BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:34 AM

"30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban."
The Taliban are terrorists - are you now saying the Americans are?
"No buildings were that close to the compound. "
Again, ignorance on your part - according to the map in the Sunday times the compound ware many houses inthe area and itis not far from a public road - stop making it up to excuse the potentioan killing of non-combatants.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:35 AM

Should read potential - of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:54 AM

We have all seen pics of the compound now.
It stands alone.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20110504/obama-osama-death-announcement-ratings-110504/

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:58 AM

"if bin Laden had tried to escape...."

If Times says this, what is their source?

My understanding is that they did not actually know bin Laden was in the building.   This being the case there was no contingency plan to drop a bomb on the building.    They had considered this idea and rejected it for the specific reason there was no certainty bin Laden was in the building.

If this is not so, let's have a direct quote from an authoritative source.

I don't claim to have the last word, but we need some direct quotes here.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:12 AM

It seems a small group of U.S. leaders probably do know the answer to part of the above question "COULD/should he have been taken as prisoner?" - they were watching it via cameras strapped to the SEALS, yes? And wouldn't international lawyers say that, if he could have, he definitely should have been taken alive for trial?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:13 AM

Prague was enemy territory, 1942 was wartime. Even so the fact that Churchill authorised one assasination it does not prove that it was lawful - he was of course a very right wing alcoholic manic-depressive which may from time to time have impaired his rationality. It certainly does not prove that this assassination was lawful.

What, Keith, do you expect the US to say? They invented the wholly spurious legal case for detention at Guantanamo Bay, precisely to prevent fair trial or habeas corpus.

It may turn out that both assassinations were good things - although in Heydrich's case I suspect the harm was already done so it was mere revenge - but that does not mean that they were lawful. Equally it may turn out that the present assassination was a bad thing, if the Arab spring turns into a winter of discontent, but that does not mean that it was unlawful.

You may believe that the US will never turn on the UK or others of its present allies. That is not a universal view. You may believe that it is "right" that the US can disobey the law but that people of a largely non-white or non-Xtian persuasion must not - but that is not a universal view.

I have asked you to explain a particular point you were trying to make. Would you kindly do so? At present I do not know what you were trying to say and cannot therefore respond if appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:24 AM

"taken alive...".    Thanks for your perceptive comment, showing complete knowledge of the circumstances of trying to take into custody an international terrorist, who is not trying to give himself up, and who has heavily armed assistance in the building.

And just think, then we could have all agonized over how unfair it was that he was not to be tried by a jury of his peers;    that is, a jury of international terrorists.

What fun we could have had.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:36 AM

You post as if they have released the footage from the SEALS cameras, Ron..?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:36 AM

Richard, The President will have taken legal advice.
That advice was that as an act of national self defence it was legal to kill or capture OBL in Pakistan.
The legality may be challenged.
Some individuals already have.
No country or organisation yet has.

I think you are saying that even if legal it was wrong.
I respect but disagree with that opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:14 AM

"It stands alone."
Just seen arial photiographs on the news - no it doesn't.
You have produced a photograph showing a close up view from the front; the place is scattered with local dwellings.
Whatever anyway - the killing of 20 non-combatants would heve been akin to an act of terrorism - is that what you are excusing?
As I said, this has been a public relations disaster - it was not necessary to kill bin Laden and it would have been far more effective to have taken and tried him.
It is pretty well accepted that Al Qaeda is not an organisation as such, but unconnected groups scattered all over the world. Bin Laden's strategic role was of no importance whatever; rather he was a spiritual leader.
Two days after the assassination US drones tried and failed to kill a likely successor, Anwar al Awlaki - in Yemen; four others have been identified as also likely successors - 3 in Afghanistan and 1 in either Afghganistan or Pakistan - business as usual.
There hasnever been a greater need to get co-operation from other countries - especially after the move to democracy in North Africa; already there is fighting on the streets of Egypt between Muslims and Coptic Christians.
This adventure will have done much to polarise Muslims and halt any advances made over the past yars.
im Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:18 AM

You would prefer he escaped again Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Here's an interesting snippet from a Pakistani retired general that I hadn't run across before that indicates the Bin Ladin's compound had attracted some security attention when it was under construction:

Shaukat Qadir, a retired military brigadier, told Al Jazeera that the blame rested with "all parties" because the house bin Laden was reportedly living in should have been under surveillance since it had a history of being an al-Qaeda hideout.

"When the particular house bin Laden was living in was under construction in 2003, it was first raided by the ISI to catch a senior al-Qaeda leader.

"So if this was under suspicion in 2003, how could it not remain under surveilance now?"

I realize that not everyone in this thread is concerned with the details of this story but I'm always interested in the details. The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:27 AM

If Pakistan were as outraged as some posters think it is, or should be, its government would be doing a lot more than just complaining, which I believe is chiefly for home consumption.

It would be going to the UN, recalling its ambassador, cancelling trade agreements, breaking off diplomatic relations, etc., etc. That's what you do when a nation commits an "act of war" against you, assuming you don't have the desire or wherewithal to strike back
with weapons.

Let's see how much of that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:46 AM

Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this.    All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:11 AM

Pakistan PM Gilani described killing as "proper justice."
He said relations with US "remain strong".
He described the incursion as a violation of sovereignty, which of course is technically correct.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:19 AM

Jim sez "As I said, this has been a public relations disaster -"

To whom? The presidents ratings have soared here in the states { at least for a little while }. If someone is upset other than you I havn't heard about it. Those who have hated the Americans will continue to do so. And nothing will change that. A couple of pundits who didn't like us anyway are upset. We get to trade that for the life of Bin Laden.

Pretty good trade if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:41 AM

Pat Condell's rant on the fuss in Pakistan over the killing of Bin Laden and his disposal at sea.

http://www.patcondell.net/

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:19 AM

"You would prefer he escaped again Jim? "
No I would not but, unlike you, I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt.
There was no reason at all that he should have escaped and, as I pointed out, the US would have gained a huge moral and tactical victory had he been taken and tried. Press comments here are pointing out that even Adolph Eichmann got a trial.
This was no more than an act of vengeance.
This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions.
The killing of civilians in wartime is sometimes unavoidable, but to have dropped a bomb on a compound full of men, women and children non-combatants, not to mention those living close by (which you have attempted to deny were there) in order to carry out an assassination would have been simple murder - a war crime, no less. The Americans were prepared to do it and you would, of course, have argued in their defence, had they done so.
This is what you are supporting, which is in line with what was considered by those who sent the troops in, and also in line with your 'support-by-silence' of the technique of torture as a method of extracting information - making you an armchair promoter of military atrocities.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:38 AM

Jim,
"This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions."

Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes.
I merely explained that there was no breach of the Law Of Armed Conflict.

" I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt."

Then you should be very happy.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:08 PM

"Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes."
What you said amounts to the same thin bot here and there
"this is in quotes"
'this is emphasised'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:46 PM

I never did nor would say that people were expendable.
Your post gave the impression that I did.
I find that dishonest.
I just stated facts.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:47 PM

"What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children.
The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host)."
Clearly implies that you go ahead with military action and if civilians are injured it is down to the hostage takers. You even praised the troops for not killing the children
Had they used bombs they would all have been killed - you didn't think the fact that they were prepared, had bin Laden tried to escape to worthy of comment - never mind condemnation.
Your approach was similar to the wounded Palestinians in Gaza.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:06 PM

So, do you blame the SEALS for 'just obeying orders' OR do you blame President Obama for 'just obeying his?'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:17 PM

"Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this.    All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes." (Ron)...I don't, but the point I made, above, is that it's probably not just God who knows for sure - there's the SEALS themselves and the group of U.S. leaders who watched live footage (which I have seen a pic of on our news) via cameras on the SEALS.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:49 PM

Pragmatism Jim.
If he was not stopped, how many more deaths?
30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already.

The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:11 PM

Keith A of Hertford: "The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal."

In addition to that....

CIVILIANS make up most of the terrorist's targets!..so should someone send the COPS to show up and 'arrest' the terrorists????..with a lawyer, and read them their Miranda rights, first??..I mean, you DO want to make it all clean and legal, don't you???
About as practical as a 12 pound yo-yo!

This ideological debate is not only STUPID, it IS the distraction AWAY from the real issue...and that's exactly what it is designed to do!
Regardless, that being said, OBL(whose name, if I never heard again, would be too soon), needed to be taken out! The distraction is 'why' and who's interest was REALLY served, and WHY NOW?? (remember my post about the musical notes, and the whole tune?)...You, had you'd been following a lot of my posts, would have already told you, who is really calling the shots...come on, now, think and remember, real hard....who did GfS tell us who was telling Bush where to send our military?..,HINT: It has to do with their interests, more than our 'self defense'.
When you get done figuring that one out, why now?
Who is more desperate to NOT have a Muslim uprising, in their country??
Let's see what all fits into place!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:16 PM

"This was no more than an act of vengeance."

No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice. You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people. And it also acts as a warning to anyone who might wish to step into his shoes that he is painting a bull's eye on his forehead. "It may take awhile, but sooner or later, we'll get you! So think about it!"

Jim, your biases are patently clear and your sympathies lie in strange places indeed!

The American people are satisfied that Osama bin Laden is dead. That is understandable to any sane person. Some had the bad taste to go out in public and celebrate raucously—and much of the media, in its equally bad taste, love to focus on this sort of thing, and this, of course, is what you see on television and feel impelled to comment on. But—the vast majority of Americans felt a grim satisfaction that bin Laden has been dealt with and will not be engineering any more mass murders. They didn't, however, go out, wave a flag, and cheer about it. One does not generally celebrate the execution of a mad dog.

Those who get their jollies by thinking the worst of Americans will, of course, continue to think that the whole population was cheering and flag-waving. By this means, they demonstrate their own prejudices.

As to the matter of vast armadas of American aircraft transporting detainees to countries where torture is legal going through Shannon airport—or Heathrow, or Orly, or any other commercial airport is concerned—simply does not make sense. Think about it! If a suspected terrorist were to be captured here in Seattle and he were deemed by the CIA to be withholding important information, he would not be flown out of the Seattle-Tacoma International airport—or O'Hare, or JFK, or Logan, or LaGuardia—over the pole to Shannon, Ireland, and then to some country where "enhanced interrogation" is practiced. He would be put on a military aircraft and flown out of McChord Air Force Base near Fort Lewis south of Tacoma. Or some other military airfield. And if landing to refuel were necessary, the plane would not land at commercial airports, it would land at military airbases, which the same "Yank-bashers" are giggly to point out, are located all over the world, and are "yet another example of U.S. imperialism and exploitation."

So all those "extraordinary rendition" flights going through Shannon airport that you like to harp on about? I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination. Or of somebody's imagination, and you, in your biases, are predisposed to believe them.

Bloody nonsense!!

Now, Barack Obama said early on that he would end such things as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation," which the vast majority of Americans found (and continue to find) totally unacceptable. As they find many of the practices of intelligence agencies in general. Whether Obama did end the practice may be open to question, but if it were to be discovered or revealed that he didn't, I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term.

There are not enough bulls in the galaxy to produce the amount of manure that's floating around here in sympathy for the sudden and much deserved demise of a mass murder! And animosity directed at those who had the dangerous and unenviable job of taking out the garbage.

Don Firth

P. S. Pat Condell had the right of it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:00 PM

"No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice."
No Don, justice would have been having him captured, tried and sentenced - as was Saddam Hussain - and as is being pointed out over here - Adolph Eichmann.
I am not sypathetic to Muslim - or any religious fanatics; I am concerned that the US quest for oil has left the world on a knife-edge, and ham-fisted assassinations play right into their hands.
Nor am I anti-American; I know enough Americans who share my view on what has happened, recently and in the past. You have had a number of shit governments doing enough shit things to have dragged the name of your country into the - well - shit.
"I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination."
Then produce your reasons.
You haven't been following what is happening here - arguments about neutrality in the Dail, demonstrations lasting years, planes damaged in protest - read it up; it's all well documented.
It's dead easy for you to hide behind the "anti - American" defence and pretend that waterboarding is a new form of bathing, or napalm was just a harmless defolient, or Linndy England was really a religious instructor - America's record on human rights is crap, and until the man-in-the-street does something about it, it will stay that way -
Even some of your own politicians have come clean about your use of torture - have they got reason to make it up - Dick Cheyney calling for the continued use of torture - even Gun-Totin' Sarah commended Dubya for giving the nod to allowing torture to be used to trace the wherebouts of bin Laden - or has she got they own agendas.
Take your head out of your arse Don - it's all happening.
"evil triumphs when good people look the other way."
"I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term"
We wre assures a few postings go that the assassination has confirmed his second term.
"30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already."
By terrorists - are you saying that it's ok to do it if they do it?
You've already said that it was ok because only twenty civilians would be killed by a bomb - make yourself clear Keith - for or against killing by pragmatism?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:28 PM

You say you are glad he is dead Jim.
What cost would you consider justified to stop someone intent on more mass murder?
Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:32 PM

Don;
Plenty more where these came from:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0624/rendition.html
http://www.shannonwatch.org/story/lack-progress-suspect-rendition-flights-through-shannon-yet-another-irish-government-failure
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1217/breaking42.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0319/1224292610221.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
"Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die?"
Read what has been said Keith
For or against?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:53 PM

You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people.

As mentioned previously, Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc.

About time the Gummint put a SEAL team on him & put a bullet in HIS head, no?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:58 PM

State my reasons? I did, Jim. And you can blow them off if you wish, but they're still there.

I've heard all this kind of thing before from people with your particular bias, and although I could take you on point by point, I know it won't get through to you, so why should I waste my time? Make of it what you will, which of course you would do anyway, even if I wrote a couple of books worth of refutation.

I leave it to others on this thread to make their own assessment.

I have a great deal of respect for your scholarship when it comes to folk music, but as of now, that does not extend to your grasp of what's going on in the world at large.

Okay, sock it to me!

Don Firth

P. S. I will read the links you have posted when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:10 PM

Yeah, Jim, its a helluva thing to be biased in favor of due process and the rule of law. Shame on you!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:29 PM

Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want from something someone else posted, twists the intent, and then uses their twisted version to attack the poster, from that point on, I know what their posts are worth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:29 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax.html

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:53 PM

""Richard, national self defence could justify an incursion such as this one, but not random acts of terror against a civilian population as practiced by Hamas.""

What about the "collateral" damage then?

""Don T, was I wrong volunteer to stand with the British Army alongside our US allies, against the might of the Warsaw Pact's armoured divisions?""


My brother and two cousins did exactly the same, but they don't consider themselves military or legal experts.

You apparently are much more arrogant, unless of course you are telling the truth when you claim to be merely reporting others' words, in which case you are a Parrot, and we've all heard the term "bird brain".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:05 PM

""In 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was authorised by Winston Churchill to assassinate high-ranking Nazis wherever they could be found.""

Apples and housebricks Keith.

The British were at war (a declared war) with Germany, and the territory in which such assassinations were approved was either the territory of an enemy power, or territory occupied and/or controlled by that enemy power.

Pakistan is not an enemy of the US, nor was it (by any stretch of the imagination) under the occupation or control of ObL or Al Qaeda.

Do you, I wonder, really understand what is meant by rational discussion?

Somehow, I doubt it!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:10 PM

""What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children.
The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host).""

All I can say is this. If many of our fighting men have the same utterly callous and immoral attitude to the "collateral" deaths of twenty bystanders, God Help the UK.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:11 PM

Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc

Yeah, but those weren't white people, much less Americans!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:21 PM

""The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years.""

Or at least until the first bombs go off in London or Paris, and our gallant US allies say "Well, thank God it wasn't us".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:33 PM

""All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes""

Do you guys ever look at the situation?

He had about twenty people in that house, some of whom were women and children, and that doesn't leave much of an armed assistance.

Also, none of those supposed "armed assistants" managed to get off a single shot, and hardly anybody was killed, on either side.

It seems Al Qaeda is recruiting the wrong people, unless they were just civilians.

So, if the Seals captured all of those "armed assistants" without killing them, how come they made an exception for ObL, wounding his wife in the process?

Doesn't seem very plausible.

And for Keith, to save him the trouble of talking about having to make split second decisions, that is precisely what they train for.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:17 PM

Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want...

OK then, Don - enlighten me.

What precisely is Jim's "particular bias" that you refer to?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:19 PM

Media reports that there was a backup plan to drop a one-ton bomb on the compound. Did anybody real say that, or is the media making it up? Someone also referred to "collateral damage"? I hope that you realize that this is a term that the media uses for unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians, and the US military uses it for something entirely different. Unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians are normally referred to as...unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:40 PM

Oh? So what does the military mean by it, Art?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:58 PM

It is damage caused by bombs or artillery fire (including nuclear artillery) that isn't part of the intended mission - for example, firing on a fortification whose destruction blocks a road that the friendly forces had planned to use, or unintentionally starting a forest fire that prevents movement into or through an area. It is the equivalent of accidentally shooting yourself in the foot...doing something that you hadn't planned on that may have adverse consequences on something else you had intended.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:19 PM

Thanks, Art. It sure has assumed a different meaning in common usage... I wonder how that happened. Are you sure it didn't begin with some commander describing civilian deaths as collateral damage?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:01 AM

Possible, but not too likely...at least since it has a specific meaning that is taught in officers' training - or at least it was when I was teaching junior officers. It is more likely, IMHO, that it got to the media by way of the civilian side of the military...DOD staffers and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: number 6
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:04 AM

Collateral damage ... a very clinical, cold expression .... a term that relinquishes the perpetrator from any prosecution

from an earlier post of mine in this thread.

"I also raise question if the other 3 victims were also armed .... if not, then it would be murder (would it not) or ... were they just collateral damage."

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:04 AM

"Do you guys ever look...?"

I'm sure you'd be much happier with a pitched battle and many deaths.   So sorry to disappoint you.   I'll have to advise them that in their next mission they need to up the death toll, since a Mudcatter requires it.

I have read and heard reports which indicated there were heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house.    The SEALS wanted to make it a quick mission--in fact they had to since the Pakistani forces might well object.    Interesting that it never seems to enter your mind that they actually were capable of carrying out the mission successfully--that is, with a minimum of death and other violence.

If you have read or reports that there were not heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house, let's have exact sources and quotes.    I note with interest that Mr. Walkabout has managed to come up with precisely zero quotes and sources.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:18 AM

600!! yippee!