Osama Bin Laden killed by U.S. special forces

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Discuss.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    It seems Democrats are not so soft on terrorists after all. Congratulations to our president and armed forces for sending a mass murderer to hell.

  • (Show?)

    Very few Republican leaders can admit that the President had anything to do with it. Some even give Bush credit. They really do live in an alternate universe. Come on. Bush disbanded the Osama intelligence team and accomplished nothing in 7 years. Obama put together a team upon entering office, located Osama 6 months ago and chose a deliberate, calculated plan to bring him down. That is leadership.

  • (Show?)

    One of the greatest missteps Americans made in the wake of 9/11 was allowing foreign policy to become politicized as elective clubs. I'd like to think that Democrats can rise above that impulse now. This is an historic moment, not a political one.

  • (Show?)

    I know one thing for sure: Barack Obama has just guaranteed his re-election.

    I hope this successful operation is used in a way that will convince blue dogs and other right-wing in Congress that the US overseas military presence can now be reduced, assuming that that is indeed what President Obama seeks. If it's not what Obama seeks, let us hope that the House Progressive Caucus can persuade him.

    • (Show?)

      I have not made up my mind as to whether our country should remain in Afghanistan or not, however, I disagree with your notion that the death of Bin Laden serves as a reason for reducing our troop presence over seas.

      At this point in the War on Terror Osama was simply a figurehead and had no actual impact on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries that we are involved in militarily.

      This is not to say that I am not glad that justice was served and that we shouldidn't have bothered killing him, it just means that our enemies are just as physically strong as they were yesterday.

  • (Show?)

    Marshall- the enemy in Afghanistan, the Taliban, as they are called, are not jihadists. They have no interest in attacking the West.

    I believe there are really very few true jihadists.

    • (Show?)

      "the enemy in Afghanistan, the Taliban, as they are called, are not jihadists. "

      Haha.. that's a good one. Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan gave logistical support and the platform to attack New York, to Bin Laden and even married his daughter. The Taliban across the border in Pakistan gave logistical support and training to the Times Square bomber and took credit for the attempt, which if successful would have murdered hundreds. So.. these guys are not Jihadists?? I know that's the left wing progressive line these days, that the Taliban are simply misunderstood people, who need an understanding ear. Every time these guys are interviewed they talk about aching for the chance to bomb New York again.

      • (Show?)

        Bill- the Times Sq. bomber was acting in response to drone strikes inside Pakistan.

        And the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to a neutral country, just after 9/11/2001.

        I believe the only practical way out of this is to just go back to status quo as it existed prior to 9/11/2001, which would be hands off the FATA and associated areas across the mythical border with Afghanistan. Just let things cool down- stop the assault on these areas. Otherwise, the reprisals will go on and on.

        • (Show?)

          Anyway, if the Taliban are all or mostly jihadists, why is Obama planning on a pullout? Does he believe either Karzai or the Pakistani government will stop the Taliban? I don't think he could possibly believe that.

  • (Show?)

    On a related and lighter note on the topic of Usama ibn Laden being brought to justice, a man in Astoria was finally able to shave his beard.

  • (Show?)

    Obama is no less clumsy than W in falling for bin Laden's plot to bleed us militarily until we weaken and collapse financially. Unless Obama now uses this opportunity to reverse course on these wars, bin Laden is still winning.

  • (Show?)

    I doubt this news will have much of an impact on an election that will be driven mostly by economic issues. This is a big deal today, but eighteen months from now, nobody will care.

  • (Show?)

    An argument can be made that a different strategy with less boots on the ground in Afghanistan is a better one, but any policy that results in a Taliban take-over of Afghanistan is a disaster. It's a disaster for Afghanistan, as the men who throw acid in little girls' faces for attending school will be in charge. And they will throw out the welcome mat to any jihadist with bucks to work out their plans in Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan has been a classic case of a poor failed state with a deadly symbiosis between well funded anti-American Arab jihadists and local Islamic thugs. Abandonment of Afghanistan is a guarantee of a repeat of history in the 1990s when the Pakistani ISI (secret service) created the Taliban as an instrument of terror and control. When the dust settles, it will likely be the case that the ISI with it's ties to the Taliban Haqqani network (with its close alliance to Al Qaeda) probably gave Bin Laden the sanctuary he needed to set up housekeeping within sight of the Pakistan Military Institute and just a few miles from Islamabad.

    Yes, the source of world terrorism is not Afghanistan, it is Pakistan and supported by its own secret service; but the Afghanistan Taliban are extensions of the same network that finds its safe havens in Pakistan, and are willing participants. That is the bind that Obama and U.S. policy makers have in this equation. How do you solve the problem of the export of terrorism (i.e. the attack on Mumbai) when your own ostensible ally is the one exporting and supporting terrorism? And they have nuclear weapons.

    • (Show?)

      I don't think Pakistan had a terrorism problem until attacks were begun against the Federally Administered Tribal Area. There were no bombings going on inside Pakistan prior to strikes against that region.

      People will fight back, call it whatever you want.

      • (Show?)

        You cannot be serious, Stephen. This is a case where you're not letting the facts get in the way of your beliefs. For decades the Pakistani military and ISI have supported and nurtured terrorist groups - aimed not just at Afghanistan but mainly India. Those groups have mounted many, many attacks inside Pakistan itself, directed at Christian, "Western" and competing Muslim or Pakistani political rivals.

  • (Show?)

    Roger Cohen has an excellent essay on the meaning and timing of the Bin Laden death and the wave sweeping the Middle East. The real war on terror will be won by the Arab youth of the Middle East.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/opinion/03iht-edcohen03.html?hp

  • (Show?)

    n a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden’s couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Can you say waterboarded.

    • (Show?)

      While I wouldn't put too much faith in the source, Rumsfeld stated today that the sources that lead to ID'ing Osama's courier that led to his killing, was never water-boarded.

  • (Show?)

    Osama bin Laden's been assassinated by U.S. Special Forces. Right.

    So the troops can come home now, right?

    The TSA can stop their draconian profiling now, right?

    The Patriot Act can be retooled or removed to protect civil rights now, right?

    Cheer if you will, I won't fault anyone for doing so. This is an historic event.

    I'll be a little more sacrosanct over the trillion-plus dollars spend, tens-of-thousands of civilian lives lost and thousands of American and international soldiers' lives killed in action.

    All to kill one man who masterminded the murder of civilians and military personnel alike in the United States, Yemen, Kenya and elsewhere.

    Osama bin Laden was a bad man. No question of it. Years of war and operations like Sunday's won't hold significant meaning to me until we're at peace.

    That's what the Nobel Peace Prize is given for, right?

connect with blueoregon