Why Kill Osama?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 3, 2011.

  1. Glenn Beck raised a brilliant point today. Our security people knew where Osama was. They knew exposing his whereabouts, either through an arrest or a kill team, would likely rupture our relationship with Pakistan. Politicians would rightfully demand to know why we were sending billions to a country that must have been complicit on some level with osama. That aid is all that keeps radicals from seizing powere there. The pakistan government would face a tremendous backlash from osama supporters. Even freeing the american diplomat being held illegally in pakistan would become more difficult, not that the media seem to give a crap about him any more.

    Taking action against osama would also risk tremendous upheaval throughout the middle east and possible retaliation against us or europe.

    Moreover, by killing him or openly arresting him, we would forfeit the priceless opportunity to interrogate him, not least about a possible rogue nuke that al qaeda supposedly has. After a thorough interrogation under the supervision of ACLU lawyers, then we could have tried him. Only kidding, after waterboarding him and torturing him for months, we could have dragged what was left of him out to some desert and pretended to have captured and killed him there.

    Now the question is, why would Obama give the order to send in a kill team, when killing osama or arresting him, would lead to all these problems and missed opportunities? Why not do a snatch and grab operation, kill everyone else at the compound and disguise it?

    Beck hypothosized three alternatives. 1. Obama wanted the political boost from a public triumph. 2. They had other plans, but the crashed chopper scuppered them. 3. For some reason, perhaps not wanting to be put in a position where torture was called for, they didn't want to take him alive.

    It's all very fascinating. I also find it interesting that they are releasing pictures, knowing the likely impact. This is an administration after all that criticized an obscure pastor for burning a koran because the act would offend muslims. Isn't releasing pictures of a trophy kill infinitely more inflamatory?
  2. Hello


    Killing him was absolutely the right thing to do. I:f we would have given him a trial he would have had years to turn it into a circus, and he would have been left alive as an extra cause for the jihadists, they would have been wanting to kill Americans to save their Saint Osama.

  3. Ricter


    Yup, Beck's "motivated reasoning" notwithstanding.
  4. Hello


    The only reason i would have liked him left alive for a couple weeks was so that they could hook him up to a car battery in guantanamo for a little while before he was mysteriously beaten to death by another prisoner.

    Maybe the most poetic justice would have been to leave him alive, and then immediately release him into the general population at pelican bay, and dont give him a cell so he can see how scumbags in America operate. :D
  5. Well yes, I agree about the trial part, but Beck's point was that they should have grabbed him covertly and not told anyone. Then they would have been free to interrogate him for as long as they wanted.

    Also, now his operatives know that any computer data, etc he had at his compound has been compromised. Plus, they know exactly how we found him.

    A cleverer president would have hinted that a high level al qaeda commander sold him out secretly. Sow a little suspicion.
  6. Lucrum


    Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.
  7. Shagi


    Now thats something worth considering - Glenn Beck giving better advice on National Security and military operations than all the CIA and Pentagon boffins.

    Next he will be teaching us how to trade and we will listen and ponder when he says - buy silver just 6 months ago when he advised the stock market was a train wreck about to fall off a cliff reminisc 1929 -
  8. Well what have we all learned after all this?

    That muslims can be buried at sea.
  9. Hello


    Ok, that part I can agree with, we should have left him alive a little while without announcing anything.

    The thing is, if Pakistan knew where Bin Laden was , they would have known that he was gone, and then what? Do we lie to the pakistanis?

    They would have known he was gone as soon as one of Bin Ladens goons returned and saw the compound was decimated, and they would have put 2 and 2 together that there was choppers there, and one was destroyed.

    After that pakistan would start asking us questions, and Its not like we could have lied at that point and said we were not involved. If we would have lied at that point then the U.S. would have had to follow up with that lie, because we could have never come clean after we lied to them in the first place about what went down, especially when we just invaded their country unlawfully.

    So in that case Obama would have never been allowed to tell the U.S. that they caught Osama, because we would have had to follow the original lie to pakistan that said we didnt have anything to do with it, so as not to further piss off the Pakistanis.

    It seems like a catch 22 in my eyes, as long as pakistan was not involved we were forced to end it right there.

    With all this said, how do we know that they dont still Have Osama alive somewhere, and that the U.S. didnt lie to all of us inside the U.S. once they captured him.? :D j/k

    #10     May 3, 2011