What an interesting last twelve hours or so... Lots of great conversations at a customer site today and a few questions that were intriguing:
* Why didn't Obama order a bomb strike at the site? *
From journalist Jake Tapper:
[I]n March, President Obama authorized a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound but President Obama ultimately decided against that The helicopter raid was riskier. It was more daring, an official said. But he wanted proof. He didn't want to just leave a pile of rubble. Officials also knew there were 22 people living there, and Obama wanted to be sure not to kill all the civilians. So he ordered officials to come up with an air-assault plan. The forces held rehearsals of the raid on April 7 and April 13, with officials monitoring the action..."
EDIT: (forgot to comment). To address the larger picture, an obliterated compound with nearly unrecognizable casualties would leave a permanent doubt that bin Laden was truly dead. The myth of bin Laden's survival is perhaps as bad as his existence.
This was substantally more risky for those Navy Seals. I can't even begin to extend enough gratitiude to
them. The risks those gentlemen expose themselves to are nearly unmatchable to any individual of the nation they serve.
* How can they be sure if it's bin Laden's DNA if they are only 99.9% sure? Humans and chimps share over 99% of our DNA *
Classic misunderstanding of Bayesian analysis. Statistical confidence comes from the tolerences of measurement. 99.9% confidence represents about 3.5 to 4 sigma. The error in all likelihood comes from their base sample of his DNA and perhaps to a lesser extent the DNA sequencing equipment.
* What do you mean by "now I understand why he presented his full birth certificate"? *
If we consider political elections as a game, it would have made sense to keep this, for lack of a better metaphor, "trump card" until after the Republican nominee placated the addressed demographic. This made little sense, and in a way looked comical and weak when split screened next to Donald Trump's news conference in New Hampshire.
But, I would guess that Obama knew what he was going to order the strike later in the week and knew what impact it would have. He knew that it was going to galvanize his presidency across party lines, and he wanted to leave the "birther curious" without a negative Pavlovian response to the killing of bin Laden.
May 2 2011, 9:08 am
|
|
SuperAntx
 |
http://i.imgur.com/i0Kyd.jpg
|
Meta characters. Sorry about that. Couldn't see them in the base text I copied.
| |
The birth certificate controversy always struck me as fairly ridiculous. I do think it was a mistake giving in at this late date, because he could've just let Trump continue to spout inanity. Honestly the fact that Trump jumped on this issue at all makes me think a lot less of him. And Obama could've easily just come back with "Screw this; we just got bin Laden. Where are your priorities?"
Burying bin Laden at sea was another mistake. Although some people have said putting him on display made more sense, I think just letting some journalists see firsthand would have been sufficient. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
The birth certificate controversy always struck me as fairly ridiculous. I do think it was a mistake giving in at this late date, because he could've just let Trump continue to spout inanity. Honestly the fact that Trump jumped on this issue at all makes me think a lot less of him. And Obama could've easily just come back with "Screw this; we just got bin Laden. Where are your priorities?" The key term to think about here is "Pavlovian response" and apply it to your own political or religious views... now replace "we just got bin Laden" with any other traumatic or epiphanic event. Given polling that suggested over two-thirds of Republican voters either were certain or did not know if Obama was born in a different country, and given the noted Pavlovian nature of this demographic, the play was indeed a positive expectation one. Burying bin Laden at sea was another mistake. Although some people have said putting him on display made more sense, I think just letting some journalists see firsthand would have been sufficient. I'll be awaiting WikiLeaks' attempt at finding the official coroner's report and photographs. | |
The birth certificate deal is stupid, a diversion from what really matters. I'm sure Obama welcomes it as it makes his competition look like idiots.
As far as Bin Laden finally dying, I thank president Obama for keeping his promise and ordering the strike. I thank at an even higher level the US troops for pulling through and doing it. I agree with Lummox though that the burial at sea was really stupid. He didn't deserve a ceremonial burial. He was a murderer and deserved to be paraded in the streets as we celebrated. Besides, he wasn't not a true Muslim -- he was a terrorist. Plus, now there will be countless conspiracies that Bin Laden is still alive. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Plus, now there will be countless conspiracies that Bin Laden is still alive. Can you say it's not so legitimate though? Until substantial proof is provided to the public (pictures, reports of the actual DNA taken, etc.), people will always doubt. It's easy to see how this would be a substantial political gain to Obama if he were to commandeer such a stunt. I don't think that's the case, I think it's legitimate - but the claim isn't unfounded. | |
Maybe the Pavlovian thing is regional; I've never met a Republican who thought the birth certificate thing was worth worrying about, and at least around here the birther craze is rightly regarded as a lunatic fringe thing. So too in much of the right blogosphere.
By preaching to the nuts all Trump did was open himself up to much-deserved mockery and send up a red flag for the majority of Republicans that he isn't a serious candidate. | |
Same with me, I don't know any one personally that subscribes to the birth certificate issue. It's pointless to talk about, there are many more important things to worry about right now such as the royal wedding. JUST KIDDING!
| |
Wow. I forgot about the wedding. Good job USA. ;)
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
He didn't deserve a ceremonial burial. This is our problem in America - always deciding what someone deserves. | |
I'm not sure what kind of statement it would have made for US civilisation, had you paraded his dead body in the streets. Doesn't bear thinking about, really, as I'd like to think that US society is above such things. The burial at sea was much more graceful conduct.
| |
I was exaggerating, obviously. He definitely deserves shame, though, as well as all of his followers. A ceremonial burial of our greatest enemy is a slap in our own face.
| |
Osama was our enemy, not Muslims. Desecrating his body would have been an insult to Mulsims and really just a dick thing to do in the first place. Nobody would want his body in their soil anyway.
Oceanic burial was the best option. | |
I see it as a mark of civilisation and human respect. You expect no mercy or respect from your enemy, but you are civilised enough to be merciful, and respectful. You are the bigger man. This kind of conduct pays the US more dividends than any childish act of trying to shame him would.
| |
My point is we parade and celebrate the death of a "terrorist" when we elect terrorists to be our president. What the hell do you think Bush was? A hero? He's a murderer - no different than Osama. Yet when he dies, I don't think America will have the same reaction. I don't think Obama will make a "This is a great day for Americans" announcement on that day. Self-righteous, hypocritical morons. This country is home to the worst terrorists of them all.
| |
SuperAntx wrote:
Oceanic burial was the best option. That's debatable. Several Islamic practices say Osama did not deserve the oceanic burial. In several circumstances it is reported only to be for those who die at sea, and others see it as only for those of highest praise. Osama bin Laden doesn't qualify for either. The only things I've read that I liked as justifiable reasons for the burial were a) If he were buried in land, people would travel to mark his grave as a heroic, "praise-this-terrorist" site and b) Nobody wanted the body on their land. So just dump him somewhere. | |
ET: Your claim is very... emotion-based, and incredibly biased. I'd advise you look at the entire situation before you go comparing Bush to Osama.
| |