Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031
Results 601 to 608 of 608

Thread: Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden is Dead (merged)

  1. #601
    Al Qaeda has issued a statement confirming Bin Laden's death. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/al-qaeda-confirms-bin-ladens-death-warns-of-more-attacks/2011/05/06/AFeFI39F_video.html[/url]

    Obviously, this is just more White House disinformation. It's a HOAX!!!111!!!!1!

  2. #602
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    Other than the muddle over whether OBL had a gun, hid behind a woman, or reached for something, the rest of this is trumped up caviling. I'm wondering if this is the same Telegraph blogger who did the last piece that was dissected and dismissed here.

  3. #603
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4023232]Other than the muddle over whether OBL had a gun, hid behind a woman, or reached for something, the rest of this is trumped up caviling. I'm wondering if this is the same Telegraph blogger who did the last piece that was dissected and dismissed here.[/QUOTE]

    Toby Harnden wrote the blog. He's British and a former Royal Navy officer.

    Having served alongside the British when I was in the USAF stationed in England I can attest that the British are very adroit and discrete when it comes to military intelligence and counter-intelligence.

    If killing (and lying about) OBL motivates more Al Queda violence then the killing has backfired. I'm confident the British point-of-view is that destroying AQ is much more important than killing OBL.

    [url]http://81sps.homestead.com/main.html[/url]

    :jets17

  4. #604
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;4023411]Toby Harnden wrote the blog. He's British and a former Royal Navy officer.

    Having served alongside the British when I was in the USAF stationed in England I can attest that the British are very adroit and discrete when it comes to military intelligence and counter-intelligence.

    If killing (and lying about) OBL motivates more Al Queda violence then the killing has backfired. I'm confident the British point-of-view is that destroying AQ is much more important than killing OBL.

    [url]http://81sps.homestead.com/main.html[/url]

    :jets17[/QUOTE]

    The Royal Navy didn't get OBL the Navy Seals did. You have to go back about 100 years when the Royal Navy owned the seas.

  5. #605
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;4023411]Toby Harnden wrote the blog. He's British and a former Royal Navy officer.

    Having served alongside the British when I was in the USAF stationed in England I can attest that the British are very adroit and discrete when it comes to military intelligence and counter-intelligence.
    [B]
    If killing (and lying about) OBL motivates more Al Queda violence then the killing has backfired. [/B] I'm confident the British point-of-view is that destroying AQ is much more important than killing OBL.

    [URL]http://81sps.homestead.com/main.html[/URL]

    :jets17[/QUOTE]

    Yes. Clearly, had we simply left Osama alive, those al Qaeda folks would have thought "gee, the Americans really aren't so bad, maybe we should stop trying to kill them". Now, they're going to [I][B]really[/B][/I] try to kill us (until now, they've just been sort of trying, more as a joke than anything else).

    AJ, this is the same idiotic nonsense I heard when the Israelis killed Ahmed Yassin - "oh no, now Hamas will attack them!" Guess what? When your enemies are already trying their hardest to kill you, nothing you do to them can make it worse; after all, they can't try harder than their hardest.

  6. #606
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4023944]Exactly

    Thats why I don't understand not showing the photos, I'd like to see them and its not like its gonna make the Islamists more determined to kill us. Anyone who sympathizes with Bin Laden already hates us, anyone who doesn't won't care.[/QUOTE]

    I'd bet you the white house decided to go the "leak" way rather than outright showing it. In this PC age where the UN is getting on our back for killing him (so dumb) it just wouldn't look right for the White House to release the image of someone they killed.

    I'd bet they'll be leaked though, that way they still get out there.

  7. #607
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    419
    i'm sure it will eventually unsealed maybe when most of the troops out of harms way which could be sooner than you think

  8. #608
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet;4022855][url]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100086478/10-ways-barack-obama-botched-the-aftermath-of-the-masterful-operation-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/[/url]

    [SIZE="4"][B]10 ways Barack Obama botched the aftermath of the masterful operation to kill Osama bin Laden [/B][/SIZE]

    The past few days have seemed like an extended amateur hour in the White House as unforced error after unforced error has been made in the handling of the US Government’s message about the killing of bin Laden.

    We should not forget the bottom line in this: bin Laden was justifiably and legally killed by brave and skilled US Navy SEALs. The operation was audacious and meticulous in its planning and execution. President Barack Obama made the call to carry out the raid and his decision was vindicated in spades.

    Having said that, the messiness since then has taken much of the sheen off this success, temporarily at least. Here’s a summary of what went wrong once the most difficult bit had been achieved:

    1. It took nearly three days to decide not to release the photographs. I think there was a case for not releasing the pictures, though on balance I think disclosure would have been best. But whichever way Obama went on this, the decision should have been made quickly, on Monday. By letting the world and his dog debate the issue for so long and then say no made the administration look indecisive and appear that it had something to hide. It will fuel the conspiracy theories. And the pictures will surely be leaked anyway.

    2. To say that bin Laden was armed and hiding behind a wife being used as a human shield was an unforgiveable embellishment. The way it was expressed by John Brennan was to mock bin Laden as being unmanly and cowardly. It turned out to be incorrect and gave fuel, again, to conspiracy theories as well as accusations of cover-ups and illegality. Of all the mistakes of the week, this was by far the biggest.

    3. It was a kill mission and no one should have been afraid to admit that. Bin Laden was a dead man as soon as the SEAL Team landed. There’s nothing wrong with that but the Obama administration should have been honest about it rather than spinning tales about bin Laden having a gun, reaching for a gun (the latest) and resisting (without saying how he resisted).

    4. Too much information was released, too quickly and a lot of it was wrong. When it made the administration look good, the information flowed freely. When the tide turned, Jay Carney, Obama’s spokesman, clammed up completely. I’m a journalist; I like it when people talk about things. But from the administration’s perspective, it would have been much better to have given a very sparse, accurate description of what happened without going into too much detail, especially about the intelligence that led to the compound (an account which is necessarily suspect).

    5. Obama tried to claim too much credit. Don’t get me wrong, he was entitled to a lot of credit. but sometimes less is more and it’s better to let facts speak for themselves. We didn’t need official after official to say how “gutsy” Obama was. Far better to have heaped praise on the CIA and SEALs (which, to be fair, was done most of the time) and talked less about Obama’s decision-making. And a nod to President George W. Bush would have been classy – and good politics for Obama.

    [B]6. Proof of death was needed. The whole point of the SEAL operation, rather than a B2 bombing that levelled the compound, was to achieve certainty. The administration has DNA evidence, facial recognition evidence and photographic evidence. Some combination of that evidence should have been collated and released swiftly. It’s not enough to say, effectively, “Trust me, I’m Obama” – especially given all the misinformation that was put out.[/B]

    [B]7. The mission should have been a ‘capture’ one. Notwithstanding 3. above and the legitimacy of killing bin Laden, I think a capture of bin Laden was probably possible and, [U]in the long term, would have been better – not least because of the intelligence that could have been gleaned from interrogating him and the couriers.[/U][/B] My hunch is that Obama didn’t want him alive because there would have been uncomfortable issues to address like whether he should be tried, where he should be held (it would have been Guantanamo – obviously) and the techniques for questioning him.

    8. Obama’s rhetoric lurched from jingoistic to moralistic. During the initial announcement, Obama said that by killing bin Laden “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to”. If Bush had said that, he would have been mocked and laughed at, with some justification. But by today Obama was all preachy and holier than thou saying: “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool. That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”

    9. Triggering a torture debate was an avoidable own goal. Following on from 3. by discussing the intelligence, the administration walked into the issue of whether enhanced interrogation techniques yielded important information. That was certainly something they could have done without. Politically, it gave something for Republicans to use against Obama.

    10. The muddle over Pakistan. Everyone I talk to with knowledge of these things tells me that Pakistan had to have given the green light for the raid in some form. But the Pakistanis, for good reasons, would not want this made public. Rather than say it would not comment on whether Pakistan had harboured bin Laden or was playing a double game, the White House poured petrol on the flames by encouraging criticism of Pakistan. That might have been deserved, but in terms of managing the region it was impolitic. The Pakistanis are clearly riled and the contradictions between the US and Pakistani accounts, again, fuel the conspiracy theories.

    All this has meant that this week’s media story has become one about Obama and the White House more than one about the SEALs, the CIA and what killing bin Laden means. That’s exactly the wrong way round.

    :jets17[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, and all this baloney and second guessing just adds to it.

    What a bunch of hooey...should have been a capture? NO EFFIN WAY.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us