Comment by phaus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>I am not arguing for or against whether he was entitled to a realistic chance, just stating that he didnt and it was by design.

I know that you aren't passing judgement yourself, but I hope that before anyone else does, they consider the fact that Bin Laden was extremely intelligent and fantastically disciplined. He was the kind of guy who ALWAYS considered every possibility. His system for remaining hidden was absolutely amazing in a world where highly educated people routinely make idiotic mistakes from an OPSEC standpoint. You could argue that air-gapping and delivering USB sticks to remote internet cafés isn't isn't impressive, but the reality is, few people stayed on top of their OPSEC like this guy did. When we did find him, it was because ONE guy on his crew fucked up, one time, after hiding for several years. The only OPSEC mistake that Bin Laden himself made was trusting a guy that had proven himself dependable for many years.

Now, when you have a really brilliant guy like this that already knows that at some point in the future, he will be found by his enemies, you have to consider the possibility that he prepared for it. Thus, when our guys rolled into the complex, they had every reason in the world to believe that either someone in the compound would be wired with explosives, or that the compound itself would be rigged. With that being a real possibility, you don't really have time to give someone a proper chance to surrender.

Of course not. It's not like they are Himmler's or Goebbels that clearly deserved fair trial for starting a war that costed 70 million deaths. We don't give that to people who blow up buildings killing thousands.

At some point we started to be very cynical about our own values, like liberalism for that example. I wish we had taken our own values more to the heart. That's the only way to win these things morally as well.

I agree that we should start taking our values to heart, but its ridiculous to act as if the situations are remotely comparable.

First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back.

Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

> First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back.

It was decided precisely by all Allied Forces: USA, UK, USSR during Yalta Conference in 1945 that some kind of International Tribunal will be established to give the Nazis elite a fair process. Mind you, that was after 70m people dead and horrors of the war. When Aushwitz was months old history, not years old. And they still gave them free process. Why? Because they believed in the values of our civilization. Once the political will like that is there, we are morally victorious as well. We just show to the world that our values are different. What you show by killing innocent 16 year old boy whose only fault was to have a father that was suspected of terrorist acticity is that you yourself don't believe in your values anymore and are cynical about them. And this makes radical muslims case in their countries of origin this much stronger. "You see, they are just like us, they kill innocent children too, they are just hypocrites and cynical people when they talk about the freedom, democracy, due process. There are no such things in the world". They can say it, and you know what? They'll be right! On this level we already lost big time, there is no slightest shadow of a doubt about it in my mind. They are ready to commit suicide in the name of their values. We don't give a crap about our own. How exactly you want to win this war of civilizations in this circumstance? Robespierre was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. Dantone was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. People are not going to die in the name of cynism. Capture Bin Laden and give him free, honest, open free trial. That's what people who actually believe in what they preach would do. If we don't believe in these things anymore, why on Earth you think that we can even remotely win?

> Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

Talibans didn't lost. You ask me, they are winning. Winning like a little fly being still alive wins when you try to kill it with a machine gun. Just by its existence is a proof of your inability to win using the current strategy.

Once again you are ignoring every word of what I wrote. You quoted me, but neither of the responses had much to do with what I said. They were just a reiteration of your previous statements. We weren't talking about the legitimacy of our war strategy, or who is winning in Afghanistan, we were discussing whether or not Bin Laden could have been taken alive given the information about him that we had before the raid, as opposed to 20/20 hindsight.

I don't think you understood. There is something that we know makes sense from a military perspective. I.e. Osama is dangerous and must be dealt with at the spot. I understand what you saying. You didn't understand my response which is: this what you described is and must be a political decision and not military one. It was a political decision to shoot him like a dog at the spot. The excuse you give for that action could have been given regarding Himmler too. It wasn't because at that time it was important to us that even monsters like Himmler - personally responsible for overseeing Holocaust, and actually coming up with the idea itself - were given a chance of defense in a trial. Because that was the decision made by the USA President (among other leaders) at that time at the Yalta Conference. You expected me to come on real terms with your cheap excuse? First, stop your own cynism, and come to the terms with the fact that it was a political decision and then we can talk about the reasons for or against it. Don't give me this BS here as I'm some kind of a naive 6 year old.

If you think that it was politically decided before the operation began that he would be assassinated, that's a different issue entirely. I'm not going to speculate on that because there isn't any way we can know for sure because the people involved aren't going to tell us. You're free to develop a theory, but it will likely never progress beyond that.

I actually agree with you in principle, that a trial would have been preferable. I just don't see how it would have been possible without putting even more lives at risk.

How would you have recommended we go about apprehending him alive, without any casualties? Its clear that the Pakistanis weren't going to help us apprehend him any time soon.

I'm sure that the political decision to capture top Nazis alive, so they can have a free trial, did in fact cost more lives too. But I will not buy for a second the idea that we killed Osama on the spot because of the perceived higher risks for the Navy SEALs. I'm just not buying it.

I think, that if the US made a political decision to give this monster - Osama - a chance for a free trial, as well as other Al Quaida members that would be a step in the right direction as far as winning the war goes. Because you play by your own rules. When opposite is being done, like killing children who are US citizens by Presidential Order just because their parent was a suspected terrorist killed a week earlier - that's like we're Al Quaida now. Because we run this war the same way they do. Like terrorists. The whole point of 9/11 was that we give up our values - freedom, democracy, rights, capitalism - and we did just that. We became exactly what they wanted us to become. Instead of forcing them to play by our rules. Can you imagine bin Laden having a trial? It's the concept from our civilization. That even the worst monster - like a master mind behind the Holocaust - deserves a trial. That's what differentiates our civilization from theirs. Applying this rule to Osama, and him partaking in it, is showing the Arab world the suporiority of our system. Going there and killing him like a dog when he isn't armed, just execution mafia style, is showing them we're not better.

At this level of decision, I believe that the political decisions always overweight military ones. These are the top SEALs, this dude would stand no chance this or another way. Forcing a trial on him and his organization and sentencing to hanging for crimes against the humanity - this would resonate much more and have better outcome as long as winning the war goes. You show them - you put planes into buildings and kill thousands of innocents - and we still give you honest trial. That's what made us great. Believing in freedom. I think Arabs would be totally shocked to see that. They'd be more inclined to accept superiority of our system. And maybe that's why Germans in WW2 didn't fight after some point. They felt like moral losers. Like the evil that was defeated by something good. I think that's what we're lacking in this war. And without it, I doubt we will ever win it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com