Me so Saad

[Raziaar]

Saad bin Laden is believed to be dead after an air strike.

He was an Al Qaeda member and probable terrorist.

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

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106903109

U.S. officials believe Saad bin Laden — a son of Osama bin Laden — has been killed by an American missile in Pakistan.

Saad bin Laden reportedly spent years under house arrest in Iran before traveling last year to Pakistan, according to former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

EDIT: He was one of Osama bin Laden's sons by the way.

 

[xdrive]

"believe"

 

[Vegeta897]

"terrorist"

 

[Raziaar]

Well, it's more likely than not true. But there is always that possibility of being incorrect.

I'm going to side with it being believable though.


EDIT: Whoops, forgot to put his relation in the post, if it isn't already obvious.

 

[No Limit]

Your title has a typo. You have an extra "a" in "sad". Ohhhhhhh...I see what you did.

 

[bryanf445]

How do they know if it was him?

 

[CptStern]

"A senior U.S. counterterrorism official tells NPR that without a body to conduct DNA tests on, it's hard to be completely sure. But he characterized U.S. spy agencies as being "80 to 85 percent" certain that Saad bin Laden is dead.

The U.S. counterterrorism official says Saad bin Laden wasn't important enough to target personally — that he was "in the wrong place at the wrong time.""

Hey, the US pulled off a Homer

 

[Raziaar]

How do they know if it was him?

Various levels of intel. Even though intelligence can be faulty, it often isn't. He's an Al Qaeda member, one who I assume was tracked quite heavily, especially in attempt to find his father. I doubt he was as concerned about hiding as his dad is.

 

[bryanf445]

Various levels of intel. Even though intelligence can be faulty, it often isn't. He's an Al Qaeda member, one who I assume was tracked quite heavily, especially in attempt to find his father. I doubt he was as concerned about hiding as his dad is.

Ah yea that would make sense.

 

[Warped]

catching osama is probably the dumbest thing i ever heard. everyone should know by now hes been bumped off the world's most wanted man list and he'll just be used as a scapecgoat again someday

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Terrorist? How about freedom fighter?

War on terrorism is bollocks.

 

[mechanicallizard]

Terrorist? How about freedom fighter?

War on terrorism is bollocks.

What you just said is bollocks. You do realise that if they got their hands
on you they'd kill you. And yet you stand up for them?

/confused.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Yes well the thing is "terrorism" is a invented term for people who oppose imperialism with guns.

 

[mechanicallizard]

Yeah, maybe, but at the end of the day those Al-Qaeda dudes would quite happily kill you.
It just surprises me how some people stick up for them in a way, yet the Al-Qaeda guys don't
give a shit about them and want them dead.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Al-Queda is a codename for terrorists trained by USA in the 80's Afganistan war.

 

[mechanicallizard]

Yeah, but regardless, they don't like the US now, or you or me or anyone else I know.
My point is why stick up for them when they don't give a shit and would like to kill you/me/us?

 

[Raziaar]

Yes well the thing is "terrorism" is a invented term for people who oppose imperialism with guns.

Sorry, but uhh... no sympathy for people who intentionally target civilians to get their points across.

You may just see it as innocent opposition to imperialism. I don't. I see it as terrorism. The actual definition of terrorism.

 

[CptStern]

Sorry, but uhh... no sympathy for people who intentionally target civilians to get their points across.

what do you think happens in wartime? you dont truely believe militaries try to avoid civilian targets do you? it's often very effective to do so especially in a guerrilla style war. look at iraq, look at israel, or any war in which a conventional army fights a protracted war with a unconventional army in an urban setting. 80% of casulaties are civilians in any conflict.

You may just see it as innocent opposition to imperialism. I don't. I see it as terrorism. The actual definition of terrorism.

he's right though. a label is just a label. what's the difference between terrorism by individual or terrorism perpetrated by the state? (besides the obvious scale difference). spin, phrasing, twisting context and meaning to suit a particular view point is why individual terrorism is much more visible in the media but they barely make a dent bodycount wise in comparison to terrorism visited upon the populace by government

 

[Raziaar]

what do you think happens in wartime? you dont truely believe militaries try to avoid civilian targets do you? it's often very effective to do so especially in a guerrilla style war. look at iraq, look at israel, or any war in which a conventional army fights a protracted war with a unconventional army in an urban setting. 80% of casulaties are civilians in any conflict.

I believe most militaries try to avoid easily avoidable civilian targets. That is the reason they don't just saturate a city willy nilly with bombs hoping to just crush any and everything they can hoping that bad guys are killed.

Why? Various reasons. Wasting money on expenditure of munitions that aren't being used most effectively. Political nightmare scenarios. And also because human beings operate within the military and many of them have a conscience. You don't exactly hear about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomber crews being all cool and with steel resolve at their participation in that do you?

That being said, civilians still die. Lots of them. And some of them exceptionally questionably so. But that doesn't mean most militaries are intentionally gunning for civilians like Al Qaeda does with their deliberately planned terrorist acts. And the reason you have a disproportionately high number of civilian deaths compared to hostiles in this style of warfare, is because that is exactly how this style of warfare works best for the hostiles. They are outnumbered by civilians, and when they mix amongst them, they become harder to attack, and easier to launch attacks.

he's right though. a label is just a label. what's the difference between terrorism by individual or terrorism perpetrated by the state? (besides the obvious scale difference). spin, phrasing, twisting context and meaning to suit a particular view point is why individual terrorism is much more visible in the media but they barely make a dent bodycount wise in comparison to terrorism visited upon the populace by government

We're talking about Al Qaeda here. I made no reference to government sanctioned terrorism, so please do not divert the discussion to that. This is about Al Qaeda. Are you arguing that Al Qaeda is not worthy of the terrorist label simply because more civilians die by standing armies of legitimate governments?

If you kill one person, and I kill 30 people... does that mean you're not a criminal?

 

[CptStern]

I believe most militaries try to avoid easily avoidable civilian targets.

kinda hard to do so when you're carpet bombing an entire area

That is the reason they don't just saturate a city willy nilly with bombs hoping to just crush any and everything they can hoping that bad guys are killed.

sure they do. they soften a target before sending in the ground troops. this is standard invasion procedure. lets look at iraq as an example

In the invasion phase of the war (March 19-April 30), 9,200 Iraqi combatants were killed along with 7,299 civilians, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces

Why? Various reasons. Wasting money on expenditure of munitions that aren't being used most effectively. Political nightmare scenarios. And also because human beings operate within the military and many of them have consciences. You don't exactly hear about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomber crews being all cool and with steel resolve at their participation in that do you?

they controllled all flow of information thus minimising any "political fallout" that may have arisen. although I dont see how since the american public were wholeheartedily supportive of the unjust war. and regardless if they were nervous or cool as cucumbers, they STILL launched death upon unsuspecting japanese. they can wash their hands of the event as much as they want, it doesnt absolve their responsibility in the incident

That being said, civilians still die. Lots of them. And some of them exceptionally questionably so. But that doesn't mean most militaries are intentionally gunning for civilians like Al Qaeda does with their deliberately planned terrorist acts.

a hellfire missle fired from a drone at what might or might not be a militia gorup/wedding is fairly deliberate. now I dont think the military directly targets civilians (I know for the fact individuals DO target civilians) however I do think there's an acceptable level of civilian casualties associated with their military campaigns. they may not target them but they might care all that much if they get in the way

And the reason you have a disproportionately high number of civilian deaths compared to hostiles in this style of warfare, is because that is exactly how this style of warfare works best for the hostiles. They are outnumbered by civilians, and when they mix amongst them, they become harder to attack, and easier to launch attacks.

so the best solution is to cast a wide net in the hopes of nailing as many as is possible ..and if a few dolphins get stuck in the nets ..oh well it's regettable or just part of doing business

We're talking about Al Qaeda here. I made no reference to government sanctioned terrorism, so please do not divert the discussion to that.

not my fault you fail to understand my point. I addressed your comments to another poster clarifying that a label is just that a label. government sanctioned terrirsm is relevant to the point

This is about Al Qaeda. Are you arguing that Al Qaeda is not worthy of the terrorist label simply because more civilians die by standing armies of legitimate governments?

We're not discussing that nonsense.

no, you framed it this way. I never said or argued anything that even suggests I believe Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group. My personal point of view has nothing to do with what I said. stop trying to insinuate that it does

 

[Raziaar]

no, you framed it this way. I never said or argued anything that even suggests I believe Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group. My personal point of view has nothing to do with what I said. stop trying to insinuate that it does

What is the point of arguing against the usage of the terrorist label for Al Qaeda then? I'm not insinuating anything. I'm confused by what you're saying, and so I'm asking you to clarify.

When I said:

You may just see it as innocent opposition to imperialism. I don't. I see it as terrorism. The actual definition of terrorism.

And you replied that he was right, are you saying that I am wrong? Or am I right too?

 

[CptStern]

you ignored my other points

and no that wasnt what you said. you said, in it's entirity WITH the context still attached:

Yes well the thing is "terrorism" is a invented term for people who oppose imperialism with guns.

Sorry, but uhh... no sympathy for people who intentionally target civilians to get their points across.

You may just see it as innocent opposition to imperialism. I don't. I see it as terrorism. The actual definition of terrorism.

he was talking about terrorism in general ..as were you when you quoted him. and he is right, terrorism and freedom fighter can be the same thing depending on what side of the fence you are sitting on. there are plenty of people who have first hand experience with what they would call terrorism at the hands of the US. it's just that since we have the power, we get to write the official version of what happens according to our sensibilities and framed in a way that compliments our pov. so those people are marginalised to the point where they're "regrettable but necessary casualties". faceless victems of a "necessary war" in other words a negative becomes a positive thanks to spin designed to minimize damage control

 

[Raziaar]

you ignored my other points

You make the incorrect assumption that I have reason to argue against your other points.

he was talking about terrorism in general ..as were you when you quoted him. and he is right, terrorism and freedom fighter can be the same thing depending on what side of the fence you are sitting on. there are plenty of people who have first hand experience with what they would call terrorism at the hands of the US. it's just that since we have the power, we get to write the official version of what happens according to our sensibilities and framed in a way that compliments our pov

And I call it terrorism, not freedom fighting? So what? I said I have no sympathy for people who I view as terrorists. I also indicated that his views can differ from my own.

What is your point?

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Yay, I started a flame war!

But irregardless, I think that terrorism, no matter how bad it is and will be, is the only way these people can ever be free. They don't have their own state. Iraq and Afganistan and Saudi Arabia etc. are decoy countries that USA uses to get its materials.

 

[CptStern]

You make the incorrect assumption that I have reason to argue against your other points.

but you still ignored them

And I call it terrorism, not freedom fighting? So what? I said I have no sympathy for people who I view as terrorists. I also indicated that his views can differ from my own.

What is your point?

that you're being hypocritical because you imply only those that fit a certain criteria are fit for your sympathy. so killing civilians willy nilly to get your point across is ok as long as they're not terrorists (as you define them). I'm just having issue with your choice of words. to me terrorism is terrorism regardless if iit's at the hands of a suicide bomber or from a missile fired from a drone.

 

[Raziaar]

but you still ignored them

I'm not really eager about getting into an argument with you. I've done it many times, I know that it is unending. So I figure if I don't play, you won't play.

I have no desire for participating in a debate in this thread.

that you're being hypocritical because you imply only those that fit a certain criteria are fit for your sympathy. so killing civilians willy nilly to get your point across is ok as long as they're not terrorists (as you define them). I'm just having issue with your choice of words. to me terrorism is terrorism regardless if iit's at the hands of a suicide bomber or from a missile fired from a drone.

Why don't you take what you said here:

no, you framed it this way. I never said or argued anything that even suggests I believe Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group. My personal point of view has nothing to do with what I said. stop trying to insinuate that it does

And apply it to yourself. Because I never said that innocent deaths caused by militaries are okay. They receive my full ire as well.

But please don't be confused when I don't call out for the killing of our armed forces. I hope you understand why I do not do that.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not really eager about getting into an argument with you. I've done it many times, I know that it is unending. So I figure if I don't play, you won't play.

I have no desire for participating in a debate in this thread.

but you stil replied to my post. you just ommitted the parts you didnt want to reply to

Why don't you take what you said here:



And apply it to yourself. Because I never said that innocent deaths caused by militaries are okay. They receive my full ire as well.

But please don't be confused when I don't call out for the killing of our armed forces. I hope you understand why I do not do that.

I've explained my motivation behind that reply and it wasnt directed at you in an attempt to call you out for not condemning US terror. I was just supporting what G(ordon)-man said: that terrorism is (can be) a label used by the victors to downplay or justify their own actions

 

[mechanicallizard]

Yay, I started a flame war!

But irregardless, I think that terrorism, no matter how bad it is and will be, is the only way these people can ever be free. They don't have their own state. Iraq and Afganistan and Saudi Arabia etc. are decoy countries that USA uses to get its materials.

But the Coalition forces in Afghanistan aren't fighting against the people of Afghanistan,
they're fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Theres a difference. A big one.

 

[<RJMC>]

But the Coalition forces in Afghanistan aren't fighting against the people of Afghanistan,
they're fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Theres a difference. A big one.

he wont care,I know this kind of people,as long as the taliban or al qaeda is against the USA he will claim them as heroes,even if al qaeda make bomb attacks on people that have nothing to do whit this

 

[Adabiviak]

So... he's off to have his way with a platoon of virgins?

 

[Vegeta897]

Hmm more like a company.

 

[Xevrex]

Oh look, a "development" in the bin Laden pursuit. Too bad none of the leads will direct US forces to the secret hospital where Osama is being harbored by the US government.

Damnable Dubya.

 

[CptStern]

Oh look, a "development" in the bin Laden pursuit. Too bad none of the leads will direct US forces to the secret hospital where Osama is being harbored by the US government.

Damnable Dubya.

the hospital is no longer secret. it's right between the sound stage that was used to fake the moon landing and hanger 18 that's currently the home to the little green aliens who crashed landed in the nevada desert

 

[Sheepo]

Yay, I started a flame war!

But irregardless, I think that terrorism, no matter how bad it is and will be, is the only way these people can ever be free. They don't have their own state. Iraq and Afganistan and Saudi Arabia etc. are decoy countries that USA uses to get its materials.

It's obviously working out really well for everybody.

 

[Tyguy]

he was brown, he HAD to be a terrorist.

 

[Raziaar]

he was brown, he HAD to be a terrorist.

He was a member of Al Qaeda, and believed to have been heavily responsible in terrorist acts, at least one.

I think his membership in Al Qaeda says a lot.