Thread: Osama Bin Laden is dead and his corpse is in US hands.

BTW, while I am glad that OBL is dead, and I do not think this op was possible without Pakistani cooperation, I completely disagree with the manner in which it was conducted, even if the ISI/PA was in the know.

This should have been a Pakistani led operation, and it is reflective of Pakistan's poor leadership that they chose to propagate such a duplicitous narrative.

Originally Posted by Hilal123

Geronimo ... the one from whom his land was taken away and his people killed and sent of to the reserves ... I suppose its accurate in some ways

Originally Posted by gunnut

Do you have any idea how the term "Geronimo" is used in every day American English language?

Do tell.

Osama bin Laden dead: code name Geronimo

The code name Geronimo had apparently been chosen for bin Laden because, like the Native American chief, he had managed to evade capture for years

Originally Posted by Hilal123

There can be many things

Too bad they didn't.

1. there could be reduction of the CIA foot print from Pakistan now that bin laden is dead

Possibly. Give up his second in command. Meanwhile, a draw down of the US military in Afghanistan is now a definite possibility.

2. there could be more financial/mil tech rewards offered

Why? OBL is already dead, and Congress is now none too pleased with Pakistan.

3. Some of Pakistn's strategic concerns about indian presence in a'stan could be addressed

Why would the Americans bother? They want to be less involved not more.

There are lot of things that Pakistan could get out of the US in return for OBL

this is just my guess

They could have, they might have, but it was too late.

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

No, the accounts are pretty clear that this was during the ops - power was cut, people were asked to stay indoors, and those with generators told to turn off their lights. There would be no need for these precautions (aside from staying indoors and cordoning of the perimeter) in the aftermath of the ops. The eyewitness reports you are referring to are from people talking about Monday morning.

Seems pretty consistent with the American account to me. Bunch of helicopters and heavily armed men blowing things up in your neighborhood. You don't know what's going on. You don't know if they are friendly or enemy. They seem professional and formidable.

First thing you do: establish a perimeter, tell every one to darken their houses (so they don't get shot), and reassure people that nothing is going on. Then you start figuring out who those guys are. Then you start planning a tactical response. Then..... oh wait, they are gone. Classic domestic security tactics. You see this play out in LA every time there's a potential barricade or hostage situation...... without the BS excuses regarding "military exercises" and the helicopter extraction, of course.

Originally Posted by citanon

Seems pretty consistent with the American account to me. Bunch of helicopters and heavily armed men blowing things up in your neighborhood. You don't know what's going on. You don't know if they are friendly or enemy. They seem professional and formidable.

First thing you do: establish a perimeter, tell every one to darken their houses (so they don't get shot), and reassure people that nothing is going on. Then you start figuring out who those guys are. Then you start planning a tactical response. Then..... oh wait, they are gone. Classic domestic security tactics. You see this play out in LA every time there's a potential barricade or hostage situation...... without the BS excuses regarding "military exercises" and the helicopter extraction, of course.

And they brought ambulances and fire engines with them too on the choppers I suppose?

Eyewitnesses report both arriving at the scene within minutes of the op and standing by.

Does not jive with the 'official history' being written, but if you want to bask in Rambo fantasies, enjoy yourself.

Pakistan's president denies harboring bin Laden
By NAHAL TOOSI and ZARAR KHAN, Associated Press Nahal Toosi And Zarar Khan, Associated Press 1 hr 30 mins ago

ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan's leader denied suggestions that his country's security forces sheltered Osama bin Laden as Britain demanded Tuesday that Islamabad answer for how the al-Qaida chief lived undetected for six years in a large house in a garrison town close to the capital.

But in a nod to the complexities of dealing with a nuclear-armed, unstable country that is crucial to success in the war in neighboring Afghanistan, British Prime Minister David Cameron said having "a massive row" with Islamabad over the issue would not be in Britain's interest.

A day after U.S. commandos killed bin Laden, reporters were allowed within the 15-foot, barbed-wire-topped walls of the compound for the first time. But the doors of the house were sealed shut and police were in no mood to open them.

Local residents showed off small parts of what appeared to be a U.S. helicopter that Washington said malfunctioned and was disabled by the American strike team as they retreated. A small servant's room outside the perimeter showed signs of violent entry and had been briskly searched, clothes and bedding tossed to the ground. Its wall clock was on the floor, the time stuck at 2:20, when the U.S. team would have been on the ground in the early hours of Monday.

Asif Ali Zardari's comments, in a Washington Post opinion piece Monday, were Pakistan's first formal response to suspicions raised by U.S. officials and others. Those suspicions could further sour relations between Islamabad and its Western backers at a key point in the war in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden was killed close to a military academy in the bustling northwestern town of Abbottabad, not in the remote Afghan border region where intelligence assessments had assumed he had been holed up. That was quickly taken as a sign of possible collusion with the country's powerful security establishment, which Western officials have long regarded with a measure of suspicion despite several notable al-Qaida arrests in the country since 2001.

"Some in the U.S. press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, or worse yet that we were disingenuous and actually protected the terrorists we claimed to be pursuing. Such baseless speculation may make exciting cable news, but it doesn't reflect fact," Zardari wrote.

Ties between the two nominal allies were already strained amid U.S. accusations that the Pakistanis are supporting militants in Afghanistan and Pakistani anger over American drone attacks and spy activity on its soil. They came to head in late January after a CIA contractor shot and killed two Pakistan's, in what Washington said was self-defense.

Senior U.S. officials did not directly accuse Pakistan of collusion, but made it clear they had concerns.

"People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight," Obama's counterterrorism chief John Brennan told reporters Monday. "Clearly, this was something that was considered as a possibility. Pakistan is a large country. We are looking right now at how he was able to hold out there for so long and whether or not there was any type of support system within Pakistan that allowed him to stay there."

Lawmakers were more direct.

U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Pakistan's intelligence and army have "got a lot of explaining to do," given that bin Laden was holed up in such a large house with surrounding buildings, the fact that its residents took the unusual step of burning their garbage and avoiding any trash collection.

"It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that," Levin said.

Cameron, who has also made supporting Pakistan a major foreign policy commitment, echoed those concerns.

"Those are questions we have to ask, those are questions we will want answered and we will be asking that question of everyone in Pakistan and the Pakistani government," Cameron told BBC radio before acknowledging the West's limited leverage against Islamabad.

"We could go down the route of having some massive argument, massive row with Pakistan, but I assess our relationship with Pakistan and it is my very clear view that it is in out interests to work with the government and people of Pakistan to combat terrorism, combat extremism and help development in that country."

Suspicions were also aired in many Pakistan's media and on the street Tuesday.

"That house was obviously a suspicious one," said Jahangir Khan, who was buying a newspaper in Abbottabad. "Either it was a complete failure of our intelligence agencies or they were involved in this affair."

Pakistan's security establishment has yet to explain how bin Laden was able to live there undetected, and given that it is rarely transparent about what it does, it might never do so. Asked about the raid, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir said it was time to move on.

"The issue of Osama bin Laden is history and I think we do now want to keep ourselves mired in the past," he told reporters.

U.S. officials have said that Pakistani officials were not told about the early morning helicopter raid until the strike team had killed bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan from where they took off from, citing security reasons.

Many Pakistanis were surprised at how this was possible, especially when initial reports stated that the choppers took off from a Pakistani air base. Some were angry that the country's sovereignty had been violated — an especially sensitive issue given the unpopularity of America here.

Zardari said it "was not a joint operation" — the kind of which has been conducted in the past against lesser terror suspects in Pakistan — but that Pakistani cooperation, in a general sense, had helped lead them to bin Laden.

"A decade of cooperation and partnership between the United States and Pakistan led up to the elimination of Osama bin Laden as a continuing threat to the civilized world," he said.

President Barack Obama also said the country's anti-terror alliance had helped in the run-up to the operation, but did not thank Pakistan when he announced the death of bin Laden.

The death has raised fears of revenge attacks, both in Pakistan — which has seen hundreds of suicide attacks by al-Qaida and its allies since 2007 — and internationally. The U.S Embassy said its missions in Pakistan would remain closed to the public until further notice.

_____

Associated Press Writer Munir Ahmed contributed to this report from Islamabad.
Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

In the US burial at sea is not a simple dumping overboard. It is done in a solemn respectful manner.

Thousands of US Navy sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and Soldiers who were killed or died at sea during World War II were buried in this manner.

If it was good enough for these men it was good enough for that son of a bitch OBL.

[Photo] Two sailors of Liscome Bay buried at sea from the deck of an US Coast Guard assault transport, Nov 1943 | World War II Database

Caught up now... whew, 31 pages. Thoughts...

People have unrealistic expectations on AD (Air Defense) systems, such as radar, SAMs, and interceptors. Much of this is due to nationalistic propaganda that claims "Our airspace is sealed. Impenetrable. Guarded by the most advanced blah blah blah..." But the truth is simple. Airspace is impossible to deny to a determined force. I haven't any doubt that the helicopters could, and did, operate with impunity for a period of time. And the time is important. Done quickly, the possibility of a successful intercept or targeting are slim.

And yes, this applies as well to nations like China, Russia, and the U.S.

Low flying helicopters at night are extremely challenging targets for a fighter. The radar detection relies on a doppler return, and depending upon the airspeed, the return can be nil. The target is lost in ground clutter. The forward-moving blades do not provide an adequate signal. The helicopters can appear like rocks or cars.

Ground-based SAM systems - the window to detect and target can be fleeting. And when detected, there will be much doubt. If you are a young officer commanding a SAM battery, are you going to make the decision to fire on that target? You've got 30 seconds. Is it a Pakistani Chinook full of your guys? And the target is now gone. You shrug you shoulders, maybe phone the contact in, and go about your business.

Wow my 1,000th post!

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

In the US burial at sea is not a simple dumping overboard. It is done in a solemn respectful manner.

Thousands of US Navy sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and Soldiers who were killed or died at sea during World War II were buried in this manner.

If it was good enough for these men it was good enough for that son of a bitch OBL.

[Photo] Two sailors of Liscome Bay buried at sea from the deck of an US Coast Guard assault transport, Nov 1943 | World War II Database

It was too good for OBL - IMO. I would have thrown him out like garbage he was - what respect did he ever show the innocent people at the WTC, or any of his other victims. Those who say he was a great warrior? --- who died hiding behind a woman...

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

This should have been a Pakistani led operation, and it is reflective of Pakistan's poor leadership that they chose to propagate such a duplicitous narrative.

This is Mushraf's line. Easy for him to say sitting in the UK and not in charge.

Do you think Pakistan would be ready to move in on OBL ?

What about the backlash from your own people as a result. Your President claims the Taliban already made death threats in his yesterday's WAPO op-ed.

The way this was handled implies very little involvement and i figure that's by design. We even had a few pages discussion over whether there was any involvment in this. The ruse worked.

Originally Posted by Agnostic Muslim

BTW, while I am glad that OBL is dead, and I do not think this op was possible without Pakistani cooperation, I completely disagree with the manner in which it was conducted, even if the ISI/PA was in the know.

This should have been a Pakistani led operation, and it is reflective of Pakistan's poor leadership that they chose to propagate such a duplicitous narrative.

Yeah and I want a million dollars and also own a Rolls Royce

Seriously, your argument is like a typical babble from Zaid Hamid...

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Do you think Pakistan would be ready to move in on OBL ?

Yes - eyewitness accounts and some 'unofficial accounts from ISI officials' suggest Pakistani knowledge of the operation in any case. So if the ISI/PA knew about the US doing it, they could have done it themselves without compromising OPSEC.

What about the backlash from your own people as a result. Your President claims the Taliban already made death threats in his yesterday's WAPO op-ed.

The backlash is going to be there regardless - the TTP and AQ can strike at Pakistan, and have, easier than they can the West. The TTP has in fact already declared Pakistan as its main target (though its not like that was not the case already). Our political leadership needs to grow some cajones and own principled positions. But this is the same political leadership that was largely silent when two of its major political figures were murdered by extremists over the blasphemy law, so the decision to not own this particular operation comes as no major surprise in that context.

The way this was handled implies very little involvement and i figure that's by design. We even had a few pages discussion over whether there was any involvment in this. The ruse worked.

And I disagree with the way it was handled - it should have been a Pakistani led and owned OP, regardless of the backlash.

Pakistan, specifically the military, faced a severe backlash and vilification from the media and politicians when it undertook the Lal Masjid Operation, and it was that Operation that sparked a wave of suicide bombings and attacks in Pakistan, and acted as a catalyst for extremists in Swat an Dir - but that does not mean the LM Op should not have taken place. While I can understand the desire to avoid a repeat of the Lal Masjid backlash, I still think the leadership needs to publicly stand by a principled position against terrorism and extremism and propagate that message forcefully.

But I suppose it is easier to recommend such a position when I am not going to be the one responsible for the decisions being made and the main target of extremists, especially given the Taseer and Bhatti assassinations.

Originally Posted by 667medic

Seriously, your argument is like a typical babble from Zaid Hamid...

Why? Just because you don't like it and your prejudice and hate against Pakistan can't be held back?

If you actually have an argument to offer as to why why my own is not 'viable', then please make it instead of babbling about Zahid Hamid.

And I disagree with the way it was handled - it should have been a Pakistani led and owned OP, regardless of the backlash.

I'm not sure you understand the raw need for his death or capture to be at the hands of U.S. military personnel. It was critical for the U.S. to be the trigger-pullers. A Pakistani-only operation to get OBL simply was not an option, and in fact, there is news that states Obama nixed the option to bomb the building with a B-2 because they wanted U.S. operators to look him in the eye, kill him, and get evidence.

To be blunt, there was probably a legitimate concern about duplicitous ISI personnel tipping him off. Remember, such an operation takes weeks or months to train for, put together. In those weeks, given a mixed force, what would the odds have been of a message being slipped to OBL?

The thought of a botched raid, with OBL slipping away yet again, simply could not be tolerated after the Tora Bora debacle.