Osama Bin Laden Dead

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Interestinggggggggg. The news at dawn said that Bin Laden's body was being handled according to Islamic tradition.

I heard the "at-sea" report as well. My assumption was that it was done at sea so that his grave couldn't become a pilgramage destination for crazies.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

George W. Bush already released his official statement soon after the news story broke.

Right, because the Prez had filled him in before the news conference.

How dare you miss this last night because of The Amazing Race!

At least it wasn't Celebrity Apprentice.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I heard the "at-sea" report as well. My assumption was that it was done at sea so that his grave couldn't become a pilgramage destination for crazies.

Two reasons:
1. Your statement.
2. No country would want that body anyway.

Also, he was buried very quickly per Islamic traditions - I believe they're similar to Jewish traditions in that the body is buried very quickly. Smart political move. But the burial at sea was to avoid the crazies (not like we can, really, as we see now that all Americans abroad and many major cities are on high alert today and will continue to be until we're sure there's less danger).

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

So you honestly believe that we are safer today than we were a week ago?

We have, at long last, proven that if you go after us, we will go after you and we will not quit until we succeed. Sometimes that message is an important one to send.

Does that make us safer? It is the core of a solid defense strategy. If people believe that they can attack us without consequence, then they will be more likely to attack us. We would be seen as weak in the eyes of many. Being seen as strong does make us safer.

[AGDee]

Y'all are writing faster than I can reply. Re: the burial at sea. Like agzg said, Muslim tradition is burial within 24 hours. The report I heard was that no country would accept the body so there was no choice.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I know this wasn't directed at me, but we were most definitely safer a week ago than we are today.

I agree. Which is why I don't believe that any of the celebration is about anything but vengeance.

Originally Posted by AGDee

We have, at long last, proven that if you go after us, we will go after you and we will not quit until we succeed.

We have most assuredly not succeeded in the "War on Terror".

[agzg]

Ugh I hate that phrase, "War on Terror."

I was glad that President Obama called it "War on Al Qaeda" instead during his speech last night.

We're certainly not safer today but we might be safer way off in the future. I don't expect Al Qaeda to go down without a massive fight, though, and they are definitely not down. They just go themselves a martyr.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I agree. Which is why I don't believe that any of the celebration is about anything but vengeance.



We have most assuredly not succeeded in the "War on Terror".

There is no problem with celebrating Justice. There's a difference between justice as a punishment and a means to preventing OBL planned future attacks. You know there would have been more with him acting as the mastermind.

Nope, we haven't succeeded, and I'm not sure we ever will. I think we will never see the end of the War on Terror. However a major battle was won over 24 hours ago. That is something to be proud of. Proud of our service men and women, and proud of our President who said "DO IT" without letting Pakistan even know. The War on Terror would not be needed were it not for extremists. It's a proactive offense in order to prevent future 9/11-like events. Should we sit back on our haunches and do nothing? I think not.

[agzg]

I think part of the reason Pakistan was in the dark was because there were concerns that while Pakistan itself is an ally there are folks in the security forces who were suspected to be leaky pipes.

[Kappamd]

The Today Show reported early this morning that the burial within 24 hours was per Islamic tradition, and it was at sea to prevent any would-be grave from becoming a shrine to terrorism.

Also, they have said the DNA results will be released later today.

I think that everyone deserves to celebrate today, from the THREE presidents who have hunted for this monster to the families of victims of his attacks to our servicemen and women. No, it is not the end of our struggle with terrorism, but it is the end of Osama Bin Laden and the world is a better place because of it.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

There is no problem with celebrating Justice. There's a difference between justice as a punishment and a means to preventing OBL planned future attacks. You know there would have been more with him acting as the mastermind.

Nope, we haven't succeeded, and I'm not sure we ever will. I think we will never see the end of the War on Terror. However a major battle was won over 24 hours ago. That is something to be proud of. Proud of our service men and women, and proud of our President who said "DO IT" without letting Pakistan even know. The War on Terror would not be needed were it not for extremists. It's a proactive offense in order to prevent future 9/11-like events. Should we sit back on our haunches and do nothing? I think not.

Let's put this on a smaller level. Imagine seeing the family members of a murder victim leaving the death chamber partying and chanting "USA, USA." It's just not done and is a little crass. As much as this is a part of a war, this WAS a man's life. He was a terrorist, but celebrating a man's death like it's a party lowers our social mores quite a bit.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by agzg

I think part of the reason Pakistan was in the dark was because there were concerns that while Pakistan itself is an ally there are folks in the security forces who were suspected to be leaky pipes.

I'm by no means an expert on Pakistan/Afghanistan, but if we sent ground forces into Pakistan without their authorization, didn't we violate our agreements with them?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I'm by no means an expert on Pakistan/Afghanistan, but if we sent ground forces into Pakistan without their authorization, didn't we violate our agreements with them?

Time will tell, since I'm not sure of the nature of their agreement. I have heard rumors that Pakistan has been supportive and hasn't outright decried the military action to this point, and I do know that the government had pledged their help should we find actionable intelligence that Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan.

The problem is that while the Pakistani government has said that they support the U.S., it's pretty obvious that there were members of the security forces that were not, and I feel like I remember reading about U.S. activity in Afghanistan near the border being foiled by members of the Pakistani security forces. In light of that, they may understand. Time will tell, though.

[Kappamd]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I'm by no means an expert on Pakistan/Afghanistan, but if we sent ground forces into Pakistan without their authorization, didn't we violate our agreements with them?

I was wondering about this as well. It will be interesting to see where our relationship with Pakistan goes from here.

Also, it was interesting hearing reactions from some of my Pakistani classmates today. They were apologetic, almost like they were embarassed that their country "had him all along" as someone put it.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

We have most assuredly not succeeded in the "War on Terror".

I've yet to hear anybody make that claim. If anything, we can expect an insurgence in terror activity. That doesn't mean that, in the long run, this was not a strategic and good move. I think it's unfortunate that we didn't take him alive, but getting him was important politically and militarily.

And to AOPi Angel, Thousands of people have lost their lives across 3 different decades because of this man, not just Americans but people from all over the world. Comparing his death to a solitary murderer who receives the death penalty is apples and oranges in my book, and I'm vehemently against the death penalty.

[agzg]

I do think that killing him in the firefight was A. Necessary because he wasn't going to be taken alive and B. WAY more humane than putting him in Gitmo and waiting for a trial.