News Osama Bin Laden Killed (American politics discussion)

[Eli13]

I don't know, all SEALS are trained to do is to kill. I know, I've met quite a few, and just shaking their hand may as well give you a below the elbow amputation....

 

[Dambuster]

I think it's quite likely that whatever happened in that compound was far more complicated than any of what's being said in here.

 

[Ark]

Wow... how did he "resist" them? Maybe he made a rude hand gesture? :dry:

Indeed. A frail, ancient man with kidney trouble isn't going to put up meaningful resistance against a hardened SEAL. If they wanted him alive, they would have clubbed him in the head and dragged him to the helicopter. Instead, they shot him in the heart and head, textbook shooting for when you absolutely, positively want someone dead.

Be that as it may, at least they didn't level the place with an airstrike. There were a number of women and children in the compound, and the drunken celebration at the White House might have been toned down by the knowledge that our "victory" came with half a dozen dead kids.

IMO we should immediately and completely cease any and all antiterrorism funding to Pakistan. I don't know if they really are that incompetent or if they were blatantly harboring him, but it either case they are undeserving of the billion dollars a year we give them for their participation in the war. They have proven time and again to be untrustworthy, to the extent that we had to keep them completely in the dark to avoid tipping Bin Laden off about the raid. I think it's time to stop wasting our money.

 

[T.Neo]

I don't know, all SEALS are trained to do is to kill. I know, I've met quite a few, and just shaking their hand may as well give you a below the elbow amputation....

I would not say "all they're trained to do is kill". They are highly trained special forces operatives. That is very different from "unstoppable killer".

Navy SEALs are trained and have been deployed in a wide variety of missions, including direct action and special reconnaissance operations, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, hostage rescue, counter-terrorism and other missions.

From what I understand, 'special forces' are more about things like reconnaissance than engaging any enemy all the time.

Most definitely more than "just trained to kill".

EDIT:

frail, ancient man with kidney trouble isn't going to put up meaningful resistance against a hardened SEAL

Ancient? 54 is ancient now? Damn, I thought... 104 was 'ancient'... :blink:

Still, I would both agree and caution about underestimating bin Laden's ability to fight back- It Is Said That He Stole A Kalashnikov And Military Jacket From A Soviet Soldier With His Bare Hands!

Yeah. It was quite simple, really: I bet the soviet soldier was dead. :shifty:

Still, it took some effort to pry the AK from his hands, but not nearly as much effort as it took to wrestle the jacket off of the soldier's inert body...

 

[Eli13]

You REALLY haven't met one. Or met someone who has been washed out of it. Or even had LIMITED training with them. Yes they do much more than engage enemies. I never said all they do in their career is kill though it may look as if it was implied. What I mean is all of their training somewhere down the line helps them kill. I'm not saying they are unstoppable or heartless or a killing machine but i am saying there shouldn't be a doubt in anyones mind that they can't or won't kill. There are a lot of details in the mission i doubt will ever be released to the public (at least for the time being) and we will be out of the know. If Osama resisted, he resisted. If he didn't, he didn't. Either way he's gone. I realize it's only human nature to want to know what happened, but there are things we just may never know.

 

[T.Neo]

I must admit I have never met a SEAL, I am sure I have, at some point in my life, met people who are or have been in the special forces locally, but not from overseas.

I never said, that a SEAL can't or won't kill. Of course they are entirely capable of killing someone and they are highly trained in killing people effectively. I would like to add however that a good deal of their training does not involve killing people, at least not directly.

They are trained to execute missions effectively. Missions that may or may not directly involve killing people.

If Osama did not resist (and even if he did resist... whatever resistance this was that required a lethal reaction), then there are some serious questions, as it would have obviously been the morally upstanding option to put Osama on trial for all of his actions instead of being nationalistic judge, jury, and executioner.

On the other hand, the risk of retribution on the part of al Qaeda to get a live Osama back from US custody might have been percieved as too high, and it was decided that killing him was a better option... which makes sense, if only partially.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would not say "all they're trained to do is kill". They are highly trained special forces operatives. That is very different from "unstoppable killer".



From what I understand, 'special forces' are more about things like reconnaissance than engaging any enemy all the time.

Most definitely more than "just trained to kill".

Exactly - it actually takes much more training to learn how to not kill somebody.

Killing is relatively easy, if you have a gun.
Staying alive while killing somebody is the bigger trick.
Staying alive while arresting somebody alive is complex.

You can kill somebody easily without controlling the situation, such situations happen already by accident. But for arresting somebody, you need to control the situation. Which is why you prefer sending special forces for such missions and not a platoon privates. The whole idea of special forces is to control dynamic situations. Without this control, you have only a bunch of Rambos, who will be dead Rambos quickly. Regardless the kind of mission - even just observing boyscouts can turn into a mess, if you don't control the situation.

 

[Eli13]

I must admit I have never met a SEAL, I am sure I have, at some point in my life, met people who are or have been in the special forces locally, but not from overseas.

I never said, that a SEAL can't or won't kill. Of course they are entirely capable of killing someone and they are highly trained in killing people effectively. I would like to add however that a good deal of their training does not involve killing people, at least not directly.

They are trained to execute missions effectively. Missions that may or may not directly involve killing people.

If Osama did not resist (and even if he did resist... whatever resistance this was that required a lethal reaction), then there are some serious questions, as it would have obviously been the morally upstanding option to put Osama on trial for all of his actions instead of being nationalistic judge, jury, and executioner.

On the other hand, the risk of retribution on the part of al Qaeda to get a live Osama back from US custody might have been percieved as too high, and it was decided that killing him was a better option... which makes sense, if only partially.

Again either way I don't think we should dwell upon it too much. I'm not the SEAL who pulled the trigger. No one here is. I'm not the person who ordered that, if an order was issued. We can't describe how he feels right now. I'm not sure if he could himself. He killed public enemy number one, whether he realizes it or not, whether people agree with me or not hes a hero. Every single soul over there fighting in this war on terror is a hero. Whether or not its the "right" thing to do, they are heroes in my mind. I know your not saying there not heroes, or brave beyond our own conception, its just me ranting. We should just be thankful that one less terrorist is off the minds of many, yet it still dwells upon us... his death has brought celebrations and haunted memories. It will be something we will all remember. 9/11 was a day of infamy for many of us in the US, and hopefully his death will bury that day, or at least mask it. I may have only been 4 but i remember very vividly where i was and what i was doing. Again, its just me ranting. Forgive me that.

 

[T.Neo]

Hey, I remember 9/11 too, and probably more vividly than you did. Those people that died were not only (mostly) Americans, they were all human beings as well. You don't have to be from somewhere, to be affected by something that occurs in a somewhere, where you are not.

If the person who killed Osama for flipping the bird at someone is a 'hero', he is only a small hero. The true hero is the person who removes the abundance of West-Hate from the world. And that hero will never exist, because that enemy- the real enemy, not the annoying extremist figurehead, cannot be killed with a 'double tap', or any kind of tap, for that matter.

To end the "War on Terror", the US will have to employ weapons that are far more powerful than any pistol, rifle, warship, aerial drone or munition. How these weapons would work, I do not know- they surely exist, but I doubt anyone has put them together in an effective enough manner to be of any use.

Invading places like Afghanistan, firing missiles at 'suspected hideouts'... that all means nothing. Trying to destroy al Qaeda in the manner of any conventional conflict, will be about as successful as trying to remove hydrogen cyanide from air using a baking sieve.

 

[Eli13]

I'm sorry if you received that the way you did. I was ranting, as I tend to do. And yes, I realize they were human beings, I never depicted them as un-human. And you even say that he is a small hero, that doesn't change the fact that he is one. I realize that the real enemy isn't just osama. I may be only a teen but that doesn't change the fact that i perceive things as everyone else does. Yes, I realize you do not say this, and I know very well that the real enemy cannot be just wiped out. There will always be hate and contention as long as humans exist. Unfortunately it is human nature. There is always good in the world, but when there is good, there is bad. I also know that conventional warfare on Al Queda has been fruitless and will be that way. Whether that weapon is existent, I have no idea. But that doesn't change the fact that those overseas aren't heroes. I look at three of my cousins as heroes. I look at my friend who died in Afganistan as a hero. (He was a SEAL btw) I look at all of them that way, despite whatever someone may say. Again, I'm just ranting.

 

[T.Neo]

I never took you as saying that victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were un-human. I am just pointing out, that you do not have to be from the US, to see the grief of such acts.

I also never said that you do not percieve things, because of your age. I never said anything about your age. I just said that I probably remember it more vividly than you do. Maybe. As an aside, I absolutely hate it when people regard other people as incapable of thought, or as less capable of thought, due to their age or any other reason.

Hey, I rant too. It would have been very satisfying to see bin Laden meet a universally unethical end, and I am certainly not shedding any tears over his death. But at the end of the day, the emotion of ranting is not as suited for ideals of this world (or at least, the ideals that the would should have), as is the logic of reason, and of treating others in a morally upstanding way.

 

[Eli13]

...I may be only a teen but that doesn't change the fact that i perceive things as everyone else does. Yes, I realize you do not say this...

↑↑↑
Just saying...
And I honestly would have rather wanted have see him go through the legal process myself, but theres nothing thats going to change that. I'm not saying you didn't remember it more vividly, you probably did. But I was just saying that I remember where I was that day, contrary to many of my age group.

 

[T.Neo]

Of course there is nothing that can change the fact that Osama is dead. But that doesn't mean, that things couldn't have turned out differently.

 

[Urwumpe]

You REALLY haven't met one. Or met someone who has been washed out of it. Or even had LIMITED training with them.

Let us summarize this as "You have no deep knowledge about it." Sorry, but this is all comic book talk.

I don't know who you have met, or what he was. But if your only argument in favor of you is an argument by authority, you are not contributing to the thread at all - you destroy the discussion by an "I have been intern at the SEALs, I must know it."

Sorry, you don't. I never have been special forces or even dreamed of being it, but I had been soldier and can tell you a fair bit about where normal infantry ends and special forces begin.

And this already starts at the size at which you deploy. Special forces deploy in troops, infantry comes in battalion packs. Special forces are selected better and are literally the elite of the respective army, but are still human. They can't kill with an icy glaze of them, but they can afford training much more for special situations, which happen only rarely to the normal infantry. Because you will NEVER see special forces do the normal everyday duties of controlling a territory. You will not deploy by helicopter that often (But you can), they can do that half-asleep. They will train likely twice as often for close-quarters fighting as you do, they will at the same time not bother about roadblocks. The last time you did any kind of sophisticated entrenchment as SF happens in your basic training. Its a whole different kind of getting deployed. And SF will likely call you for help if they have a group of protesters interfering with their mission. If special forces are a scalpel, infantry is the big dirty hammer.

Special Forces have missions, and between the missions they train for them. Normal infantry has orders. Such orders can be mission-like sometimes, sometimes they are the same boring orders every day. When something exciting happens to you as infantry, somebody higher in command had been sleeping. When something boring happens to you as SF, somebody must have been sleeping as well.

So, forget the nonsense about killing and not killing: SF will do their mission objectives to the letter. If it involves killing somebody, it will be preferred over getting him alive, because there is another difference between SF and infantry: Infantry can afford taking prisoners and prefers it, SF only takes prisoners if the orders explicitly mention it.

If every infantryman in the NATO already learns how to arrest somebody in his basic training, you can be sure that SF also learned it there and did not stop training the basic craftsmanship. SEALs just as well as French recruits. You never stop training the many options you have to deal with hostiles and potential hostiles. You also don't resort to killing somebody unarmed, only because he resists. When you need to kill somebody unarmed as normal Infantry, the whole situation is about to slip out of your control and you need to kill for regaining control again. It isn't really different for SF. You can just expect SF to have a tighter control on the situation, as somebody who was maybe even too stupid to become IFV gunner, but too smart or malicious to let him be civilian.

I know quite many special forces people who did their second career after their tour of duty in the army by becoming highly-qualified bodyguards. Not the typical exhibitionists you see behind boxers or pop stars, but rather the discrete people that you don't notice at all, unless you know where to search for them. Hardly something that you would do if all you learned are many ways to kill somebody. You likely learn more creative ways for that in the normal infantry. Like I said above: Special forces is all about controlling situations. No plan survives the contact with the enemy, but if you are trained as special forces, you will know how to adapt plans and react to changing situations so the situation for you remains under control. You will also have much better intelligence about the situation you are in and can evaluate the reality with the plan. Something normal infantry will rarely do below company command level.

Because there are many historic examples how bad it can end, if you can't control the situation anymore. Just remember the failed liberation of the Iran hostages, which failed simply because the Iranians controlled the situation, not the Delta Force.

 

[Linguofreak]

Still, alone the deaths by land mines easily reach 3000 families per month (even shorter, but that becomes mathematical), without people really caring. If they would show it just as psychologically branding as 9/11 in TV, the reaction would likely be "Oh, switch the channel. There can't be so many stupid ways to die by a mine."

Its "just" 3000 people. In a few hours, sure. We Germans had at least 9000 people dying on the Gustloff in less than one hour, and 20,000-50,000 people in a single night during some storm floods at the North Sea.

The British lost almost 3000 people on all battlecruisers alone that the German Imperial Navy sank during the Battle of Jutland. 59,000 people died in 1959 in Tibet during the hostile take-over by China. 40,000 people died in the first seconds after the bomb of Hiroshima exploded. Up to 166,000 all together by it.

Historically, 9/11 is just the deadliest single act of terrorism. Which, isn't really a surprise, since it hit you at places with around 20,000 people per square kilometer. You can't even imagine how luckily you really are. The damage could have been higher if Al-Quaida had known that the WTC could collapse - they expected it only to burn. A few hours later and a few stories lower, and you could easily have had twice or three times as many people dead. Imagine instead of the Pentagon, the Empire State Building would have been hit. It could all have been so much worse.

Sure, and then there'd be *more* publicity for *more* families that were having trouble getting over the whole thing.

My point is this: Regardless of the cause of death, there will always be some people who have trouble getting over the death of a loved one and will express their grief by making appearances and writing books if given the opportunity. There will also be those who, whether they get over it or not, will be quiet about it.

The more newsworthy the cause of death, the more the media will be willing to give the ones who want to write books and make appearances the opportunity to do so, because a tragic personal story connected to a well known event is always good for ratings.

Therefore, books and appearances by 9/11 family members aren't going to stop, so we may as well grin and bear it.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing (on the one hand, it can be annoying, on the other hand, annoyance on our part is a much lesser misfortune than what they've already been through. I'm willing to say, though, that the part the media plays in the whole thing is altogether bad).

Don't fall prone to the accidental hubris that a single US death is worse than thousands of other deaths in the world.

Where did I *ever* say or imply this?

 

[Eli13]

I don't know who you have met, or what he was.

Ok first of all humans aren't a "what" they are "who". :dry:
And either way the SEALS had full authority to kill Osama that was their ROE. So your scalpel (I'm not saying i disagree with that statement) had full orders to do that.
I never said anything about the difference between normal infantry and the SF. I'm not saying I disagree with what you said except for where you said i implied I know everything, which i never meant to imply. So if you received it like that I'm sorry that you mistakenly took it like that.

 

[Urwumpe]

Where did I *ever* say or imply this?

Not yet, I just warned of it, because some easily do, and because you already went so far to make the suffering of these families justification for anything that went the wrong way in the war against terror. From that argumentation, it isn't really far to simply deny others the same right of a peaceful life, that these families had violated by Al-Quaida.

To quote a satire page about the topic: Bin Laden is just the consolation goal in the match of terrorists.

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 AM ----------

Ok first of all humans aren't a "what" they are "who". :dry:

Professions have always been objects, regardless the motivational tricks used to make people marry them.

 

[Eli13]

Professions have always been objects, regardless the motivational tricks used to make people marry them.

Sorry, i misunderstood what you were referring to.

 

[Tommy]

Here in the US, we have several "flavors" of "special forces". Each has different training and are suited to different tasks.

The Army has three main types - Special Forces (aka Green Berets), Delta, and Rangers. Special Forces main mission is in training and aiding native resistances. The are well versed in Guerrilla tactics, improvised munitions, demolition, and intelligence gathering. They almost always work with the native population in an "advisory" capacity.

Rangers are small, fast fire teams capable of long durations in the field and behind enemy lines. They are well versed in small unit tactics, escape and evasion, wilderness survival scouting, and intel gathering. Rangers don't carry sleeping bags - so they can carry more ammo. They are primarily used for "surgical strikes" during a war.

Delta are also small and mobile, but more orientated toward anti-terrorism and intel ops - even "black" ops. They are primarily used for hostage rescue, raids, and intel gathering - in areas where it isn't a full scale war.

The Navy has two main "flavors". Marine corp Lurps (Longe Range Recon Patrol) are similar to Rangers, but a bit more oriented toward scouting behind enemy lines. Seals are small "commando" units, trained to operate in any environment. They can insert by water, land, or air. They are HALO specialists as well as expert divers, and have the same type of escape and evasion training as Rangers. They are well versed in explosives, sabotage, intel gathering, counter intelligence, counter terrorism, extraction, and "black ops" type stuff. If you need a listening device planted in the enemy's HQ - you send Seals to do it. If you need a specific target captured or taken out in "unfriendly" territory, you send a Seal team.

Each of the elite forces has its own strengths, and are best used for certain purposes. The US invasion of Grenada was a fiasco because the elite forces weren't used correctly. The Navy wanted to show off the Seals (they weren't created until after Vietnam), so they convinced the command staff to use Seals to take the airport. Big mistake. Seals don't take airports - Rangers do. Of course, it didn't help that nobody bothered to tell the Army troops that Seals had taken the airport so when they got there and saw a bunch of latino males (Seals who at least looked latino were chosen and thrown together in a much larger unit than they were used to working with - and wore civilian looking clothing to infiltrate) who were heavily armed and didn't appear to be in Uniforms - well, you can guess what happened.

Seals were the right choice for this mission. It's quite likely that they intended to capture, not kill. Keep in mind that just because someone isn't armed doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. A Seal would know better than most that an unarmed assailant can kill you, and that no matter how good you are luck can always go against you. Just because you are better trained in unarmed combat doesn't mean you will always win. Add to that the fact that Bin Laden wasn't the only threat in the compound and it's easy to see why a Seal would shoot any attacker, even an unarmed one - doing anything else is just foolish and dangerous.

 

[Quick_Nick]

The Pakistani government allegedly "captured" neighbors of bin Laden. What for? Maybe to see if they were involved in hiding bin Laden. Much more likely in my opinion is that they're going to be interrogated to find out who told where Osama was.
Also, the U.S. is indeed searching computers within the compound.
Source: NPR