Jay Tea
I think they did the right thing dumping him in the ocean. That way he is gone and in a month will be on page d1 of the paper if he is lucky. No grave to make a memorial, no burial service for his followers to turn out in mass, nothing.
Simply, he's dead, his body is at the bottom of the ocean. Cant go visit a gravesite then. Cant venerate the corpse. Cant accuse the US of descrating the body. Maybe would have been nice to wrap him in pigskin before they dumped him just to throw a scare into followers who may have second thoughts about wanting to go to heaven.
The Obama admin may have been trying to appease Muslim sensibilities but in doing so may have actually done the best thing IMO that they could have done.

Looking at the latest inflation and jobless figures, I question the timing.

;-)

They should haves bombed the compound to dust after extraction

We left too much hardware behind and a readimade shrine

Unless the intention is to do so when certain folks stop by to pay their respects,

I don't know if it was intentional, but the ocean dump was brilliant, as was shooting bin Laden on sight.

The ocean dump denies his followers a place to enshrine, pay homage, and generally make a spectacle of. We will be seeing no pilgrimages on Osama's behalf. He has no place of honor. There is no place for mourners to gather. They are lost physically and metaphorically. Thank God. I'm glad both Osama and his body are gone forever. Many problems automatically solved by this.

There is certainly something "Machiavellian (or Rovian)" about it, but not in the way you think, because you're the subject of the strategy. By nitpicking and carping about something 99% of Americans are unambiguously happy about, right-wingers reveal themselves to be totally nutty.

It was the same thing with the birth certificate. Let the nuts howl.

As I said before, Obama served you ice cream in this case. Calling it shit will not make it shit even if you don't like the style of the bowl.

Chico - Perhaps you haven't noticed. It is not the right that is hand-wringing over the legitimacy of the killing. Are you stupid?

I just saw headline relative to Obama's comment over getting bin Laden. "We don't need to spike the football in triumph." Why does he always have to open his mouth when it would be better to keep it shut?

Chico, you are by far the most apparent nut on this site. Woop had the title but now you own it.
I cannot wait until the hard drives and other intell are revealed. I bet it will show a lot of Middle Eastern big wigs funneling money to the effort of killing us.

JT, I am still concerned about the agnostic thing. You never struck me as a fence sitter. ww

While many of Obama's sycophantic cabinet members are barely able to tie their shoes with an instruction manual at hand, I've no doubt whatsoever that Mrs Clinton could concoct such a scheme. I happen to think you're reading too much into it, but I grant that she is perfectly capable of such a maneuver; she is probably the only truly politically astute person anywhere near Barry and the Kool-Aid Kids. I just doubt she'd do it to benefit Obama, who I'm convinced she will try to dethrone in 2012.

But you're right that it is having an interesting effect, whatever the origins and intent of the action. Look, it even drew out Chico and made him look like a fool. Of course, that's not exactly a rare occurrence.

Apparently the occupants of the residence were unarmed. And Osama was captured alive and later summarily executed. One of Osama's sons is missing and apparently is Obama's guest or was later killed. (Of course, I'm ignoring multiple media reports that CIA operative Tim Osman died of kidney failure near Tora Bora on December 13, 2001, and was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance to Muslim traditions.)

Color me totally unconcerned by how they disposed of bin laden.

Also note the lack of care about offending Muslims worldwide.

DO, however note the pride in SEAL Team 6 and the message they sent those who perpetrated 9-11.

You fuck with us in this manner, and sooner or later THESE are the consequences.

#10

ditto

"We don't need to spike the football in triumph."

Wouldn't mind spiking a head in front of the White House, however... I've got a 10-foot pole I'd gladly donate, anyone have a spare pike head they aren't using?

Yes, it's nasty. Yes, it's barbaric. Yes, it's not politically correct or sensitive in any way, and it's bloodthirsty as anything.

But I want it to sit there for the next ten generations to show that if you fuck with us because you make the mistake of confusing placid indifference with weakness and then attack us YOU will get your head on a pike also.

WW
" cannot wait until the hard drives and other intell are revealed. I bet it will show a lot of Middle Eastern big wigs funneling money to the effort of killing us.
'

What makes you think anything like this (that would surely offend muslim sensibilities) will ever see the light of day.

They (Obama admin) should have kept their mouths shut about having gotten any intel from Obama's compound. Now the bad guys know that we got a lot of stuff and will work to invalidate what information we did get. Amatuer hour is in full effect.

Regarding the UBL “mansion” ...

Asked why they had not checked out a building so close a major military facility the ISI said that the compound had actually been raided when the house was under construction in 2003 when the authorities believed an Al Qaeda operative Abu Faraj Al Libbi was there. On that occasion he escaped.

"On the "wrap him and pigskin and dump him in a garbage heap" side the sheer hatred of these people is laid bare. It shows us who among us is a bit too governed by their passions, who is too wrapped up in their hatred."

Might as well be honest. That's what I would have done. I still see the images of people jumping from the Trade Towers and I cannot forget them. I cannot forget how many children were orphaned that day. I won't forget and for that I truly do hate Bin Laden and all those that participated in the 911 attack on the US.

A point about the religious viewpoint about burying the body. In Jewish law, when a murderer has been executed, the body must be "hung from a tree" (a sign of shame). However, the body must be taken down from the tree before sunset and buried with the full religious rites. This is to show respect, not to the murderer, but to the fact that he was still one of G0d's creations, even though he abused his free will to rebel in such an horrific way (committing murder). In fact, the execution of the murderer is considered as part of his atonement.

I am sure that the correct "last rites" would have the words different for someone who was executed for murder and someone who dies a normal death. No matter what "last words" were said over the body, he is now suffering the punishment for his sins. Part of that is realizing to the full how wrong he was in the first place. Some people believe that those who were so "connected" to this world as to sin badly feel everything that happens to the body as long as it exists.

Nothing wrong with that, Hank. It's a free country. I was like that for a while, too. Still am, sometimes. We're all only human.

But instead of folks like you being eyed with suspicion, I think it would be better to simply point it out to you and see if you want to reconsider. There are valid reasons for carrying out such things -- the deterrence angle, "pour encourager les autres," and all that -- but if it's just as revenge, that's pretty corrosive on the soul.

J.

Jay normally writes his columns with the mindset they since they, the extremist muslims hate us anyway, why go out of way to be so craven. Now he thinks it is better not to show the world any sign that Osama was here..a watery grave..Pretty soon will the new version of revisonist Jay be advocating we should n't be drawing and publishing cartoons of Osama because that might inflame those crazy lunatic militants?

Remember we liked and groomed Obsama bin Laden as a fanatical holy warrior so long as he was training his guns on secular Afghans and Russians. That was fine then. Gates was a security advisor in all these adminstrations, going back to Carter. He should know. I think he should have been wearing a neck brace from whiplash in the situation room for all the changes in American foreign policy. Where was the stupid but brilliant startegic planning during Carter and Reagan era?

I say quit the spin and put out the facts as they are, without the unnecessary half truths or falsehoods, which will only blow up in our faces, or backfire on ourselves as bin Laden did.

It is probably too late for the present adminstration to think of this tactic, to be plain with the truth, after all, they are politicians and bend with the wind, and would rather lead from behind.

Remember we liked and groomed Obsama bin Laden as a fanatical holy
warrior so long as he was training his guns on secular Afghans and
Russians.

No, I don't, Steve. He hated the US, and had his own money -- he didn't need us. That "Obama was a US agent/ally/puppet" myth is complete and utter bullshit, and you should know better.

But then again, you've been pushing for show trials for some time, so maybe I'm wrong.

J.

The garbage heap idea wasn't bad.

How many terrorists would have been willing to martyr themselves attacking the NYC garbage barge?

If they wanted to who would really care?

Sorry in advance for going OT JT, but this question just occurred to me and you happen to have the active thread right now so...

Didn't bin Ladin have bad kidneys? Where was the dialysis equipment? I didn't see anything like that in the pictures released of his compound. And if he wasn't getting dialysis there, where was he going that no one noticed?

I'm being to wonder if this isn't just another farcical distraction.

Whether we did help OBL or not, the USA did promote the idea of militant Islam as an ideological sword against Godless Communism in Afghanistan and the Arab world. How did Sheik Rahman, the "Blind Sheik" get to the USA? He was flown from Egypt to Pakistan by the CIA to preach to the mujidadeen there, then given asylum in the USA, where he helped organize the WTC bombings in 1993.

But even if OBL was being helped by the USA, it and everything else would have been worth it, to help bring down the USSR. The USSR and the Warsaw Pact were much bigger threats than Al Qaeda ever was, is, or will be.

You can't compare a small cult which got lucky a few times on 9/11 and other times to a massive country which had ICBMs, SBLMs and bombers with 100,000 megatons targeted on the USA and on alert 24/7, plus massive armies in Central Europe ready to attack.

Unfortunately, we did not learn from the Soviet experience, that the waste of military and economic power in a place like Afghanistan (or Iraq) can bankrupt and break a country.

On the "wrap him and pigskin and dump him in a garbage heap" side, the sheer hatred of these people is laid bare. It shows us who among us is a bit too governed by their passions, who is too wrapped up in their hatred.

Jay, imma hafta disagree with you here. I think we should to this to each and every terrorist we kill, right up until they STOP TRYING TO KILL US. As soon as that happens, I'll harbor no 'hate' or other ill will, and go right back to live and let live.

I'm not governed by my passions here. It is simply about responding to them in the only way they seem to understand.

The garbage dump idea wasn't bad.

How many terrorists would martyr themselves by attacking a dumpground?

Who would really care?

Buried at Sea.... Much like Barry's college credentials.

Jay Tea, it really is basic historical fact that the US found and supplied Bin Laden with money and weapons, in order to defeat the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Yes, he had some of his own money. Yes, clearly he only worked with us then because he hated the Russians more. And yes, he wasn't the only mujahedin leader we were supporting. But we still found him and supported him, as a pretty central tool for our aims in that region at that time.

You do acknowledge that, right?

For the record, this is one of the things that I *don't* specifically blame Reagan for. It was important to get the Russians out of Afghanistan, and this did help achieve that. The aftermath is just another example of the unpredictability of an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine. Reagan was hardly the first to pursue this, and was hardly the last.

Also I now hear that Obama decided not to give a speech when he went to Ground Zero today. I guess JT was right. Without President Bush there to bash in Obama's typical classless, dickheaded style what would have been the point?

When I see a picture of Usamas dead ass I'll believe it, until then Obama gets the B.S. penalty flag. So prove it Bearwy!

The administration's actions in this matter, as usual, are typical, "By Committee," actions rather than through leadership.

Thus the lapdog media's efforts to push "Obama's Leadership!"

Jim X,
The only constant is that things change. We supported the the holy warriors. OBL have received direct or indirect support. He later turned against the USA because of American boots on Saudi soil..

Just like we supported China in WWII and Ho Chi Min rescued down American pilots. We fought the Germans in two world wars and now they are our Allies. We dropped two Nukes on Japan and now we are responsible for their defense.

I think we treat the scum no better or worse than we treat criminals.
We follow normal burial rites for rapist, thieves and child molesters OBL is worth no more. The Russians have done the pig skin but has that extra effort payed off?
cremation is not allowed in Islam so if we wanted to insult him then Fuel air Bomb would have killed two birds with one stone.

Option 1 Bomb kill and cremate one step

[OBL]Buried at Sea.... Much like Barry's college credentials.

Thanks for giving me a laugh, that is a classic.

I mean really, who GAF what his grades were in Freshman English now?

That's funny-demented.

oh happy cinco de mayo (as he prepares a margarita)

" I sincerely doubt they could have conceived it, let alone carried it out so well."

Of course they didn't conceive it. It was done after consulting whatever Imam is advising them right now and he said it was cool to send him into the sea. Obama wanted it done that way because he was assured it was proper.

And Of course there will be those who say it is most certainly not cool. But hey, I couldn't care less how they disposed of him. As long as he's no longer a threat. As long as I don't have to suffer the insult of another of his insipid videos about how evil we are.

I'm ready to forget about him. He's dead. It's done. I've already moved on.

Chico

I have a strange feeling you wont be lasting as long as Lee Ward and Woop did. Just my opinion.

Please, obongo and his team are the Keystone Kops! To muse that this may have been some grand plan to unmask muslims ignores this administration's demonstrated incompetence. In fact, as we speak, they show that they can't even manage their own message of OBL's demise!

By nitpicking and carping about something 99% of Americans are unambiguously happy about, right-wingers reveal themselves to be totally nutty.

Reds in the Bay Area are not happy about Osama's demise. Quite the contrary.

Now that's where you'll find nuts, in abundance.

I mean really, who GAF what his grades were in Freshman English now?

Barry Soetoro's transcript:

Sociology: C
Political Science: D
Islam for Apostates: B+
Communist agitation: A

Remember we liked and groomed Obsama bin Laden as a fanatical holy warrior so long as he was training his guns on secular Afghans and Russians. That was fine then.

Kinda like allying ourselves with your beloved Soviets in WWII, then fighting them later, eh? Small world.

Jay Guevera, the Soviet politicians were particularly obnoxious and corrupt and I studied Soviet foreign policy, rather extensively, when I was younger, but ât this time, I´m more interested in the Obama adminitration efforts, to shield us from the truth, with its handling of bin Laden´s killing. Something the Soviets were very adept at.

I will paste much of a comment and a link I made on another post. Like others, I was sceptical from the beginning perhaps a little more so, on what really took place in Abbottabad. particularly the degree of resistance.

Now, according to the most recent version from the Pentagon, and the final version,("The Obama administration now says it will give no further details of the raid, following the President's decision not to release photos,") what started as a 45 minutes firefight against heavy resistance is now down to one of Obma's courier manged to get off a single shot, with a pistol, and one of bin Laden`s wives, a waif, tried to tackle a Seal, but was unsucessful.

Pentagon or adminstration spin, "plus ca change, plus la meme chose". Officials blame the confusion on the "fog of war". Lets just hope the fog lifted enough,that they were able to send the rightful villian into the ocean, when they had 95% photo identification.

Jay Tea, it really is basic historical fact that the US found and supplied Bin Laden with money and weapons, in order to defeat the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

No, jim x, that's a complete and utter crock of shit.

Put up or shut up, jim x.

J.

Woop Jr.-

"[OBL]Buried at Sea.... Much like Barry's college credentials.

Thanks for giving me a laugh, that is a classic.

I mean really, who GAF what his grades were in Freshman English now?

That's funny-demented."

Sorry! "Should have read; Much like Barry's vaunted college credentials."

I stand corrected!

Who the hell keeps pressing the - button on my bloody posts!!! pussay

Put up or shut up, jim x.

Um, ok.

First, the article you're linking to doesn't contradict anything I said. The fact that Bin Laden used some of his own money, in no way means we didn't *also* give him some of our money **as well as** our weapons AND other resources.

Second, the notion that the US funded Afghan militant Islamic groups to fight against the Soviets is historical fact. No serious historians argue it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

...President Reagan deployed CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary officers to train and equip the Mujihadeen forces against the Red Army.

...the U.S. also sent its own military trainers and advisors to mujaheddin bases in Pakistan, where they instructed Afghan fighters in the use of U.S.-supplied equipment as well as guerilla warfare in general. Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA also frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time.

...Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in U.S. funds were funneled into the country to train and equip Afghan resistance groups with weapons.

And here's the final analysis, which I think is pretty hard to argue with:

The U.S. says that all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. Nonetheless, U.S. support for the native Afghan mujahideen contributed to the radical Islamization of Afghanistan as well as the weakening and near-disintegration of the Afghan state, which ultimately led to the Taliban takeover of most of the country in 1996.

Moreover, U.S. support for the mujahideen enabled and prolonged their resistance to the Soviet presence, ultimately resulting in thousands of battle-hardened, radicalized, non-Afghan veterans returning to their home countries and forming the core of what is now referred to as Al Qaeda or "The Base". (It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries participated in the war). Additionally, the close relationships and cooperation established during the 1980s between the mujahideen and Pakistan's intelligence and military services, as well as the presence of mujahideen training bases on Pakistani soil, ultimately led to the infiltration of the Pakistani security services by militant Islamic elements as well as the de facto takeover of northwest Pakistan by pro-Taliban rebels.

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It is also probable that some Taliban presently fighting the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan were in fact trained, equipped, or funded by the U.S. or its allies during the 1980s, at which time they were more commonly referred to as "freedom fighters".

So, and third: the US government can deny that any of its money actually went to Bin Laden. But this claim doesn't pass the smell test. If Bin Laden was in the area, and WITHIN the group the US is supporting (the Mujahedin), and within a very well-known group known as the Afghan Arabs (who were in fact mostly foreign to Afghanistan) who were just as welcome as anyone else - how can Bin Laden NOT have gotten any US resources? He was at the feeding trough just like everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mujahid_movement

It's also worth noting that the CIA funded and suported Bin Laden indirectly, through backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar#Role_in_the_anti-Soviet_resistance

During our support, Hekmatyar killed other mujahedin in support of Bin Laden. Hekmatyar's now a "Globally Designated Special Terrorist". Hopefully we'll catch him soon.

Now, Bin Laden was an unknown at the time. So the Reagan administration, and the Carter administration before him which began this effort right after the Soviet invasion, is not to blame for not being psychic. I think they could have handled the aftermath of the Soviet collapse better, because that would have provided less hardship and misery for Afghan fighters who were loyal to us. Who then became disullusioned and easy targets for militant anti-US propaganda.

But that of course was not an expected outcome. It's just, as I said previously, an unpredictable result of an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy.

So... my taxes go to DC, therefore I am directly responsible for everything that DC does. And they gave money to the ATF who gave guns to Mexican drug gangs... So by Jim X logic, I am responsible for the creation of the Mexican drug cartel scourge!

SCSI, among the many things that don't connect in that argument:

1. you don't choose to send your money to DC, whereas the US gov't chose to send money to Afghanistan to fund the mujahedin rebels.

2. the US gov't funded the Afghan mujahedin rebels as a conscious program from the highest office - the White House

3. the Mexican drug cartel have grown for decades *without* any US government funding, whereas the mujahedin rebels were grown **intentionally and directly** BY deliberate US funding.

So a more apt analogy would be, if you donate money to a group of people, did you benefit someone within that group?

So if someone donates money to a militant Islamic group and someone from that group goes on to kill other people - and commits those murders with the help of contacts from that group AND members from that group who were trained thanks to that original donation - would the original donator have helped that to happen?

I'd think its pretty clear that they did.

What do you think?