Bin Im Laden probably works in some obscure northern English accent too! Superb!
But this whole drama has launched an awesome new WW x D. WWSTSD? (What would Seal team six do?)
HG
Thereâve been a few intriguing stories this week, two of which may or may not be related to the raid. The first one has to do with the arrest earlier this year of Umar Patek, one of the suspected Bali bombing perpetrators. It turns out he was caught in Abbottabad:
[quote]This week, Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Indonesiaâs Defence Minister, said that Umar Patek, one of the men accused of carrying out the 2002 Bali bombings in which more than 200 people were killed, had made his way to this garrison town to meet with the leader of al-Qaâida.
Another official said that the terror suspect had hoped Bin Laden would give him shelter. âThe information we have is that Umar Patek was in Pakistan with his Filipino wife trying to meet Osama bin Laden,â Mr Yusgiantoro told reporters.[/quote]âAndrew Buncombe, âHow another terror suspect turned up in Abbottabad,â The Independent, May 6, 2011
A couple of fairly important Al Qaeda members were killed just a few days after Osama was killed:
[quote]Yemenâs defense ministry confirmed that two al Qaeda leaders were killed in a province where the militant network is active, identifying them as two brothers, Musaâid and Abdullah Mubarak al-Daghari. But it gave no details as to how they died.
Some nearby residents said they saw a drone in the air at the time of the killing and that drones had been seen repeatedly in the area in recent days. Others reported seeing a rocket followed by an explosion on the ground.
A U.S. embassy spokeswoman, asked if Washington was involved in Thursdayâs strike, had no immediate comment. [/quote]âMohammed Mukhashaf, âTwo mid-level al Qaeda leaders killed in Yemen,â Reuters, May 5, 2011
This one is definitely related to the raid. Pakistani Army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, is talking about cutting the number of U. S. personnel in Pakistan, apparently in retaliation for the raid:
[quote]The Pakistani Army wants US soldiers out of the country and has warned any more unilateral raids on terrorist targets could end any co-operation between the two allies.
After a meeting of corps commanders in Rawalpindi, Pakistanâs Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, warned the raid that killed Osama bin Laden had put the US-Pakistan relationship in serious jeopardy.
ââAny similar action, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, will warrant a review on the level of military [and] intelligence co-operation with the United States,ââ General Kayani said. [/quote]âBen Doherty, âRelationship with US is on the line, warns top Pakistani general,â Sydney Morning Herald, May 7, 2011
Reminds me of a story, one that Iâd always thought was about Louisianaâs Governor O. K. Allen. Turns out I was wrong:
I suppose opinions vary on how advisable it is to remain dead. But at least one noted thinker has registered an opinion about dying a second time:
Me, I donât even want to die once, me. I guess Iâm just greedy.
We are getting tons of information (some which has been retracted - like he had a gun, he used a woman as a shield, etc)from the mainstream media and the liars at the White house who told us (when a different crew were holding the baton) that weapons of Mass destruction existed in Iraq.
And now we have some anonymous post on a forum page saying al-Quada (which is a concept) accept heâs dead itâs taken as credible proof by the media!
If someone was trying to take the evidence that Bin Laden was killed last week into a court of law, they would be a laughing stock.
What if tehe other side confirmed the news? Wuld you still doubt it?
[quote]Al-Qaâida confirms Bin Ladenâs death
Al-Qaâida confirmed the killing of Osama bin Laden today and vowed revenge, saying Americansâ âhappiness will turn to sadnessâ in the first statement by the terror network since its leader was killed in a US commando raid against his Pakistani hideout. [/quote]
Thatâs doubly good news! Letâs not forget that the Bali bombing impacted lives directly in Taiwan. I knew 2 people that travelled down for that weekend and were killed in that blast. Aside form having travelled to Bali many times and the thought of so many Balinese being killed, whenever I see anything referring to this event i get the smiling image of that bubbly barmaid from Saints and Sinners who was killed so pointlessly in the blast.
HG
[quote=âHuang Guang Chenâ]Thatâs doubly good news![/quote] Yeah, it is. I think the Pakistani government has him, though, but I donât think theyâve let him go (I guess theyâve temporarily âdisappearedâ him for reasons best known to them).
[quote]Letâs not forget that the Bali bombing impacted lives directly in Taiwan. I knew 2 people that travelled down for that weekend and were killed in that blast. [/quote] I wasnât aware of that. Very belatedly, Iâm very sorry for your loss.
[quote]Aside form having travelled to Bali many times and the thought of so many Balinese being killed, whenever I see anything referring to this event I get the smiling image of that bubbly barmaid from Saints and Sinners who was killed so pointlessly in the blast.
HG[/quote] Yeah, those al Qaeda guys really know how to âchange the mood from glad to sadnessâ (to steal a phrase from the late Jim Morrison). I guess thatâs their mission in life.
The second part of Obamaâs campaign promise (the first part was âWe will kill bin Ladenâ) was âWe will crush al Qaeda.â That sounds like a tall order, but I wish him success. If they could just be made irrelevant, Iâd consider that a success.
Iâm guessing, though, that the drone-as-aerial-hitbot thing creeps out a lot of ordinary Americans (including some relatively conservative Americans).
And at the risk of raising hackles (and repeating myself, but I donât think Iâve got Alzheimerâs just yet), I just wish weâd get the hell out of all of these places.
Our house is a mess!
No, it was a lot more prudent to kill him. His attack on the twin towers sealed his death warrant by whatever means necessary in the eyes of many.
Yeah, and the stupid jerk ICE officer who let Mohammed Attaâthe ring leader of the 19 terrorists that brought down the towersâenter the USA on an expired student visa is still at his cush federal job.
Still dead, still winning with the provoke a ridiculous reaction tactic.
Knock, knock. Hey guys, History, Truth in Advertising, and your ancestors are at the door. They say the jokeâs over: no more calling it âthe home of the braveâ. Oh, and from now on, theyâre âCivil Leftoversâ.
O come on thatâs a great practical joke. Gong to a conference against prejudice against Muslims and then being kicked out of the plane on the way to it. Giggle. Ups, I mean âhorrible, horribleâ
[quote=âCharlie Jackâ]
This one is definitely related to the raid. Pakistani Army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, is talking about cutting the number of U. S. personnel in Pakistan, apparently in retaliation for the raid:
[quote]The Pakistani Army wants US soldiers out of the country and has warned any more unilateral raids on terrorist targets could end any co-operation between the two allies.
After a meeting of corps commanders in Rawalpindi, Pakistanâs Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, warned the raid that killed Osama bin Laden had put the US-Pakistan relationship in serious jeopardy.
ââAny similar action, violating the sovereignty of Pakistan, will warrant a review on the level of military [and] intelligence co-operation with the United States,ââ General Kayani said. [/quote]âBen Doherty, âRelationship with US is on the line, warns top Pakistani general,â Sydney Morning Herald, May 7, 2011[/quote]
Could the US not just take their nukes or bomb their program into oblivion, pull out and leave them to keep jerking the Taliban off from time to time?
Even better, could they not label Pakistan as a rogue state, and throw a few bombs at them once in a while?
The whole Bin Laden affair stinks of Pakistani complicity.
They never took the bins out on a Monday where I lived!
[quote]Could the US not just take their nukes or bomb their program into oblivion, pull out and leave them to keep jerking the Taliban off from time to time?
Even better, could they not label Pakistan as a rogue state, and throw a few bombs at them once in a while?
The whole Bin Laden affair stinks of Pakistani complicity.[/quote]
The Pakistani nuclear bombs are not together. The components are split and kept apart only to be assembled when needed.
George Bush hunting for Osama:
I guess that just taking the key ones out, and telling them that if they ever try again they will get one nuke thrown at them free of charge may help.
[quote=âFoxâ][quote]Could the US not just take their nukes or bomb their program into oblivion, pull out and leave them to keep jerking the Taliban off from time to time?
Even better, could they not label Pakistan as a rogue state, and throw a few bombs at them once in a while?
The whole Bin Laden affair stinks of Pakistani complicity.[/quote]
The Pakistani nuclear bombs are not together. The components are split and kept apart only to be assembled when needed.
George Bush hunting for Osama:
[/quote]
Those are night vision.
John McCain on torture and the trail to bin Laden:
[quote=âWashington Postâ]Osama bin Ladenâs welcome death has ignited debate over whether the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on enemy prisoners were instrumental in locating bin Laden, and whether they are a justifiable means for gathering intelligence.
Much of this debate is a definitional one: whether any or all of these methods constitute torture. I believe some of them do, especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them.
[spoiler]I know those who approved and employed these practices were dedicated to protecting Americans. I know they were determined to keep faith with the victims of terrorism and to prove to our enemies that the United States would pursue justice relentlessly no matter how long it took.
I donât believe anyone should be prosecuted for having used these techniques, and I agree that the administration should state definitively that they wonât be. I am one of the authors of the Military Commissions Act, and we wrote into the legislation that no one who used or approved the use of these interrogation techniques before its enactment should be prosecuted. I donât think it is helpful or wise to revisit that policy.[/spoiler]
But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that âthe intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information â including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.â That is false.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti â the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden â as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmedâs real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of âenhanced interrogation techniquesâ on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator â none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee â information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaitiâs real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden â was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
[spoiler]I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear â true or false â if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops, who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and al-Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more conventional enemies, if not in this war then in the next.
Though it took a decade to find bin Laden, there is one consolation for his long evasion of justice: He lived long enough to witness what some are calling the Arab Spring, the complete repudiation of his violent ideology.
As we debate how the United States can best influence the course of the Arab Spring, canât we all agree that the most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation that holds an individualâs human rights as superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitutionâs prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.
All of these arguments have the force of right, but they are beside the most important point. Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate. This is a moral debate. It is about who we are.
I donât mourn the loss of any terroristâs life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us.[/spoiler][/quote]
I hope thereâs a serious repudiation of the torture years in the not too distant future.
Strong piece. Thanks for posting that one.
Edit: Mukaseyâs response, though brief, is also strong.
<---- This emoticon is not being employed as an ironic device.
In recent news:
[quote]The death toll from a double suicide bombing on a paramilitary police training centre in northwest Pakistan rose to 89 on Saturday, police said.
Pakistanâs Taliban said Fridayâs attack in the town of Shabqadar, which also wounded around 140 people, 40 of them critically, was to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US forces.
Pakistan lawmakers pledged Saturday there must be no repeat of the US commando raid that killed bin Laden and said drone strikes targeting terrorists near the border with Afghanistan must end.[/quote]âAgence France-Presse, âTaliban ârevengeâ toll rises to 89,â Emirates 24/7 Web site, May 13, 2011
Todayâs Taipei Times has the Associated Press version:
taipeitimes.com/News/front/archi ⌠2003503188
And hereâs BBCâs version:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13385597
Hereâs a brief Al Jazeera video on it:
[quote=âJaboneyâ]John McCain on torture and the trail to bin Laden:
[quote=âWashington Postâ]Osama bin Ladenâs welcome death has ignited debate over whether the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used on enemy prisoners were instrumental in locating bin Laden, and whether they are a justifiable means for gathering intelligence.
Much of this debate is a definitional one: whether any or all of these methods constitute torture. I believe some of them do, especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them.
[spoiler]I know those who approved and employed these practices were dedicated to protecting Americans. I know they were determined to keep faith with the victims of terrorism and to prove to our enemies that the United States would pursue justice relentlessly no matter how long it took.
I donât believe anyone should be prosecuted for having used these techniques, and I agree that the administration should state definitively that they wonât be. I am one of the authors of the Military Commissions Act, and we wrote into the legislation that no one who used or approved the use of these interrogation techniques before its enactment should be prosecuted. I donât think it is helpful or wise to revisit that policy.[/spoiler]
But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that âthe intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information â including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.â That is false.
I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti â the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden â as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmedâs real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.
In fact, the use of âenhanced interrogation techniquesâ on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator â none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee â information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaitiâs real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden â was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.
[spoiler]I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear â true or false â if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading.
Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops, who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and al-Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more conventional enemies, if not in this war then in the next.
Though it took a decade to find bin Laden, there is one consolation for his long evasion of justice: He lived long enough to witness what some are calling the Arab Spring, the complete repudiation of his violent ideology.
As we debate how the United States can best influence the course of the Arab Spring, canât we all agree that the most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation that holds an individualâs human rights as superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitutionâs prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.
All of these arguments have the force of right, but they are beside the most important point. Ultimately, this is more than a utilitarian debate. This is a moral debate. It is about who we are.
I donât mourn the loss of any terroristâs life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us.[/spoiler][/quote]
I hope thereâs a serious repudiation of the torture years in the not too distant future.[/quote]
And some criminal prosecution.
According to CNN Kahlid Shiek Mohammod who was water boarded over 150 times continued under torture to claim that the person the CIA thought was the courier for Bin Laden was a nobody. They had this confirmed by torturing somebody else who continued under torture to also say he was a nobody. Get this after torturing them so much and the fact that they still said that he was a nobody they realized he must be a somebody because why under torture were they still protecting this guy. Is that not a perverse explanation of the justification for torture?