http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/17/osama-bin-laden-guns-found-after-killing?CMP=twt_gu

Osama bin Laden's guns found 'only after' US Navy Seals killed him

• AP revelation fuels claims al-Qaida chief was illegally executed

• New account sheds light on sequence of US raid in Abbottabad

• Report comes amid news of clash between Nato and Pakistan

 

After Bin Laden: US Senator John Kerry (left) meets Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, during a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, on 17 May.

 

 

 

The American soldiers who killed Osama bin Laden found his two guns only after he was dead, while they photographed his remains, according to a detailed new account of the al-Qaida leader's final moments.

 

The Associated Press revelation will add further fuel for critics who say US forces acted illegally in killing the unarmed Saudi fugitive. The Obama administration insists the shooting was lawful.

 

Meanwhile, US relations with Pakistan, already at their lowest point in a decade, have found a fresh point of friction following an exchange of fire between Nato and Pakistani forces along the Afghan border.

 

Two Pakistani soldiers were injured after opening fire on two Nato helicopters that crossed into Datta Khel, North Waziristan.

 

Pakistan's military, already livid over the Bin Laden raid, condemned the incident as a "violation of Pakistan air space" and lodged a "strong protest". A Nato spokesman in Kabul said the shooting started after a Nato base came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border.

 

The AP account, based on interviews with senior US officials, resolves some subsidiary mysteries about the size and sequencing of the dramatic US Navy Seal raid that ended the world's largest manhunt on 2 May. But it also throws up fresh questions about how Pakistan's air defence systems failed to stop the American forces entering – or leaving.

 

The US raiding party slipped into Pakistan on five helicopters – two stealth Black Hawks carrying 23 Navy Seals, an interpreter and a sniffer dog named Cairo, and three Chinooks carrying 24 backup soldiers that landed in a remote mountain area north of Abbottabad, the garrison town where Bin Laden was hiding.

 

In recent days, two Pakistani television channels have identified the mountain area as Khala Dhaka, a semi-autonomous tribal area, interviewing villagers who saw the US craft landing and taking off.

 

The Black Hawks that swooped on Bin Laden's compound were equipped with special technology to muffle the tail rotor and engine noise, the AP reported. Some experts have speculated it was also equipped with a special skin to fool radar. The soldiers planned to swoop on Bin Laden's house from three sides: sliding down ropes onto the roof, the compound and outside the wall.

 

But the first Black Hawk swayed erratically as it hovered over the compound owing to higher than expected temperatures and crashed against a wall, irreparably damaging its tail. The pilot ditched the plane in Bin Laden's yard and the entire raiding party entered from the ground floor, using small explosives to blow their way through walls and doors.

 

The AP reported that the Americans found "barriers" at each stair landing of the three-storey building, encountered fire once and killed three men and one woman. The account did not specify how many of the dead were armed.

 

After 15 minutes the Seals, passing huddles of frightened children, reached the top floor where they found Bin Laden at the end of the hallway. They said they recognised him "immediately". Bin Laden ducked into a room, followed quickly by three Seals.

 

The first soldier pushed aside two women who tried to protect Bin Laden, apparently fearing they were wearing suicide vests, while the second opened fire on the al-Qaida leader, hitting him in the head and chest.

 

Moments later, as the Americans photographed his body, they found an AK-47 rifle and a Makarov pistol on a shelf beside the door they had just entered. Bin Laden had not touched the weapons, according to the AP account.

 

Just over 20 minutes later a Chinook helicopter arrived to collect Bin Laden's body, a trove of computer disks, and the soldiers whose helicopter had crashed, now destroyed except for the rear rotor and tail.

 

Controversy over the manner of Bin Laden's death has dogged the White House since 2 May, especially after early claims that Bin Laden had been armed and used one of his wives as a human shield proved to be false.

 

The only witnesses who could contradict the American account are Bin Laden's three wives and children, who are currently in Pakistani custody. After much pressure from Washington, US officials were allowed to briefly speak with them last week. The women reportedly refused to answer questions and Pakistan says they will be repatriated to their native Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It is not clear when this will happen.

 

The AP also reported that there had been four previous special forces incursions into Pakistan, echoing a December 2009 report in the Guardian. A senior Nato official said two of the clandestine raids targeted "high-value targets", while a third was to recover a crashed Predator drone.

 

The account comes a day after a visit by Senator John Kerry, who was in the capital, Islamabad, yesterday to try and "reset" the fragile alliance, claiming that Pakistan was not informed in advance for operational reasons and not due to any distrust of the Pakistanis.

 

A similar issue has arisen from the Bin Laden raid. Kerry, after intensive meetings with Pakistani military chiefs, said he had secured a promise that the rear rotor of the Black Hawk would be returned to US custody, amid US fears it would be passed to China and reverse-engineered.

 

Pakistan's leadership has moved closer to its decades-old ally China. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, today embarked on a four-day visit to China, a country he pointedly described as "our best and most trusted friend".

^They still might have suspected he had his finger on the trigger of a bomb, though, so that doesn't really prove anything, either. If they did suspect that, they wouldn't have had time to wait and see if they were correct.

Given Bin Laden's obvious love of all things incendiary, they would have had every reason to suspect this.

In that case, self-preservation would have come first.:smug:

Bin Laden wasn't stupid, so he must have known his hideout would be found one day. Therefore it's logical to assume he would have been prepared for such an eventuality.

Anyway, as I said, he had "made his bed" long ago by orchestrating the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Therefore, tough break.:rolleyes:

I don't understand your first smiley.

There's nothing to understand. It's just a smiley.:dozey:

I don't understand the context in which it was used.

I don't understand your smugness.

Surely you used it for a reason, and therefore there surely is something to understand unless your smileys are simply sporadic and random. You don't have to elaborate, I just thought it would help me understand the post a bit more.

I think the post speaks for itself, with or without the smiley.:dozey:

Way to bring about some clarity.

 

I do understand the rest of that post, and you do make some good points, but that smiley really confuses me since it doesn't make any sense being there from what I can tell. All I wanted was for you to explain why it was there because I was clearly missing something, but oh well, it doesn't matter.

 

You might just be going for next years smiley award.

 

You might just be going for next years smiley award.

 

Not this year's?:confused:

Not this year's?:confused:

 

That would indeed make more sense, but I don't tend to credit you with the ability to use logic, so no - next years.

so no - next years.

 

So more than one year, then? How many?:confused:

Wow, I made an error in my grammar, well done. You understood what I meant.

I still have no idea why that smiley was there in your post though (and that's why it was legitimate to bring up) - does anybody else understand why it was used by the way? Either answer or quit trolling, Mark. You're already teetering from what I gather.

In your opinion. ;)

 

As I said, that is only your opinion, not fact.;)

 

Oh the art of debate its beautiful.:cry:

OOPS

OOPS

I did it again

 

/BritneyBinLaden

 

 

sorry, I'm bored

I just think we've wandered into cowboy mentality again here in the U.S...:cowboy::whip:

Sure, Bin Laden could have been booby-trapped, oh sure, but he may very well have been unarmed, and the seals perhaps new this..

So it seems to me that by the policy (kill or capture as it is named may really mean kill mainly, capture occasionally) and then by omission, the policy was retained, the expectation was to kill Bin Laden.

As a matter of justice, it made more sense to capture Bin Laden and his associates because:

(1) This sets a standard of showing that the rule of law and justice through impartial trial, is what we in the U.S. stand for.

(2) By following a fair process, the impact in Pakistan and elsewhere would be to make citizens there see us as honest and fair, as credible in our claims to respecting human rights and democratic institutions. Because we would actually be walking the walk, not just saying one thing and doing another!

(3) The truth would come out in a trial. So if that's a bit embarrassing, so be it; better to live with what might be disclosed about past deals with Osama Bin Laden than to subvert the truth in this manner, or cast doubt upon U.S. motives. The best disinfectant is sunlight.

(4) Precedent. To ignore the rule of law, the system we have put faith in, is to subvert the very meaning of our democratic republic.

***** There is no such thing as a war on terror - this misnomer has allowed us to create an excuse to do anything anywhere - since the so-called "enemy" could be anywhere. Violating state sovereignty, individual privacy, protections of security in one's home and with one's papers, taking life without even so much as a trial, all for an amorphous war on terror, which has been parlayed into doing whatever we please, where-ever we please, does not build allies, but engenders mistrust towards the U.S. around the globe. It is a complete violation of all that we stand for, and the whole matter needs to be re-examined. What is called for is an international cooperative effort to reduce poverty and inequity, and simultaneously bring to justice those involved in terrorist training and attacks. Short of that, the whole thing fails on both its merits and effectiveness.

***** There is no such thing as a war on terror - this misnomer has allowed us to create an excuse to do anything anywhere - since the so-called "enemy" could be anywhere.

 

 

3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, wrote:

As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.

 

 

Perpetual War

Former U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "war on terror" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end", and was used by President Bush in his 2006 State of The Union address.

 

Terminology

Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has argued that there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end."

For the Brits.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011cpbv/Newsnight_17_05_2011/

I sent this article to greg, and figured I'd share it with the rest of you, especially to those (if there are any on the forum, i'm not sure) who thought the way his death was celebrated was okay

 

 

Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry

By Tim Wise

 

There is a particularly trenchant scene in the documentary film, Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, in which Blecker — who teaches at New York Law School and is the nation’s most prominent pro-death penalty scholar — travels to Tennessee’s Riverbend Prison for the execution of convicted murderer, Daryl Holton. Blecker is adamant that Holton, who murdered his own children, deserves to die for his crime. Yet, when he gets to the prison on the evening of Holton’s electrocution, Blecker is disturbed not only by the anti-death penalty forces whom he views as dangerously naive, but also by those who have come to literally cheer the state-sponsored killing. He agrees with their ultimate position, but can’t understand why they feel the need to celebrate death, to party as a life is taken. The event is somber, he tries to tell them. Human life is precious, he insists; so precious, in Blecker’s mind, that occasionally we must take the lives of killers so as to reinforce that respect for human life. But there is no reason to revel in the death of another, he tries to explain. While I disagree with Blecker on the matter of the death penalty, I felt sympathy for him in that moment, trying to thread the needle between advocacy of killing — any killing — and the retention of the nuance that allows the supporter of such a thing to still preach about the sanctity of life. It was a nice attempt, and heartfelt.

 

Of course, his pleas for solemnity fall on deaf ears. His ideological compatriots cannot comprehend him. They even misunderstand his position on the ultimate issue, presuming at first that his unwillingness to cheer the death of one as evil as Holton means he must oppose the death penalty, and that he doesn’t care about the children Holton killed. Ultimately, Blecker walks away, clearly shaken, not in his support for capital punishment, but by the way in which others on his own side seem to literally glorify death, even need it.

 

I was reminded of this scene today, while watching coverage of the celebrations around the country (but especially in Washington D.C. and Manhattan), which began last night when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead. In front of the White House were thousands of affluent and overprivileged (and mostly white) college students from George Washington University (among the nation’s most expensive schools), partying like it was spring break. Never needing an excuse to binge drink, the GW and Georgetown collegians responded to the news of bin Laden’s death as though their team had just won the Final Four. That none of them would have had the guts to actually go and fight the war that they seem to support so vociferously — after all, a stint in the military might disrupt their plans to work on Wall Street, or to become high-powered lawyers, or just get in the way of their spring formal — matters not, one supposes. They have other people to do the hard work for them. They always have.

 

In New York, the throngs assembled may have been more economically diverse, but the revelry was similar. Lots of flags, chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.,” and an overall “rah-rah” attitude akin to that which one might experience at a BCS Bowl game, and once again, mostly led by guys who would never, themselves, have gone to war, to get bin Laden or anyone else.

 

You have to wonder — or actually, you don’t because the answer is so distressingly obvious — would these throngs pour into the streets to celebrate in this fashion if it were announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered, or for AIDS? Would thousands of people be jumping up and down belting out patriotic chants if the president were to announce that our country’s scientists had found a new, affordable method for wiping out all childhood disease, malnutrition or malaria in poor countries around the world? Though these maladies kill far more than Osama bin Laden ever dreamt of slaughtering, and although any of these developments would be a source of intense pride for millions, there is almost no chance that they would be met with drunken revelry. Partying is what we do when we kill people, when we beat someone, when we grind them to dust. It is not what we do when we save lives or end suffering. Saving lives or doing humanitarianism is like making love, while killing people is tantamount to a good, hard, and largely one-sided fuck; and unfortunately we know which of these two things men, in particular, are more apt to prefer.

 

Don’t get me wrong: I am not a pacifist. I know there are times when violence may be necessary, either in self-defense, vicarious defense of others, or to prevent greater violence. If you were to break into my house and attempt to harm my family, let there be no misunderstanding: you would die, and I would kill you, without so much as a moment’s hesitation. But I would not, upon having taken your life (however justified), proceed to pop a cold one, invite friends over and dance around your bloody body. I would not be happy about what I had done. Taking a life, even when you have no choice, is no cause for joy. It is a grave and serious event; and it is utterly unnatural, such that militaries the world over have to dehumanize their enemies and work furiously to break down their soldiers’ natural human tendencies to not kill. The fact that violence may be necessary in certain cases, and even in the case of stopping bin Laden, cannot, in and of itself justify raucous celebrations of his death at the hands of the United States.

 

So yes, we can argue that bin Laden deserved to die. But that’s the easy part. Beyond what one deserves, whether they be terrorists or just street criminals, there is the matter of what society needs. And it may be that what a healthy society needs is less bombastic rhetoric, less celebratory embrace of violence, and less jingoistic nationalism, even if that means that we have to respond to the news of bin Laden’s death with a more muted tone, perhaps being thankful in private, or even drinking a toast with friends in our own homes, but not turning the matter into public spectacle, the likes of which cheapens matters of life and death to little more than a contest whose results can be tallied on a scoreboard.

 

It may prove cathartic that one the likes of bin Laden is dead. His death may provide an opportunity for a much-needed exhaling; but that doesn’t render it the proper subject of a pep rally. And given the larger need to challenge the mentality of disposability that is at the root of all murderous violence, it may be that in such moments we would be far better off to solemnly commemorate the death of the monster than to cheer it openly, when the latter is so likely to inflame passions on the part of those whose allegiance to the monster remained unsullied right to the end.

 

Ultimately, the mentality of human disposability that animates war, terrorism, gang violence and all forms of homicidal street crime, is a dangerous one to indulge, and certainly to indulge giddily. Such a mindset feeds upon itself, perpetuates itself without end, and serves to ratify the same in others. Surely we should strive to do better, even when, for various reasons, we can’t manage it, and are required to take life for one reason or another. Most soldiers, after all, are not happy or self-satisfied about the things they’ve done in war. For many, if not most, killing even when you have no choice, is life-changing. It scars. It comes back in the middle of the night, haunting the soldier’s dreams for years, and sometimes forever. We do not honor them or their sacrifices by treating the mortal decisions they so often have to make as if they were no more gut-wrenching than those made during the playing of a video game.

 

Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden’s demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved “America can do whatever we set our mind to.” If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden’s death, then this only suggests we clearly don’t want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren’t addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.

 

We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can’t manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can’t fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can’t reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can’t break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can’t protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.

 

But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child — maybe the age of one of my own — who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he’s watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.

 

And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?

 

http://www.timwise.org/2011/05/killing-one-monster-unleashing-another-reflections-on-revenge-and-revelry/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dbf7c61cf9d9df6%2C1

^Thanks for posting this article. It makes you think. :thumbsup:

Great Article the_gloaming09! That sums up what my gut reaction was to it all, but I could not put words to it. Probably what many of us felt.

We certainly have the technology to do these sorts of operations, but if we put power above the rule of law, ultimately we degrade ourselves to the level of terrorists ourselves.

And the one thing we don't want is an endless cycle of revenge.

Bravo for posting this article.

Osama Bin Laden masterminded plot to blow up shoppers in Manchester city centre, files found in compound raid show

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

 

Last updated at 3:04 PM on 21st May 2011

 

 

• 
  

 

Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind a bomb plot in which Al Qaeda operatives planned to kill shoppers in Manchester, it has been revealed.

Documents found at the compound where the terrorist leader died earlier this month show that the 'Easter shopping' plan to cause explosions in the city centre came straight from the top of the terrorist network's leadership.

The plot was foiled when anti-terror police arrested a number of suspects in 2009.

 

 

 

 

'Ringleader': Abid Naseer won the right to stay in Britain despite being suspected of leading the plot, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden

 

 

 

 

Some were subsequently deported but two were not sent back to their home country of Pakistan after a judge ruled the move would violate their human rights.

 

 

The files, retrieved by U.S. special forces during the May 2 raid on Bin Laden's secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, have been passed to MI5 for further investigation, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The evidence found by U.S. special forces soldiers who shot Bin Laden dead shows that he was more operationally active than previously thought and is the first such file seen by British intelligence officials.

 

One source told The Daily Telegraph: 'It appears that the Bin Laden files really will give us a comprehensive insight into the whole organisation and its operation.'

 

Target: The plot centred on Arndale shopping centre where the terrorists hoped to kill people visiting during the Easter holidays in 2009

 

Police were unable to press charges against the group who were targeting the Manchester Arndale Centre with a 'mass casualty attack'.

Al Qaeda operative Abid Naseer and his accomplice Ahmad Faraz Khan avoided a deportation attempt in may last year.

Judges said Naseer, 24, and 26-year-old Faraz Khan - who came to Britain as students - should not be sent back to Pakistan because of the risk they could be tortured.

Naseer and Faraz Khan were part of a group of 12 - 11 Pakistanis and a Briton - arrested in a police operation in the North West of England in April last year.

Both came to the UK on legitimate student visas to study at Liverpool John Moores University before dropping out.

 

Raid: One of the suspects was detained by armed officers at Liverpool John Moores University in 2009

 

 

Taken away: A terror suspect is removed by police as part of the large-scale operation

 

Police never found any bomb making equipment and were unable to bring criminal charges because of a lack of evidence.

The men were placed in immigration detention as ministers attempted to remove them.

 

All bar two of the Pakistanis returned home voluntarily but Naseer and Faraz Khan appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

In its judgment, the court found that Naseer was the ringleader of the plot and in regular email contact with a known Al Qaeda email address.

He claimed his emails were part of his attempts to meet women online.

But evidence given by MI5 agents suggested references to four different women was in fact code for the ingredients needed to make explosives.

Photographs of the Arndale Centre were found on a portable hard drive - and it was the likely target for the attack.

'Naseer's account of the emails is a lie, deliberately told to conceal their true meaning,' the commission's ruling stated.

Naseer remained in Britain but has since been re-arrested on a U.S. warrant, accused of providing material support to Al Qaeda.

He is fighting extradition inn the European courts.