Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Osama bin Laden killed by US forces in Pakistan

These dialysis claims are just rumours. No one who is in a position to know - including Bin Laden himself - has said anything beyond he had kidney stones.
 
Earlier on in the posts there was speculation that this execution might simbolize the beginning of an exit strategy from Afghanistan of US troops but when you come to think about it, when was the last time the US withdrew from anywhere apart from Vietnam? When they set up base they tend to stick around for a hell of a long time. For example; Germany, South Korea, and Japan, I think.
 
Anudder Oik said:
Earlier on in the posts there was speculation that this execution might simbolize the beginning of an exit strategy from Afghanistan of US troops but when you come to think about it, when was the last time the US withdrew from anywhere apart from Vietnam? When they set up base they tend to stick around for a hell of a long time. For example; Germany, South Korea, and Japan, I think.
Click to expand...

Something else has happened that coincides with Bin Ladens death. Obama has announced that David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, will replace Leon Panetta as CIA director. This is significant because Petraeus was the architect of the US counter insurgency operation and nation building operation in Afghanistan. His removal to the CIA effectively sidelines him. This is significant and together with Bin Laden's death suggests a shift in US policy in the region away from counter insurgency and nation building towards counter terrorism and it is this that gives concern. Because it is becoming increasingly clear that the "terrorist" threat is not in Afghanistan. There is no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban represent a local national insurgency not an example of trans-global terrorism. The terrorists are in Pakistan. I think all indications are that the US may be moving away from counter insurgency in Afghanistan towards counter terrorism in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's consent. In other words an expansion of the US involvement in Afghanistan into further direct involvement in Pakistan. The results could be very worrying for the region.
 
1%er said:
I'm thinking back about ten years, so you may well be correct
Click to expand...

Yeah the dialysis claims were kicking about in the fraught period soon after the 9/11 attacks, when it was not wise to buy strongly into much of what was being said.

I seem to remember that despite all the 'wanted dead or alive' stuff, the Bush administration still managed to give the impression that they were not actually that keen on finding bin Laden in a hurry. Then as Bushs re-election bid drew closer, cynical minds wondered if Osama would turn up dead just in time to give Bush a big popularity boost, but instead what we got was a tape from bin Laden which influenced election politics somewhat.
 
dylans said:
This is significant and together with Bin Laden's death suggests a shift in US policy in the region away from counter insurgency and nation building towards counter terrorism and it is this that gives concern.
Click to expand...

Quite possible, especially given that it feels like a pretty long time that the US & UK have been slowly setting the scene for an end to the Afghanistan adventure.

Because it is becoming increasingly clear that the "terrorist" threat is not in Afghanistan. There is no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban represent a local national insurgency not an example of trans-global terrorism. The terrorists are in Pakistan. I think all indications are that the US may be moving away from counter insurgency in Afghanistan towards counter terrorism in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's consent. In other words an expansion of the US involvement in Afghanistan into further direct involvement in Pakistan. The results could be very worrying for the region.
Click to expand...

Its not clear to me what active international terrorist capacity remains in Pakistan at this point either. If the true focus of the 'war on terror' is danger to our shores, Yemen seems a more active example at present. And whether from an anti-terrorist attacks in the west perspective, or completely different US imperialist agendas desires for the region, there is likely to be a strong desire to have relatively stable regimes that are broadly on-side. So I doubt they want to do anything that may cause the situation in Pakistan to decline further, as this will be counterproductive. Unless they have some grand new scheme for the region that we have yet to get a good glimpse of, I am thinking that whilst the public relationship between USA and Pakistan is going to take a beating, behidn the scenes they wont want to fall out. Its not like the idea that Pakistan may have been harbouring bin Laden is totally shocking and new, not to people within government, some journalists etc at least.

Let me put it another way. These drone attacks in Pakistan, what exactly are the US trying to achieve with them? Is it about killing terrorism or is it more about the battle for Afghanistan? I think that whilst your future nightmare scenario is plausible, there is also the possibility that if the US war in Afghanistan ends to some extent at least, the need to do controversial and destabilising stuff in Pakistan also diminishes. Or anotehr possibility is that some of the stuff the US does in Pakistan is actually on behalf of the Pakistani government, who will protest it in public because it would be too controversial for them to do this dirty work themselves, so let the US do it. Didnt a similar picture emerge from some wikileaks about Yemen, who were even carrying out some 'anti-terror' stuff themselves that they then pretended to their own population that it was a US attack, not their own government doing it?
 
I think it may be more mundane and shallow than that. I think Obama's political opponents will use pakistan and demands for more action from the Pakistani government, withdrawal of financial aid etc as a stick to beat Obama with. They couldn't care less about the intricate and difficult position that the Pakistani government is facing or the dangers involved. They want to take the shine off Obama's star.
 
Sure they will use it as a stick, the unknown is how much this beating will actually affect US policy.

It seems to me that although US politicians are not at all afraid to use sensitive international politics situations as domestic political weapons, there is generally quite a difference between their bark and their bite. ie they criticise the president heavily, but usually arent prepared to actually do anything that would thwart us policy overseas. I should not be complacent, for there are moments in history where complete policy rethinks can be forced, but Im just not sure. I mean we barely have any sense of what comes next for the 'war on terror', what Obama will do with it now that there are fresh choices to be made. The most potent and effective years of this 'war on terror' narrative are well behind us now, and with the bin Laden killing we get to find out whether they want to cling onto this 'war' for a long time, as a substitute for what was lost with the end of the cold war (such as justification for foreign adventures, and the injection of poisonous paranoia into domestic life), or whether we are going to take a break from the terror narrative for a while and move on to some fresh era. Given all the uprisings etc in the middle east, the precarious environmental, economic and energy picture, theres rather a lot of things in flux at the moment, so I would not dare predict what may be in store, and even the most powerful nations may yet have to adapt to new events that are not part of any cunning geopolitical plan right now.

All I know is that the pace of events in 2011 better slow down at some point or the world will be turned on its head before years end. Not that turning it on its head would necessarily be a bad thing, but the unpredictability carries risk. Ahh to hell with it, the turmoil is at least refreshing in one sense. The 9/11 and Bush years were bleak, hopeless, and welded to a fairly predictable course, where it seemed well possible to work out what was happening because there were just a few major agendas in play, with much of the stage-management being rather amateurish, and a vast swathe of the globe under relatively stable management, and not daring to step out of line with a vengeful USA on the rampage. Just a few of the players seemed to have all the momentum. These days things are far more wobbly in so many places and on so many levels. Im fond of reminding people of Blairs dodgy 'the kaleidoscope has been shaken, lets rearrange the world before the pieces settle' speech post 9/11. Well Blair and buddies blew the opportunity in some ways, rearranging a few pieces in a predictable way and getting caught a bad place once the pieces settled. In 2011 the pieces seem to be flying around far more energetically, and far less within the control of any one nation, and its utterly unclear who will end up best placed to take advantage of this chaotic shift. Or not, and Im overhyping the chaos factor, and things will stay the same far more than I am suggesting. We shall see.
 
There's $3 trillion worth of mineral resources in Afghanistan, so the US will be staying put.

I would have thought to assist in that they will need whatever Pakistan has to offer in the region?
 
audiotech said:
There's $3 trillion worth of mineral resources in Afghanistan, so the US will be staying put.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Letting this Afghan quagmire continue into election season would be bad news for Obama. I doubt he's going to put re-election at risk for minerals scattered around an ungovernable wilderness. I'd say by next summer the US will have declared some kind of success & will largely be out of Afghan.
 
Why not just wait for the official pics to come out instead of posting stupid gruesome mock ups????
 
A facebook contact tells me there's already a virus going around that purports to be a video of OBL's execution.
 
I seem to recall people watching Brennan on video saying he looked shifty when he was describing how Bin Laden used his wife as a human shield etc.

The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.

Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot to kill operation.

Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.

The president's press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.

I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president's assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message - this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.
Click to expand...
source
 
tbf fair multiple helmet feeds followed by debriefs are not going to give you a proper narrative till somebody with some brains and a bit of time has sat down and figured what happened when.
 
likesfish said:
tbf fair multiple helmet feeds followed by debriefs are not going to give you a proper narrative till somebody with some brains and a bit of time has sat down and figured what happened when.
Click to expand...

Only one feed is needed, that of the guy who allegedly shot Osama.
 
Thing is though, given that what likesfish says is obviously true, why were they putting out propaganda spin about 'human shields' before finding out what actually happened?

All I can think is that as politicians, they just can't help themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
Afghanistan: UK special forces 'killed 9 people in their beds'
Replies
24
Views
1K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
kebabking
  • Poll
US 2028 election?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
tim
tim
Bingoman
Iran Pakistan tensions
Replies
6
Views
480
yield
Y
Dystopiary
Three people killed, several injured after knife attack in Germany 23/08/24
Replies
14
Views
1K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
N
Can US Supreme Court be reformed next time Democrats are in power?
Replies
8
Views
297
Yossarian
Yossarian
Back
Top Bottom