Osama Bin Laden is dead

Sgt Meowenstein said:

He was in Tora Bora 8 years ago. We never knew where he went after he escaped. Bush failed. Obama picked up what was left and finished the job that Bush couldn't.

Click to expand...

Okay...Tora Bora (actually it was 10 years ago) was a ****up of massive proportions, but it was another example of people trying and failing, not an example of people not trying hard enough.

Sgt Meowenstein said:

He was in Tora Bora 8 years ago. We never knew where he went after he escaped. Bush failed. Obama picked up what was left and finished the job that Bush couldn't.

Click to expand...

But will you give George Bush the credit for waterboarding the terrorists for the necessary information? If not for him they never would have found the couriers who finally led them to Osama.

Grant said:

But will you give George Bush the credit for waterboarding the terrorists for the necessary information? If not for him they never would have found the couriers who finally led them to Osama.

Click to expand...

Is there any evidence to back up your claim that this actionable intelligence was obtained through torture?

Grant said:

But will you give George Bush the credit for waterboarding the terrorists for the necessary information? If not for him they never would have found the couriers who finally led them to Osama.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly how the story is being reported... Except on Fox, of course...

StillBallin75 said:

Is there any evidence to back up your claim that this actionable intelligence was obtained through torture?

Click to expand...

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com

I'm not sure it was waterboarding, but he did talk after it was used, and it wasnt used after he started, and kept, talking. What I find interesting is that the supervisors noted he really started talking after harsh interrogation, while KSM contradicts that by saying he lied about information while being tortured.

Not sure what to conclude about it.

obvious Child said:

It doesn't matter what we think. It matters what the Arab and Muslim world thinks. An international tribunal with Muslim lawyers prosecuting him would absolutely be a crushing blow to Islamic Radicalism. Only an idiot (and many here) think this can be done by pure military operations. The real war is not on the physical battlefield. It's in the minds of our potential enemies. Israel knows this. It's won almost every war. Has it found real, genuine peace?

Click to expand...

Guess what? I could care less what people that wish to kill us here think. I could care less.

hazlnut said:

I thought you were talking about Turtle.

Click to expand...

We can dream. haha. Just kidding Turtle if you see this:2razz::lamo

repeter said:

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com

I'm not sure it was waterboarding, but he did talk after it was used, and it wasnt used after he started, and kept, talking. What I find interesting is that the supervisors noted he really started talking after harsh interrogation, while KSM contradicts that by saying he lied about information while being tortured.

Not sure what to conclude about it.

Click to expand...

In my military history class a few years ago, my professor invited a CIA case officer (also a former Marine and former student of the same class) to give a guest lecture to the class. He said it was NEVER okay to torture, and that the "ticking time-bomb scenario" (which is a one-in-a million chance contrived scenario in the first place) and for which many envision torture to be useful could be avoided if one had done their homework the right way up until that point.

To me, torture represents doing things the convenient and easy way, rather than doing things the right way. It is un-American and goes against our values. The ticking time-bomb scenario is the ONLY scenario for which I would even consider saying that torture is justified. And who's to say that the same intelligence couldn't have been obtained without torture, with a little more time and patience?

StillBallin75 said:

In my military history class a few years ago, my professor invited a CIA case officer (also a former Marine and former student of the same class) to give a guest lecture to the class. He said it was NEVER okay to torture, and that the "ticking time-bomb scenario" (which is a one-in-a million chance contrived scenario in the first place) and for which many envision torture to be useful could be avoided if one had done their homework the right way up until that point.

To me, torture represents doing things the convenient and easy way, rather than doing things the right way. It is un-American and goes against our values. The ticking time-bomb scenario is the ONLY scenario for which I would even consider saying that torture is justified. And who's to say that the same intelligence couldn't have been obtained without torture, with a little more time and patience?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, however there is still the apparent evidence that waterboarding produced some results, after however long.

hazlnut said:

That's not exactly how the story is being reported... Except on Fox, of course...

Click to expand...

Actually I just heard it on ABC news,
The KSM waterbording got a nickname of a courier and through intelligence they found out his name and tapped his phone and found the OBL hideout, this all started 4 years ago.

I work for an ABC Agency in DC and back in 2002-3 we were in a briefing, a general started a slide show and about half way a question was asked about why Iraq and not Afghanistan.. The Generals answer..
"Iraq is a Battleground we have experience in, we have trained there, we have bases there. Its a location that is Central to the region and we can draw the terrorist there instead of on US Soil. Were fighting a group not a country so we need a battle field that we know, Afghanistan is to hard to get to, Turkey will not allow military sorties from their bases, Pakistan is not trustworthy so Iraq make a perfect location to fight the terrorist" I am paraphrasing of course but it's close.

As far as water boarding, have you ever seen one done, I have, it is not painful just scary, the person is never submerged, the back of their head is in a bowl of water, like they are getting a hair washing, then a rag is placed over their face and water is poured over the rag give you the sensation that you are going to drown. No big deal.
not compared to what the enemy does, starvation, beatings and sometimes decapitation.

Grant said:

But will you give George Bush the credit for waterboarding the terrorists for the necessary information? If not for him they never would have found the couriers who finally led them to Osama.

Click to expand...

According to news reports, the intel that gave us bin Laden's possible position was aquired in 2010. Bush was already out of office.

Administration officials also said it was not until August 2010 that U.S. authorities learned the location of the fortified mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where U.S. special forces troops killed bin Laden during a commando raid on Sunday.

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

According to news reports, the intel that gave us bin Laden's possible position was aquired in 2009. Bush was already out of office.

Click to expand...

You have a link for this dan?

Edit: thanks, I see it.

StillBallin75 said:

You have a link for this dan?

Click to expand...

Yea, and I was wrong. It was 2010 when we aquired this information. Bush had been out of office a year longer than I thought. LOL. Of note, torture was prohibited beginning in 2009, although Bush did takes steps towards eliminating it during his second term.

I have updated my last post and provided the link. Shame on me for pulling facts out of my ass the first time. LOL.

gekaap said:

Obama directed our attention to be refocused on finding bin Laden, and made it a top priority for the agencies under his direction --then why did he increase the number of troops in Iraq?
Obama gave the orders to devote more resources to finding bin Laden than our country had committed toward that end in years links?
Obama recieved the intel, evaluated the intel, and maked the ultimate decisions on what intel to pursue or not pursue links? Obama did nothing more than be briefed and told what should be done. Any idiot can do that job.
Obama made the decisions on when to make a military strike, and ordered the military into action And he should get credit for saying, Go get 'em? Well I'll say it next time, so I can get the credit!
Obama gave the orders to kill bin Laden, as opposed to taking him into custody alive show me any credible proof that Bush wanted bin Laden alive. This is utter bull****.

Click to expand...

I don't give Bush credit for capturing Saddam, nor Obama credit for killing Bin Laden. Obama was briefed on intelligence gathered by people who put their lives in grave danger. You can brief a potplant, but that doesn't make the potplant the one who should get the credit. Obama didn't plan, coordinate or execute any part of that mission. He simply had the authority to make it happen. That doesn't make it his puppy.

Had it gone terribly wrong, I wouldn't be blaming him, just like I don't blame him when civilians are killed in bombings in Libya, Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, I'm one of the only posters on this forum that completely supports his efforts in Libya and wishes he would step up the bombing. The only reason I would blame Clinton for the Blackhawk down incident is because he was directly involved in not sending in enough people to get the job done. Obama had nothing to do with that aspect of it. Obama made a gutsy move to use the seals, which was fine. But the outcome of the mission is out of his hands, thus the credit should be as well. I mean he made a good choice, but put credit where credit is due. He was sitting in a room watching it on a TV, and HE gets the credit? WTF? At most I would give him a very small amount of credit for his choice to use the seals. But bombing the entire complex would have killed bin Laden as well. So that choice really was like, whatever. We got good intelligence from it, so that was a good choice. Kudos for his choice.

If the president actively tries to go against the recommendations of the men with the boots on the ground and it goes FUBAR, then it's HIS puppy. But if all he says is yea go do that, or go do whatever you think is necessary to accomplish the mission, how in the hell can you blame the president if it goes wrong OR give him credit if it goes right? He's not a war planner. Certainly not a Navy seal. Hell, Obama never served in the military.

So don't use strawmen to argue against me. I will call you on it every time.

dontworrybehappy said:

10 characters

Click to expand...

Not that I agree with gekaap, but where exactly are you getting that Obama increased the number of troops in Iraq?

I think we have to own up to a few things:

1. Torture does in fact work sometimes.
2. It can only work when someone actually has information to give.
3. People who have no information will just give you a pack of lies.
4. America has long been guilty of using torture despite all rosy suggestions to the contrary.

All that said, the use of violent coercion in interrogations compromises basic human principles of compassion and should not be allowed even if it can successfully elicit information. We have and can acquire pertinent information with more gentle measures.

Grant said:

But will you give George Bush the credit for waterboarding the terrorists for the necessary information? If not for him they never would have found the couriers who finally led them to Osama.

Click to expand...

No, because the intel that was finally provided was obtained using traditional interrogational methods.

Kali said:

Guess what? I could care less what people that wish to kill us here think. I could care less.

Click to expand...

o_0 So you're saying that all Muslims want to kill us?

Kali said:

The American soldiers who killed this bastard should be the ones get the credit. Not Bush and Not Obama. I already talked to my mom who said she hopes Obama does not take all the credit as Bush was the one who started this:roll:

Click to expand...

People crack me up with this. Bush doesn't deserve anything. He sat on his behind while the attacks were underway. If he had acted faster, they would have caught Bin Laden shortly after the attacks on the border of Pakistan. Obama took the risk and gave the order with the intelligence on hand. That was a risky call, and it panned out. He acted on his hunch, something Bush has never done. The credit should to the intelligence gatherers, the Seals, and the President for acting in a timely fashion. All of the Bush loyalist need to get over Obama's color. He is the President of the United States, and your president made one of the gutsiest calls since Truman. Period!

The End.

Demon of Light said:

I think we have to own up to a few things:

1. Torture does in fact work sometimes.
2. It can only work when someone actually has information to give.
3. People who have no information will just give you a pack of lies.
4. America has long been guilty of using torture despite all rosy suggestions to the contrary.

All that said, the use of violent coercion in interrogations compromises basic human principles of compassion and should not be allowed even if it can successfully elicit information. We have and can acquire pertinent information with more gentle measures.

Click to expand...

An ends justifies the means speech doesn't fully apply to this situation. It was mainly teamwork, solidarity and careful planning that brought this mission to a success; and even then there was a long fight at the end. As for torture itself, detainees will cough up any information they have, whether or not it's true, just to stop their own suffering. If the U.S. has been engaged in torture, it also means that a lot has been expended in wild goose chases behind the scenes, given the inconsistency of torture confessions. They got lucky and someone had a key piece of real info about Osama, but I'm concerned about how many people we had to resolutely go through before we arrived at that finding. The public may never know.

The interrogation programs are a bit far reaching. There have been more security treaties signed between the U.S. and other nations in the past 10 years than since the Cold War. Our CIA have been plucking people from all over and detaining them without trial. How many people from around the world have we tortured ceaselessly until we arrived at what we wanted?

If anything, this take down shows that the U.S. government is merciless and relentless about getting what it wants. This time was a victory for us, but citizens should remain vigilant at all times about what our government is capable of - which is ANYTHING.

hazlnut said:

That's not exactly how the story is being reported... Except on Fox, of course...

Click to expand...

I've read reports from several sources that cite 2003 and 2006 as the years that key intelligence regarding the couriers began to come together.

I just have one thing to say on this subject and I'll leave it at that...

It's about damn time. I only wished he was taken out much sooner.

Also to the people saying Bush needs to be credited for anything




Face Palms! He was not wanting too find the asshole in the first place. Just please give credit were credit is due which is not to Bush. Its due to the fact of the military man and women that we caught him, and due to the fact we were actually looking for him. I'm a Liberal but I give credit to Republicans a lot in my post but this is something I doubt he deserves credit for since he wasn't even looking for the guy.

RyrineaHaruno said:

Also to the people saying Bush needs to be credited for anything




Face Palms!

Click to expand...

Except that entire "argument" can be completely eradicated by the fact that the men who provide the information on Osama's courier, which led to his death, were captured, detained, and questioned for that information during Bush's presidency. The "spy work" which led to locating the courier and questioning him was done during Obama's. Without one, there would not have been another.

Also, the question Bush was asked to which that response was given matters. The answer means two entirely different things if the question is, "won't bin laden attack again soon if we don't get him?" or "are we making any efforts to get him?"

The intel that led to the shooting of bin laden was first attained in 2007 when the courier was detained and subsequently tracked...this all began before Obama was even President and the Policy of Wire tapping and others that GW BUSH put in place is what led to the end of Bin Laden...just give credit where its really due for once liberals.