We Got Bin Laden

UNT90 · May 9, 2011

Thoughts/questions:

What is the international sentiment regarding Bush's interrogation tactics, and how did it change when Obama ordered them to stop?

I wonder if there was a lot of pressure from other international entities on Obama to end some (renegade?) tactics implemented by the previous administration.

It's all good and all if Bush was doing the right thing and everyone was okay with it. But what if he was playing the role of bad cop, giving everyone and their international agreements/relationships the middle finger while he did whatever he felt it would take to find OBL? Were there other relationships (European, African, Asian, etc) that were on dangerous fringes because of what Bush did?

For example, what position are we in to negotiate with the Chinese government and their detention of Ai Wei Wei when we act like we can do whatever the hell we want with our own prisoners and not justify it to every one else?

I promise you, if the Obama administration thought it was in the best interest of the USA to continue these practices, the practices were continued, whether or not we told anyone about it or not. Fighting terrorism is something both parties are committed to doing, no matter what they say to the media.

Sometimes politics have to be played if just to satisfy your base.

Rick, the patriot act is still in tact, Gitmo is still open, and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pres. Obama actually increased troop strength in Afghanistan. These are all violations of campaign promises made to satisfy the fringe of his party. I give him credit for standing against the left wing of his party on these issues.

Make no mistake, I won't be voting for him in 2012. Just too much socialism in his domestic policies for my liking. But give the guy credit where credit is due. We got Bin Laden on his watch, and it was a ballsy call to basically invade a foreign country to make sure it was done up close and personal (which I think sends an undeniable message to terrorist world wide who too often accuse Americans of being too soft and using technology to fight our wars). If Bin laden wasn't there, it would have meant huge political consequences for Pres. Obama.

Why do I get the feeling that some Americans are unhappy that Bin Ladin is dead for the simple fact that it happened under Pres. Obama's watch? Much like the feeling I got that certain Americans were happy when Pres. Bush failed in the effort to track and kill Bin Ladin during his term.

All About UNT · May 9, 2011

I promise you, if the Obama administration thought it was in the best interest of the USA to continue these practices, the practices were continued, whether or not we told anyone about it or not. Fighting terrorism is something both parties are committed to doing, no matter what they say to the media.

Sometimes politics have to be played if just to satisfy your base.

Rick, the patriot act is still in tact, Gitmo is still open, and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pres. Obama actually increased troop strength in Afghanistan. These are all violations of campaign promises made to satisfy the fringe of his party. I give him credit for standing against the left wing of his party on these issues.

Make no mistake, I won't be voting for him in 2012. Just too much socialism in his domestic policies for my liking. But give the guy credit where credit is due. We got Bin Laden on his watch, and it was a ballsy call to basically invade a foreign country to make sure it was done up close and personal (which I think sends an undeniable message to terrorist world wide who too often accuse Americans of being too soft and using technology to fight our wars). If Bin laden wasn't there, it would have meant huge political consequences for Pres. Obama.

Why do I get the feeling that some Americans are unhappy that Bin Ladin is dead for the simple fact that it happened under Pres. Obama's watch? Much like the feeling I got that certain Americans were happy when Pres. Bush failed in the effort to track and kill Bin Ladin during his term.

Again +1

I was in Austin this weekend and the topic of Bin Laden came up. It was me and my girlfriend's new roommate and it was roughly 2:30 AM (beer haze) but the conversation was interesting. She actually stated that she believed he was killed a couple of days before we "raided that compound" and that we actually did not kill him at the compound.

She announced her serious distrust of anything the media and/or government says and then she proceeded to blow me away with conspiracy theories. When I pressed her as to why she believed he was killed a couple of days before.....I got run around and no firm response. I had to get down to why she thought "a couple of days earlier" and she had nothing to backup her guess. She then told me that we were wrong for Afghanistan and that it we were not in their country in the first place that this would not have happened. I tried to tell her that we were not "in Afghanistan" before 9-11 unless you count very small teams that operated with the Northern Alliance. THIS however was not the overall grievance of AQ and I tried to make her understand that their own manifesto claims that we should leave any and all Muslim lands. She agreed with that sentiment.

She then stated that we were in Afghanistan before 9-11 otherwise they wouldn't have been so mad....and that we were wrong for being there. I used the term "mujaheddin" when describing out CIA's involvement in arming them during the 80s and how both the warlords and elements of AQ should be grateful, if anything, that we supplied them with the weapons to repulse the Soviet Air Forces and eventually the Soviets themselves. She had a look of bewilderment and you could see that she had no idea what I was talking about. She just retorted with.. the "we shouldn't be there" argument which I cannot continue to engage in debate because of how typically ignorant the person is of the entire situation that uses this argument.

There is nothing more dissatisfying to me then a potentially good debate gone to crap because the other person can't do the slightest amount of research and establish their own opinion before stating absolutes like "we shouldn't be there".

FirefightnRick · May 9, 2011

I promise you, if the Obama administration thought it was in the best interest of the USA to continue these practices, the practices were continued, whether or not we told anyone about it or not. Fighting terrorism is something both parties are committed to doing, no matter what they say to the media.

Sometimes politics have to be played if just to satisfy your base.

Rick, the patriot act is still in tact, Gitmo is still open, and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pres. Obama actually increased troop strength in Afghanistan. These are all violations of campaign promises made to satisfy the fringe of his party. I give him credit for standing against the left wing of his party on these issues.

Make no mistake, I won't be voting for him in 2012. Just too much socialism in his domestic policies for my liking. But give the guy credit where credit is due. We got Bin Laden on his watch, and it was a ballsy call to basically invade a foreign country to make sure it was done up close and personal (which I think sends an undeniable message to terrorist world wide who too often accuse Americans of being too soft and using technology to fight our wars). If Bin laden wasn't there, it would have meant huge political consequences for Pres. Obama.

Why do I get the feeling that some Americans are unhappy that Bin Ladin is dead for the simple fact that it happened under Pres. Obama's watch? Much like the feeling I got that certain Americans were happy when Pres. Bush failed in the effort to track and kill Bin Ladin during his term.

I dont see or hear anyone other than Micheal Moore being unhappy that OBL is dead so i dont know where your getting that?

If you had watched the debate over the patriot act on CSPAN you would have been as shocked as I was to see Nancy Pelosi actually arguing FOR it simply because she had to as there was really no other recourse, but of course not without attacking Bush and Cheney while she did. But it took that for it to pass because it was attacked so hard from the left, and the excuses used from the likes of Shiela Jackson Lee raging about governmental abuse of privacy was unbelievable to me. As for the debates concerning Gitmo and the Middle east wars the left has all but stood their ground but Obama knew he only had so much time to address his social agendas while he had a majority, and the Healthcare and energy issues were first and foremost. It didn't stop Eric Holder from threatening to allow terrorists access to our courts nor did it prevent him from opening investigations on some of our intelligence agency personell.

As for giving him credit for making the decision to go, ok, good for him. But I'd say it's a bit too early to rate how BRAVE this decision was for him to make considering how many times his administration has changed their stories on what really went down?

Rick

Censored by Laurie · May 9, 2011

I promise you, if the Obama administration thought it was in the best interest of the USA to continue these practices, the practices were continued, whether or not we told anyone about it or not. Fighting terrorism is something both parties are committed to doing, no matter what they say to the media.

Sometimes politics have to be played if just to satisfy your base.

Rick, the patriot act is still in tact, Gitmo is still open, and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pres. Obama actually increased troop strength in Afghanistan. These are all violations of campaign promises made to satisfy the fringe of his party. I give him credit for standing against the left wing of his party on these issues.

Make no mistake, I won't be voting for him in 2012. Just too much socialism in his domestic policies for my liking. But give the guy credit where credit is due. We got Bin Laden on his watch, and it was a ballsy call to basically invade a foreign country to make sure it was done up close and personal (which I think sends an undeniable message to terrorist world wide who too often accuse Americans of being too soft and using technology to fight our wars). If Bin laden wasn't there, it would have meant huge political consequences for Pres. Obama.

Why do I get the feeling that some Americans are unhappy that Bin Ladin is dead for the simple fact that it happened under Pres. Obama's watch? Much like the feeling I got that certain Americans were happy when Pres. Bush failed in the effort to track and kill Bin Ladin during his term.

Whoa. Like, +1. Whoa.

Green P1 · May 9, 2011

Lock the thread and delete all posts that followed 90's last offering.

Over.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Green P1

UNT90 · May 9, 2011

As for giving him credit for making the decision to go, ok, good for him. But I'd say it's a bit too early to rate how BRAVE this decision was for him to make considering how many times his administration has changed their stories on what really went down?

Rick

Give this some serious thought, Rick.

In the fog of war, you never know what happens right away. The fact is the media rushed reports, and the White House was probably guilty of rushing bad information to a demanding media.

But you seriously sound like the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 who cite changing initial stories on what happened that day (small plane into the first tower, etc...) as justification for their theories. I know you are not saying that Bin Ladin is alive or anything crazy like that, but everyone should have realized that the White House would not know the whole story until that SEAL team was debriefed, which didn't occur until they returned stateside.

So for 2 full days, the media was hounding for details that just weren't there. Some people guessed and they shouldn't have. But seriously, if that is the worst thing that came out of this operation, I think we can all live with it.

As far as the decision to go, just think what international political fallout there would have been if Bin Ladin had not been at that location. Pakistan would have publically screamed at the top of their lungs that they were invaded by the big, bad, USA, all the while bribing us for more financial aid behind the scenes. Russia, China, and, no doubt, the ball-less United Nations would have all condemned the US for an act of war against a soveriegn nation. Not to mention the Carter comparisons that would have been made stateside.

And the decision to go wasn't just good for him, it was good for all of us... (que Kate Smith's version of God Bless America...... :cry: )

FirefightnRick · May 10, 2011

Give this some serious thought, Rick.

In the fog of war, you never know what happens right away. The fact is the media rushed reports, and the White House was probably guilty of rushing bad information to a demanding media.

But you seriously sound like the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 who cite changing initial stories on what happened that day (small plane into the first tower, etc...) as justification for their theories. I know you are not saying that Bin Ladin is alive or anything crazy like that, but everyone should have realized that the White House would not know the whole story until that SEAL team was debriefed, which didn't occur until they returned stateside.

So for 2 full days, the media was hounding for details that just weren't there. Some people guessed and they shouldn't have. But seriously, if that is the worst thing that came out of this operation, I think we can all live with it.

As far as the decision to go, just think what international political fallout there would have been if Bin Ladin had not been at that location. Pakistan would have publically screamed at the top of their lungs that they were invaded by the big, bad, USA, all the while bribing us for more financial aid behind the scenes. Russia, China, and, no doubt, the ball-less United Nations would have all condemned the US for an act of war against a soveriegn nation. Not to mention the Carter comparisons that would have been made stateside.

And the decision to go wasn't just good for him, it was good for all of us... (que Kate Smith's version of God Bless America...... )

First, no one was suppose to have had to guess at anything. We were told that the administration watched the event unfold live. That was the purpose of the famous photo op of all of them sitting around the table with Hillary holding her hand over her mouth. Then we find out there was actually a 25 minute black out canceling that claim.

Second, the only negative outcome that could have occured had things gone bad or had OBL not been there, would have been that U.S. soldiers were either wounded or killed. Nothing more. How can the international political fallout for actually going in and killing an unarmed muslim in a muslim country be worst than simply going in and not finding him and exiting stage left empty handed?

The fact is we had people there watching him for nine months. Obama knew this yet he still took 16 hours. It must have drove the intelligence community bananas waiting for the go. The truth will come out some day when one of the heros who were actually there tells us about it in a book, and I'm willing to bet they were 100% sure he was there, living in squalor waiting to be taken dead or alive.

And by the way, as of today:

Eric Holder: U.S. will still close Guantanamo Bay

“Although we have not closed Guantanamo within the time period that we initially indicated … it is still the intention of the president, and it is still my intention, to close the facility that exists in Guantanamo,” he said in Paris at a joint press conference with French Interior Minister Claude Gueant. “We will continue our efforts in that regard.”

Rick

Edited May 10, 2011 by FirefightnRick

UNT90 · May 10, 2011

First, no one was suppose to have had to guess at anything. We were told that the administration watched the event unfold live. That was the purpose of the famous photo op of all of them sitting around the table with Hillary holding her hand over her mouth. Then we find out there was actually a 25 minute black out canceling that claim.

Second, the only negative outcome that could have occured had things gone bad or had OBL not been there, would have been that U.S. soldiers were either wounded or killed. Nothing more. How can the international political fallout for actually going in and killing an unarmed muslim in a muslim country be worst than simply going in and not finding him and exiting stage left empty handed?

The fact is we had people there watching him for nine months. Obama knew this yet he still took 16 hours. It must have drove the intelligence community bananas waiting for the go. The truth will come out some day when one of the heros who were actually there tells us about it in a book, and I'm willing to bet they were 100% sure he was there, living in squalor waiting to be taken dead or alive.

And by the way, as of today:

Eric Holder: U.S. will still close Guantanamo Bay

Rick

First, invading a foreign country comes with consequences. We aren't facing any now due to the fact that Bin Ladin was found less than a mile away from Pakistan's version of West Point. It is painfully obvious to EVERYONE that elements in that government were harboring Bin Ladin. That is the ONLY reason that there have not been international consequences.

You act as if there would have been no casualties if Bin Ladin had not been in that compound. There would have been, and they would have been Pakistani citizens killed by Anerican forces that entered Pakistan in violation of international law,. That is more than a little bit of an international political problem. I guess we could have lied and said that crashed American helicoter was, what, a Russian helicoter? Think it through.

As far as Gitmo closing, well, Eric Holder isn't president. Pres. Obama said he was going to close it when he was elected and hasn't in over 2 years. He knows it is in the best interest of the US that Gitmo remain open for business. Problem is, he has people on the mid to outer edge of his party that completely bought into the "Bush is running an illegal prison because he is evil and wants to destroy America" account of Gitmo events, so he has to pacify them by making those type of statements. Much like the branch of republicans who refused to believe Pres. Obama was an American citizen. There are plenty of stupid people on both fringes.

My message to you is the same one I would tell any conservative leader: Stop making stupid arguments about things that you are completely wrong about and concentrate on what the other side is wrong about, mainly the economy and the path of socialism and national debt that this administration is taking us down. Focus on Pres. Obama's own campaign promises that he has violated and highlight that he violated them because he was 1) wrong, or worse, 2) knew all along that he would not fulfill them and only said them to get elected.

It sounds sooo petty to complain about the stick on which Pres. Obama brought you Bin Ladin's head.

UNT90 · May 10, 2011

The fact is we had people there watching him for nine months. Obama knew this yet he still took 16 hours. It must have drove the intelligence community bananas waiting for the go. The truth will come out some day when one of the heros who were actually there tells us about it in a book, and I'm willing to bet they were 100% sure he was there, living in squalor waiting to be taken dead or alive.

Nothing is "100% sure" in intelligence gathering operations. You sound like the idiots who said Bush was 100% sure Iraq didn't have WMDs.

My god, listen to yourself and the leaps you will take simply because you disagree with Pres. Obama's ideology. Just because he doesn't think the way you do doesn't mean he isn't doing what he thinks is best for America (as wrong as he may be). Just because you differ politically doesn't make Pres. Obama evil (a lesson many on here need to learn about Pres. Bush, also),

FirefightnRick · May 10, 2011

As far as Gitmo closing, well, Eric Holder isn't president. Pres. Obama said he was going to close it when he was elected and hasn't in over 2 years. He knows it is in the best interest of the US that Gitmo remain open for business. Problem is, he has people on the mid to outer edge of his party that completely bought into the "Bush is running an illegal prison because he is evil and wants to destroy America" account of Gitmo events, so he has to pacify them by making those type of statements.

Eric Holder, made the statement about Gitmo today in France, not Obama.

Talk about stupid arguements?

Rick

Edited May 10, 2011 by FirefightnRick

FirefightnRick · May 10, 2011

First, invading a foreign country comes with consequences. We aren't facing any now due to the fact that Bin Ladin was found less than a mile away from Pakistan's version of West Point. It is painfully obvious to EVERYONE that elements in that government were harboring Bin Ladin. That is the ONLY reason that there have not been international consequences.

Despite being called stupid, an idiot and a conspiracy nut in this thread I'm still trying to think it through. You know, get my mind right.

2008: Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan. .....Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval.

Wow, where was the "International Consequences" for this one?

2010: U.S. Military Seeks to Expand Raids in Pakistan

The Americans are known to have made no more than a handful of forays across the border into Pakistan, in operations that have infuriated Pakistani officials.

I'm starting to see a pattern here. A pattern that tells this "conspiracy nut" that the U.S. led operation to kill OBL last week wasn't our first rodeo in Pakistan, and had it failed it would have simply infuriated Pakistani officials...........again.

Rick

Edited May 10, 2011 by FirefightnRick

Rudy · May 10, 2011

All of this bickering about a dead terrorist...

Thanks alot Bin Laden.

UNT90 · May 10, 2011

Despite being called stupid, an idiot and a conspiracy nut in this thread I'm still trying to think it through. You know, get my mind right.

2008: Unilateral Strike Called a Model For U.S. Operations in Pakistan

Wow, where was the "International Consequences" for this one?

2010: U.S. Military Seeks to Expand Raids in Pakistan

I'm starting to see a pattern here. A pattern that tells this "conspiracy nut" that the U.S. led operation to kill OBL last week wasn't our first rodeo in Pakistan, and had it failed it would have simply infuriated Pakistani officials...........again.

Rick

Not calling you stupid or a "nut." You are just wrong here. I don't think we left a helicoter or made a huge publicity event out of the previous raids into Pakistan (which, by the way, happened in the lawles tribal region near the Afghan border, not 40 miles from their capital city). If you don't see the difference, there really is no need to continue the conversation.

FirefightnRick · May 10, 2011

Not calling you stupid or a "nut." You are just wrong here. I don't think we left a helicoter or made a huge publicity event out of the previous raids into Pakistan (which, by the way, happened in the lawles tribal region near the Afghan border, not 40 miles from their capital city). If you don't see the difference, there really is no need to continue the conversation.

So there was a distance requirement regarding U.S led operations in foreign countries I was to factor in. Got it! I'm glad I have you here to keep me straight about the finer details.

Rick

TheTastyGreek · May 10, 2011

I have a flight leaving in about 12 hours.

Can I finally pack my F---ING SHAMPOO AGAIN???

For the official record- NO.

Nothing has changed. I still got my nuts groped and swiped THREE TIMES and my bag opened ("randomly") twice at a departure gate.

For the official record- British security officers prefer to gently pat your genitals, while Americans seem to take a sculptor/manual transmission approach to manipulating them.

Bin Laden - Dead. Airport security - Still giving involuntary handjobs.

Mission not accomplished, even if major combat operations are now over.

TheTastyGreek · May 10, 2011

Also for the record- I think everyone here agrees that Obama had one really good recruiting class, but he just didn't have the personality to... Wait, nevermind.

meangreendork · May 10, 2011

So there was a distance requirement regarding U.S led operations in foreign countries I was to factor in. Got it! I'm glad I have you here to keep me straight about the finer details.

Rick

Actually, it's not a distance requirement, and that you bring that up means you're missing UNT90's point.

Let's try this: Pakistan's government is sorely limited. Limited by resources, limited by its own people, and limited by corruption. They're also getting funding and training from the US military. Is it really in their best interest to make a huge to-do about some random handful of militants being turned into hamburger some long distance into a mountain range that is as sparsely populated as it is far from civilization? No, because the incursion is of little consequence when compared to the amount of assistance that Pakistan receives from the US. It is, however, a bigger deal when the incursion includes a series of aircraft, actual personnel going on the ground, the head of a terrorist organization, and all of this happening near Pakistan's West Point.

Pakistan may still not do anything about this because they are aware of their situation, but in the case of Bin Laden, they're probably a bit more motivated due to the amount of equipment and manpower used, the location and its proximity, and the target involved.

greenminer · May 10, 2011

So did OBL's team use zone or man-to-man?

How did Team 6 break this down?

Censored by Laurie · May 10, 2011

So did OBL's team use zone or man-to-man?

How did Team 6 break this down?

Team OBL really should've pressured the inbound and picked up full court.

MeanGreenTexan · May 10, 2011

So did OBL's team use zone or man-to-man?

How did Team 6 break this down?

Well obviously OBL's post defense was lacking as our shifty guards were able to penetrate the lane and hit shots without much of a challenge.

_{I do like the direction this thread turned.}

Edited May 10, 2011 by MeanGreenTexan

greenminer · May 10, 2011

Well obviously OBL's post defense was lacking as our shifty guards were able to penetrate the lane and hit shots without much of a challenge.

Team 6 managed to sign Hot Sauce before the deadline.

Basically, Team OBL stood no chance.

Rudy · May 10, 2011

Nothing has changed. I still got my nuts groped and swiped THREE TIMES and my bag opened ("randomly") twice at a departure gate.

Was she hot?

UNT90 · May 10, 2011

For the official record- NO.

I still got my nuts groped and swiped THREE TIMES and my bag opened ("randomly") twice at a departure gate.

I'd be pissed if I were you. I mean, why open a bag that so clearly contains nothing?

TheTastyGreek · May 10, 2011

I'd be pissed if I were you. I mean, why open a bag that so clearly contains nothing?

Clever, sir. And well played. Praise and popular acclaim have made you bolder in my absence.

Slip up once, though, and I'll have my revenge. Moderating is like Highlander... One falls, and the rest of us grow stronger. :ph34r:

UNT90 · May 10, 2011

Clever, sir. And well played. Praise and popular acclaim have made you bolder in my absence.

Slip up once, though, and I'll have my revenge. Moderating is like Highlander... One falls, and the rest of us grow stronger.

From getting threads locked... to doing the locking

from fighting the man to being the man...

Sad day in GMG land or a natural maturation process?