe I have to explain this.

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

[The Immortalist]

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead.
...
I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

The field of psychology may be able to one day in the future be able to reprogram such barbarians.

[rwac]

The Immortalist, on 02 May 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

The field of psychology may be able to one day in the future be able to reprogram such barbarians.

Sure, but would such drastic reprogramming be any different than murder ?

It isn't like this was an issue with anger that would be fixed with therapy, it was cold-blooding planning for a cause.

What's the point of having some person who looks like the original, but isn't, you're simply going to create someone to be used as a figurehead.

[Elus]

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

This wasn't just some guy who got angry. This man had a significant hand in creating, funding AQ and organizing many terrorist attacks. Hardly the helpless "product of his environment". I can't believe I have to explain this.

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

We are all products of our genes and our environment. Unless you're religious and subscribe to the notion of a soul, then there is nothing else left to determine who you are and what you will become. As I pointed out, in this day and age, we are pigeon-holed into using force to resolve such conflicts.

In another day and age, we may be able to treat people who are murderous and violent through a greater understanding of the brain. We could use this understanding to make a change in their biochemistry which reduces this behavior. Also, people of the future will have greater access to knowledge and that could in turn lead to greater moral understanding which would prevent such mishaps in the first place. It is a given that people like Osama are a danger to civilized society; therefore, they must be dealt with or removed. Given the choice, I believe most would choose to have a minor brain alteration (As will probably be common for recreational purposes), in order to be allowed back into society.


More on point, I don't death is something to be gloried, even if it is Osama who is dying. We cannot stoop to the level of an eye for an eye. Two wrongs do not make a right. To glorify an execution of a criminal is to glorify society-wide retribution for some act that the criminal has committed. If we want to move forward as a species, we have to look beyond the "easy", band aid solutions, and begin looking for something more humane. Given how precious life is on this planet, why must we perpetuate a cycle of violence that destroys even more life? No, I think it is our job not only to mourn these kind of situations where force is required, but to look for new solutions using our science and technology.

All I'm asking is that you not celebrate the death of men such as this. They are sick men, but they are also human. Much like a person who grows up with religious parents and is indoctrinated in that religion before his critical faculties develop, so too were these men raised in spheres polluted by hatred when they were young. They did not question the hatred, and it took over. We cannot redirect the hatred back at them, because that would promote the vicious cycle. In fact, Osama's death will be a rallying point for the resistance against US military occupation, and we've ultimately made life harder for ourselves by executing Osama.

Edited by Elus, 02 May 2011 - 05:02 PM.

[rwac]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

In another day and age, we may be able to treat people who have are murderous and violent through a greater understanding of the brain. We could use this understanding to make a change in their biochemistry which reduces this behavior. Also, people of the future will have greater access to knowledge and that could in turn lead to greater moral understanding which would prevent such mishaps in the first place. It is a given that people like Osama are a danger to civilized society; therefore, they must be dealt with or removed. Given the choice, I believe most would choose to have a minor brain alteration (As will probably be common for recreational purposes), in order to be allowed back into society.

The problem is that "civilized justice" doesn't even have access to all evildoers. In this instance he was protected by 2 governments. This is a political problem, and unlike the technical issue, I don't see it being fixed anytime soon. There will always be rogue government, and if there isn't, the whole world is likely ruled by some sort of tyranny.

Quote

...something more humane. ...cycle of violence ...new solutions using our science and technology.

We can only be humane when we control the situation, and the reality is that there are a lot of situations out of our control. For instance, would this man have chosen to surrender at all, whatever the situation ?

Alas, humanity only extends to the civilized world (to some extent), and outside that the world is indeed Hobbesian. So unless the world chooses or is forced to "civilize", violence is inevitable. This is why even the most peaceful countries have armies.

Quote

...indoctrinated in that religion ... Osama's death will be a rallying point for the resistance ...

He attended secular schools and university. He could have done anything he wanted, he was not forced into anything.
Your theory of a "rallying point" is rubbish. Making them angrier can only make it easier to flush them out.

[TFC]

brokenportal, on 02 May 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

Its a great day to be alive. Bin Laden is dead today.

Its an amazing day.

U!S!A!   U!S!A!   Uncritical patriotism, Yeah!    Come on, Madrid and London were severly bombed by Al Quida, too. The US just got him because they have military facilities (or use local ones) in every third country of the world. Actually this might be why many muslims are mad at the western nations... Or would you like to have military facilities of China spread over the US states to "protect" precious resources; not caring about dictatoships supported this way? The people in Egypt would have been happy for support back 2 month ago... not to talk about the people of Bahrain, who where deafeated by military means with the western nations just watching but not acting in any way as Saudi Arabia (a close friend and many US military facilities there) was sending troops to shoot and kill the protesters which would have been sucessful otherwise to get democracy into their country.


This is not to justify the action of mad man OBL who deserves to be punished (though a trial might have been better); but the US is certainly not a shining example of bravery, justice and freedom, especially when it comes to its track record with people in the middle east. The same applies to most other western nations.

Mutual respect is the basis to overcome the environment that breeds terrorism; military actions just attack the symptoms.

[Forever21]

We are so kind for letting him to live long enough to watch the Royal Wedding.

[Elus]

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

The problem is that "civilized justice" doesn't even have access to all evildoers. In this instance he was protected by 2 governments. This is a political problem, and unlike the technical issue, I don't see it being fixed anytime soon. There will always be rogue government, and if there isn't, the whole world is likely ruled by some sort of tyranny.

A government that chooses to protect terrorists is one which the global superpowers will challenge by force in order to subdue it, I agree. It is evident that a humane approach will not exist until all governments are amenable to negotiation. I don't think you have any proof that a rogue government will always exist, as you can't see into the future. I think we'll let time reveal that for us instead.

Quote

We can only be humane when we control the situation, and the reality is that there are a lot of situations out of our control. For instance, would this man have chosen to surrender at all, whatever the situation ?

Alas, humanity only extends to the civilized world (to some extent), and outside that the world is indeed Hobbesian. So unless the world chooses or is forced to "civilize", violence is inevitable. This is why even the most peaceful countries have armies.

Osama would not have chosen to surrender, but he wouldn't have had to. The idea is to capture, not kill, criminals. You don't have to use lethal weapons against criminals. You can use weapons which immobilize the victim and get them to a treatment facility.

I think in the future, as information technology continues to link societies and communities, we will see the expansion of the 'civilized' world. Again, we'll have to see what the future holds. The ability to more humanely deal with international criminals is contingent on the cooperation of the global community.

Quote

He attended secular schools and university. He could have done anything he wanted, he was not forced into anything.
Your theory of a "rallying point" is rubbish. Making them angrier can only make it easier to flush them out.

He could not have done anything he wanted. Free will is something we think we have, but we really don't. Your behavior and actions are determined by your genes and environment. If you were raised in a Muslim family, and happen to encounter a particularly influential source for extremist ideals without questioning those ideals and their assumptions first, you may well find yourself on the way to becoming just like him. I don't know who or what made him the way he is, but something did. Something over-rode his better judgement and corrupted him. Whether it was his genes, or bad experiences with westerners, there was something that made him the way he was. Once you realize that it really is genes and environment which govern your behavior, you reach the rather uncomfortable conclusion that no one can truly be blamed for a crime. Life is full of these unpleasant truths - I learned that god and Santa do not exist, and that if I die, it's game over forever; it's unfortunate, but the universe doesn't care too much about what we think. Free will was one of those hurdles which I had the most trouble overcoming... it was harder than discontinuing my belief in Santa or god. In fact, I still grapple with it from time to time.  

Whether or not Osama's death will serve as a rallying point remains to be seen. His death may motivate his followers to kill more people, and be more careful about how they go about it so as to preserve what is left of their organization. We're playing a speculation game, at this point. Many things could happen with his followers.

My main point is that we shouldn't be celebrating the death of an individual like Osama. He's a human being who fell into circumstances that made him a monster. As much as we'd like to think that the villains choose to become who they are, perhaps to feed on our comfortable feeling of being righteous, it's an illusion. He didn't pick to be born into those circumstances. And every choice he made during his life, was based on some previous experience which told him how to make that choice, and so on ad infinitum back to his very inception. The dude got a bad plate in life - if someone went up to me and shot me, I might be mad at first, but I'd realize that it was his circumstances that led him to shoot me, and I wouldn't be mad in the long run.

[rwac]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

My main point is that we shouldn't be celebrating the death of an individual like Osama. He's a human being who fell into circumstances that made him a monster. As much as we'd like to think that the villains choose to become who they are, perhaps to feed on our comfortable feeling of being righteous, it's an illusion. He didn't pick to be born into those circumstances. And every choice he made during his life, was based on some previous experience which told him how to make that choice, and so on ad infinitum back to his very inception. The dude got a bad plate in life - if someone went up to me and shot me, I might be mad at first, but I'd realize that it was his circumstances that led him to shoot me, and I wouldn't be mad in the long run.

In that case, we didn't choose to kill him either, it was just inevitable. As I'm forced to cheer ...

[chris w]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

He could not have done anything he wanted. Free will is something we think we have, but we really don't. Your behavior and actions are determined by your genes and environment.

Even if free will is an illusion (which may very well be so) the fact is that we have built a whole civilisation around that illusion, and the alternative to this isn't too enticing, if society followed the determinist perspective to its logical conclusion, it would most probably collapse, so individuals need to be treated as they were not merely puppets driven by outside forces, but actors who can be charged with responsibility for their actions, there simply isn't any other option if we are to thrive.  

If it was up to me, I'd lock him up in a remote island until his last breath, but I'm also not morally judgemental of people who lost loved ones in attacks he orchestrated entertaining animal vengeful instincts and rejoicing with his death either.

I understand that in this particular situation it wasn't technically viable to seize him alive, and even with his influence weakened in the last years, his mind was still a formidable danger to innocents thus taking his life was, I think, the defendable thing to do, once the opportunity presented itself. One should not find satisfaction with such state of affairs, but should as well acknowledge that this is how things are in the current reality. It is possible to fight monsters while not becoming one, but rarely is it to do so successfully with hands completely clean.

.....


And Pakistanis have shitloads of explaining to do.

[Elus]

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

In that case, we didn't choose to kill him either, it was just inevitable. As I'm forced to cheer ...

I see my hypocrisy.


On the one hand, I argue that Osama bin Laden cannot be blamed for his actions because they are a result of his genes/environment. On the other hand, I reprimand others for celebrating his death, which is an action that also results from genes/environment and therefore should, by definition, not be culpable.

Definitely something I'll give more thought to.

[caliban]

No doubt this issue is of emotive interest not least to those who were affected by Islamic terrorism. Its great to see our typical mix of debate & agreement, banter & deep thought   .  

It also throws up some interesting challenges in Immortalism. I leave aside the question raised implicitly by Elus when an Immortalist would prefer to cause another persons death as the best means of effecting justice (Although it is interesting that termination was evidently deemed preferable to capture in this case).    

Instead: It has often been alleged that aging is required to rid the world of tyrants. Would Bin Ladens death have a different (morally less desirable?) quality had he died peacefully from 'natural causes' at this point? If yes, where does that leave the argument and how does it inform an immortalists approach to proactive killing?

[chris w]

caliban, on 03 May 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

(Although it is interesting that termination was evidently deemed preferable to capture in this case).

Yes, I thought that was due to technical reasons of heavy armed resistance, but now it turns out the actual final stage of the operation had a somewhat grotesque flavor to it:

Quote

Panetta said that bin Laden made "some threatening moves that clearly represented a clear threat to our guys. And that's the reason they fired."

Carney filled in details about the assault, saying that bin Laden did resist the commandos, although he was not armed. One of bin Laden's wives, Carney said, was in the room and tried to charge at the U.S. assaulters

.

Supposedly there were also 23 children (age not precised) and 9 women in the compound during the assault.



His trial would be an interesting legal spectacle to watch in itself, had he been taken alive.

[Logan]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

Many people are not ever going to respond to reformation, thus there will always be a reason for jail.  Sometimes the damage done is too deep seated and severe to repair, that's just reality.  Just think about all the high functioning people in society that don't even have apparent deep seated issues, but still have issues they should resolve.  These people even have a hard time successfully making it through therapy.

[Logan]

I think we should have and easily could have taken Osam Bin Laden into custody.

[The Immortalist]

I wish they could have taken him alive and made him go to through a trial. it would have been very interesting to watch.

[Brafarality]

The only people that disturbed me were those who represent ignorance and violence at its worst: those who spontaneously celebrated in the streets afterward:
You can be rest assured that every last one of them is a useless violent, dangerous burden on society, likely Republican, likely in the NRA, likely a promoter of the awful patriotism=ignorance correlation that hicks are diehard about, since they want to feel that they are patriotic, but do nothing for the country, stay ignorant, dont better themselves, dont become software engineers or NASA scientists, or anything like that, but remain as they are but still want to feel patriotic and that they are for America.
They are not: Their stagnation hurts us more than any radical political viewpoint.
Those people I have a problem with and they are the ones who celebrate the death of another, even if that other is an enemy. Their violent souls danced in the streets.
It was also horrifying when footage was shown of some people in the Middle East dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. I didnt feel any violence toward them, not like a nasty ignorant hick would feel, but I felt they represented the worst of humanity at that moment.
That is: there is no free pass for disenfranchised poor people who have been bullied by the US for as long as anyone can remember.
ALL who celebrate death are unenlightened. You have to be better than that.
True, the 9/11 attacks killed civilians whereas this recent raid killed a sworn enemy of the US who admitted to orchestrating large-scale attacks, but it doesnt matter. Celebrating death is never enlightened. It is never civilized.

Edited by Brafarality, 06 May 2011 - 05:35 PM.

[The Immortalist]

Brafarality, on 06 May 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

The only people that disturbed me were those who represent ignorance and violence at its worst: those who spontaneously celebrated in the streets afterward:
You can be rest assured that every last one of them is a useless violent, dangerous burden on society, likely Republican, likely in the NRA, likely a promoter of the awful patriotism=ignorance correlation that hicks are diehard about, since they want to feel that they are patriotic, but do nothing for the country, stay ignorant, dont better themselves, dont become software engineers or NASA scientists, or anything like that, but remain as they are but still want to feel patriotic and that they are for America.
They are not: Their stagnation hurts us more than any radical political viewpoint.
Those people I have a problem with and they are the ones who celebrate the death of another, even if that other is an enemy. Their violent souls danced in the streets.
It was also horrifying when footage was shown of some people in the Middle East dancing in the streets after the 9/11 attacks. I didnt feel any violence toward them, not like a nasty ignorant hick would feel, but I felt they represented the worst of humanity at that moment.
That is: there is no free pass for disenfranchised poor people who have been bullied by the US for as long as anyone can remember.
ALL who celebrate death are unenlightened. You have to be better than that.
True, the 9/11 attacks killed civilians whereas this recent raid killed a sworn enemy of the US who admitted to orchestrating large-scale attacks, but it doesnt matter. Celebrating death is never enlightened. It is never civilized.

Your right dude, celebrating someones death(no matter who it is) and parading in the streets is just pure barbarism.

[Rational Madman]

chris w, on 02 May 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

Some experts were of the mind that he had been in fact dead already for some time now. They should release detailed autopsy data ASAP to clear any suspicions that this might some epic publicity stunt.

http://edition.cnn.c...bin.laden.raid/

Quote

(CNN) -- In the dark of night, U.S. helicopters approached a high-walled compound in Pakistan on a mission to capture or kill one of the world's most notorious terrorist leaders.

Less than 40 minutes later -- early Monday morning in Pakistan -- Osama bin Laden was dead, along with four others inside the complex, and the U.S. forces departed with the slain al Qaeda leader's body to fulfill a vow that originated shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

And as he announced the raid at the White House Sunday night, U.S. President Barack Obama called bin Laden's death "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al Qaeda."

One senior administration official called the investigative "team effort" and a "model of really seamless cooperation" across agencies.

This official and others briefed reporters on further details on the assault on the compound, which they believe was built five years ago for the specific purpose of hiding bin Laden.

The compound is in Abbottabad, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) north of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The city sits in a mountainous region of Pakistan and is not heavily populated. Many of the residents are army personnel.

While senior administration officials would not offer a breakdown of the U.S. mission's composition, a senior defense official said U.S. Navy SEALs were involved.

After years of intelligence work and months of following a specific lead, they traced a courier linked to bin Laden to the compound in Abbottabad.

When first built, the compound was secluded and reachable by only a dirt road, the officials said. In recent years, more residences built up around it, but it remained by far the largest and most heavily secured property in the area, they said.

The mission ordered Friday by Obama encountered outer walls up to 18 feet tall topped with barbed wire, with two security gates and a series of internal walls that sectioned off different portions of the compound, the senior administration officials said. The main structure was a three-story building with few windows facing the outside of the compound, and a third-floor terrace had a seven-foot privacy wall, they said.

Months of intelligence work determined that the compound was custom-built to hide a high-value terrorism suspect, almost certainly bin Laden. The officials noted there was no telephone or internet service at the dwelling, which was valued at more than $1 million, and its occupants burned their trash rather than leave it out for collection as other area residents did.

Calling the U.S. operation a surgical raid, officials said it was conducted by a small team and designed to minimize collateral damage. Upon landing, the team encountered resistance from bin Laden and three other men that resulted in a firefight.

In the end, all four of the combatants in the compound were dead, along with a woman whom one of the men used as a human shield, the officials said.

At some point, one of the assaulting helicopters crashed due to a mechanical failure, according to the officials. It was destroyed as the U.S. team flew away, they said.

Obama and the senior administration officials said no U.S. forces were harmed in the operation, which took place very early Monday morning Pakistan time.
U.S. officials said they used a number of methods to identify the body as bin Laden.

One official said it was clear to the assault force that the body matched bin Laden's description, but they used "facial recognition work, amongst other things, to confirm the identity."

A senior national security official told CNN that they had multiple confirmations that the body was bin Laden, saying they had the "ability to run images of the body and the face."

Another U.S. official told CNN that bin Laden has already been buried at sea. The official said his body was handled in the Islamic tradition, but did not elaborate.

A senior administration official also said bin Laden's body would be "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition. This is something that we take very seriously, and so therefore this is being handled in an appropriate manner."

According to the senior administration officials, intelligence work determined at the beginning of 2011 that bin Laden might be located at the compound in Pakistan. By mid-February, the intelligence was considered strong enough to begin considering action pledged by Obama when bin Laden's whereabouts had been determined.

To discuss that intelligence and develop a plan, Obama chaired five National Security Council meetings from mid-March until late April, with the last two on April 19 and April 28 -- last Thursday. The next day, on Friday, Obama gave the order for the mission, the officials said.

The key break involved one of the few couriers trusted by bin Laden, according to the officials. About two years ago, intelligence work identified where the courier and his brother lived and operated in Pakistan, and it took until August of last year to find the compound in Abbottabad raided Sunday, they said.

"When we saw the compound where the brothers lived, we were shocked by what we saw -- an extraordinarily unique compound," one senior administration official said. "The compound sits on a large plot of land in an area that was relatively secluded when it was built. It is roughly eight times larger than the other homes in the area."

Noting that the courier and his brother had no discernible source of wealth to live at such a property, intelligence analysts concluded the compound was "custom-built to hide someone of extraordinary significance," the official said, adding: "Everything was consistent with what experts thought Osama bin Laden's compound would look like."

Another senior administration official told reporters that Obama's administration did not share intelligence gathered beforehand with any other country -- including Pakistan -- for security reasons. The official said that only a small group of people inside the U.S government knew about this operation in advance.

However, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said members of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, were on site in Abbottabad during the operation. There was no way to immediately resolve the apparent discrepancy.

Interesting little detail - they got rid of the body

http://www.guardian....body-buried-sea

Quote

The dilemma of what to do with Osama bin Laden's body appears to have been quickly resolved if reports that he has been buried at sea prove correct.

Burying him on land could have led to his grave becoming a centre of contention as well as raising questions about where he should be buried.

"Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult," a US official said, adding: "So the US decided to bury him at sea."

Fears about Bin Laden's burial place turning into a shrine for Islamists were probably unfounded, since the Wahhabi/Salafi tradition rejects such things. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves.

Senior US officials initially told news agencies that his body would be disposed of in accordance with Islamic tradition, which involves ritual washing, shrouding and burial within 24 hours.

Although the swift burial complies with Islamic custom and should therefore avoid causing any offence in Muslim countries, the apparent haste could lead to claims that the person killed was not really Bin Laden – though the US authorities have taken DNA samples and appear to have no doubts.

The 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial.

Burial at sea is rare in Islam, though several Muslim websites say it is permitted in certain circumstances.

One is on a long voyage where the body may decay before the ship reaches land. The other is if there is a risk of enemies digging up a land grave and exhuming or mutilating the body – a rule that could plausibly be applied in Bin Laden's case.

For sea burial, according to alislam.org, the body should be lowered into the water "in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet". The website adds: "As far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators."

No matter the weight of evidence, conspiracy theorists will often cling quite stubbornly to their invariably deluded views, so I don't imagine that much can be done to satiate fringe groups.  But assuming that there is some credence to their suspicions, I find it hard to believe that a very image conscious White House would risk the inevitable political consequences of such a massive deception, which given the powerful feelings that Bin Laden's death---and life----elicited, would effectively neutralize any policy achievements that this administration can claim credit, and force a tsunami like wave of resignations that would almost certainly reach the top of the hierarchy.  And while the sea side burial may add volume to cries of conspiracy theorists, I believe it served the pragmatic purpose of preventing a creation of a shrine for his sympathizers, and while experts continue to disagree, was still consistent with instructions found in the Quran and denominational hadiths.

Edited by Rol82, 08 May 2011 - 10:29 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

Death isn't something to be celebrated, no matter the individual. In a world where we are shaped by our genes and environment, how much blame are you willing to assign? Had the man grown up elsewhere, how would he have turned out? Had he different genes, how might he have experienced his environment, and what kind of person might he have been?

I find it odd that many are so jubilant. I see nothing happy or hopeful in the fact that this man's life was extinguished. Perhaps this was the only way, since reason hardly resonates with extremist ideology, and force is necessary in a struggle to maintain the freedoms that humans cherish. However, just because these desperate measures were carried out does not warrant celebration of his death. Rather, it is a moment to reflect on the unfortunate reality of the situation - that we had to resort to violence, rather than negotiation, to achieve peace.

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead. When we direct our hatred at villains, we tend to forget that they too were once children, and that it takes other people to forge the malice that he held so dear.

I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

Brokenportal, I respectfully ask that you reconsider the perspective of your first post.

In addition to my dubiousness about the strategic value of Bin Laden's death, I too am appalled by the unbecoming displays of blood lust.  However, I doubt that the majority of celebrants are driven by the pleasure that they might derive from Bin Laden's death.  Rather, the rejoicing over his death is symbolic of a faith in the resilience of the United States, and its remarkable ability to defy odds in struggles where many have lost faith.  Indeed, while the loss of life on September 11th could be fairly deemed a trivial event in the history of human suffering, the psychological wounds of the attack shouldn't be underestimated, because they humbled a hegemon that was perhaps at the height of its power, and traumatized a population that had been qualitatively spared from costly and formative attacks against their homeland.  These wounds triggered a torrent of fury that took ten years to find one its principal targets----in spite of a mountain of appropriations, and with the passing of Bin Laden, the therapeutic effect may appreciably calm this protracted storm.  In the context of warfare--albeit unconventional---Bin Laden's death merely constitutes a victory that many hope will be a step forward in the resolution resolution of hostilities, which given the commanding and costly impact of the conflict, is an understandable sentiment.  So in this case, I think some celebration is both appropriate and natural, provided that we pay heed to the lessons of the last ten years, and not allow ourselves to be once again captivated by hysterical jingoism.

[Rational Madman]

The Immortalist, on 02 May 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

brokenportal, on 02 May 2011 - 04:54 AM, said:

Its a great day to be alive. Bin Laden is dead today.

Its an amazing day.

And live under Stephen Harper's reign of terror?

[Rational Madman]

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

The man, a product of his environment and genes, is dead.
...
I hope that one day, we will be able to resolve conflicts without the need for barbaric violence. To reform criminals that seek to harm other life, rather than to merely jail them or exterminate them.

This wasn't just some guy who got angry. This man had a significant hand in creating, funding AQ and organizing many terrorist attacks. Hardly the helpless "product of his environment". I can't believe I have to explain this.

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

Indeed, a privileged life in one of the most prominent families in Saudi Arabia doesn't strike me as a typical breeding ground for terrorism.  But I doubt the environment has much causal weight in any case, because as the remarkable work of Adam Lankford has discovered, there seems to be a striking correlation between mental illness and acts of terrorism.  For example, the behavior of Bin Laden and several members of his family is consistent with manic depressive and schizoid disorders, and his dissident son, Omar, was recently hospitalized for schizophrenia related complications.  Although the findings are preliminary, there maybe a time when the whole "product of their environment" thesis---as it relates to terrorism---is jettisoned.

Edited by Rol82, 08 May 2011 - 04:59 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Elus, on 02 May 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

rwac, on 02 May 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

This wasn't just some guy who got angry. This man had a significant hand in creating, funding AQ and organizing many terrorist attacks. Hardly the helpless "product of his environment". I can't believe I have to explain this.

How exactly do you suggest we resolve conflicts with barbarians ?

We are all products of our genes and our environment. Unless you're religious and subscribe to the notion of a soul, then there is nothing else left to determine who you are and what you will become. As I pointed out, in this day and age, we are pigeon-holed into using force to resolve such conflicts.

In another day and age, we may be able to treat people who are murderous and violent through a greater understanding of the brain. We could use this understanding to make a change in their biochemistry which reduces this behavior. Also, people of the future will have greater access to knowledge and that could in turn lead to greater moral understanding which would prevent such mishaps in the first place. It is a given that people like Osama are a danger to civilized society; therefore, they must be dealt with or removed. Given the choice, I believe most would choose to have a minor brain alteration (As will probably be common for recreational purposes), in order to be allowed back into society.


More on point, I don't death is something to be gloried, even if it is Osama who is dying. We cannot stoop to the level of an eye for an eye. Two wrongs do not make a right. To glorify an execution of a criminal is to glorify society-wide retribution for some act that the criminal has committed. If we want to move forward as a species, we have to look beyond the "easy", band aid solutions, and begin looking for something more humane. Given how precious life is on this planet, why must we perpetuate a cycle of violence that destroys even more life? No, I think it is our job not only to mourn these kind of situations where force is required, but to look for new solutions using our science and technology.

All I'm asking is that you not celebrate the death of men such as this. They are sick men, but they are also human. Much like a person who grows up with religious parents and is indoctrinated in that religion before his critical faculties develop, so too were these men raised in spheres polluted by hatred when they were young. They did not question the hatred, and it took over. We cannot redirect the hatred back at them, because that would promote the vicious cycle. In fact, Osama's death will be a rallying point for the resistance against US military occupation, and we've ultimately made life harder for ourselves by executing Osama.

Biochemical intervention is a promising avenue, but it would be pretty difficult to inoculate a population of potential terrorists, especially when you consider the dire situations of the states they emanate from.  Additionally, several inmates at Guantanamo Bay have been administered psychotropic drugs, which for the most part, have yielded disappointing results.  However, I imagine a more intensive therapy may offer more promising outcomes.  But before that happens, there has to be sufficient evidence that behavior modification---be it pharmacological or through psychosurgery---can work for such subjects.

As for your second point, I share your abhorrence for acts of violence, and would prefer that less costly tools of policy be considered first.  But you can't be naive enough to think that a pacifistic posture will greatly reduce the incidence of violence and be without substantial costs.  Rather, there are immutable qualities in our nature and with the structure of our international system that will make violence a constant feature of daily living.  Which with these realities, presents peace loving individuals with the unpleasant dilemma of either watching a city being ransacked, or intervening on the behalf of the besieged.  As this relates to Al-Qaeda, principled pacifism carries the risk of exposing populations to tyrannically regressive rule, unremitting violence, compounding the fragility of the international marketplace, creating an environment where deviant state actors and non-state actors are allowed to behave with impunity, and trivializing the international laws and institutions meant to promote peace and stability.  So by punishing Al-Qaeda, the system that we've created for deterring conflict is bolstered, because such a response transmits a signal to other actors that acts of violence will not be a cost-free enterprise, which as a consequence, modifies their behavior in an admittedly difficult to quantify way.  But is this system working? Judging by the incidence of interstate and intrastate violence, and the number of attributable deaths as a percentage of the population, I think it would be fair to say yes.  Because in consideration of just these two criterions, it has been proposed that we're  living in the most peaceful period in recorded history.  Of course, this relatively more peaceful state is not owing entirely to military intervention and extended deterrence, but I think there is little ground to devalue it to a marginal variable.

Further, I think it would be a mistake to reduce the motivations of terrorist organizations monocausally to the ostensible "imperialism"---or whatever one wants to call it---of the West.  To be sure, there almost certainly will be a response to his death, but when an organization is deprived of a galvanizing figure like Bin Laden, its operational capacity will probably be degraded----depending on organizational developments---- to a state far less than it would've been if it was left unmolested.  And although its a matter of some debate, I think the evidence supports the use of decapitation strategies as being more palatable, and sometimes more effective than some of the more conventional choices---like overwhelming force.  

As an additional note, I'd be careful of your use of the word "occupation," because it suggests that a majority of the host population wants us to depart---which is definitely not supported by the polling data---and that we're operating without the sanction of the ruling government, which is also clearly not true.  In fact, the Taliban fares quite poorly in surveys---never managing to gain the support of more than 10%---and when given the choice of a Karzai government or a return to Taliban rule, the overwhelming majority of the population supports the former option.  The Brookings Institution reports provide a fairly reliable picture of the country's mood, and more often than not, so do the surveys conducted by the BBC.  How are they successful then?  They subdue populations through force, and capitalize on the failings of governments.

Just an observation---and not directed at Elus, but I've found self-described pacifists to be quite indifferent to the suffering of populations abroad.  Which is more than a bit counterintuitive I suppose, and greatly diminishes their credibility.  In my view, those that truly loath warfare are the ones willing to use force sufficient to make the act almost unthinkable.

Edited by Rol82, 08 May 2011 - 11:50 PM.