Open threads

May 2, 2011

Weekly Open Thread May 2-6

The place to discuss anything we haven't covered specifically with a detailed, thought-provoking post on our comprehensive, all-encompassing media watching site. Enjoy! UPDATE 2pm

The place to discuss anything we haven’t covered specifically with a detailed, thought-provoking post on our comprehensive, all-encompassing media watching site. Enjoy!

UPDATE 2pm: You may not have heard of this, but apparently Osama Bin Laden has been killed by the US. There may be some coverage.

UPDATE #2: Well, that didn’t take long:


Don’t blame us – he’s the one with the confusingly similar name!

(Visited 2 times, 2 visits today)

133 comments

133 thoughts on “Weekly Open Thread May 2-6

  1. Ambai

    Bolt on Bolt

    “I’m pretty pleased with my line-up of guests for our first show, on Channel 10 at 10am. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is followed by a frank chat between me, Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger … and the former Labor Opposition leader Mark Latham, now a very good columnist with The Spectator, among other ventures. ”

    So we can expect a pretty fair-minded and reasonable discussion then.

  2. monkeywrench

    He’s spruiking his new show! And what a line-up! Two Mad Hatters and a sly-boots Liberal silvertail.

  3. confessions

    kd @ 91:

    You can start here.

  4. monkeywrench

    That dreaded Bolt Effect again: February 2011
    Mere weeks later…

    Arctic melting at record rate…

  5. John Many Johns

    This a little old, but one wonders how Blooter is coping with Superman renouncing his US citizenship

    http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/superman-renounces-his-us-citizenship-20110504-1e780.html

    Seems that O’Reilly et. al. are taking it too well.

  6. John Many Johns

    Jack Sparraaggghhh @ 94

    He must have been horribly torn as to whether or not to turn that into his own full blown, Obama, sledge or just let his minions do the dirty work.

  7. Jack Sparraaggghhh

    John MJ @ 93, it’s all “looks” cool according to the Southbank Oracle:

    So the mission really was to kill, not capture, bin Laden … which was probably wise. And bin Laden did not hide behind a woman.

    I think it would have been better to say all this at the start. This way looks sneaky, even apologetic.

    Such awesome acuity of an inquiring mind!

    MoC @ 89, I give up — Why? 😉

  8. John Many Johns

    The White House is now recanting on earlier statments that OBL was armed and used his wife as a human shield

    http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/03/white-house-modifies.html
    […
    Early White House accounts of bin Laden’s wife having been killed, and being used as a “human shield” to protect the Al Qaeda mastermind, are now confirmed to be false. This is notable: the idea of a bad guy using a woman’s body (his wife’s!) to deflect bullets is an emotionally charged visual, to say the least, and created a flutter of dramatically charged tweets and headlines and pundit rants yesterday. How did this false “human shield” detail happen, and become so widely repeated in the news cycle? Carney attributes this to “the fog of war.”
    …]

    What next?

  9. John Many Johns

    MOC @ 87. totaly agree it would serve no useful purpose, and would only add fuel the fires of Muslim resentment.

  10. kd

    Does anybody have any historical polling data about the GST when it was introduced? I’m just interested to see how the howard government’s poll figures compared to this mob pre-implementation of the carbon price?

  11. Matthew of Canberra

    Interesting t-shirt motto: What would Keyser Soze do?

  12. Matthew of Canberra

    Hmm. Interesting. Yesterday I took a look at a “muslim brotherhood says different things in english and arabic” article over on PJM. I ran the arabic story through the google translator, then went and found (essentially) the same article on the english-language MB web site. I pointed this out – that the author was just comparing two different stories, made in different contexts, but the arabic statement was indeed available in english if he’d bothered to look.

    And would you believe … it wasn’t published?

    I’m shocked. SHOCKED. Why wouldn’t an agenda-grinding right-wing lie-peddling site like PJM be interested in a post that fundamentally ripped the carpet out from under a popular theme?

  13. Matthew of Canberra

    Ok, I think we’ve got another trope. Along with “although false, there is some truth to …” and “not commenting, just observing” we’ve now got:

    “Now come more classic signs of a man so convinced of the rightness of his cause that it justifies the use of force – or at least the deliberate breaking of democratically agreed laws”

    Well, now, hang on a second there. Is it actually force we’re talking about? Or just blocking some traffic? Never before has a sentence offered SO much … and then backed away in a cloud of screeching brakes and tyre-smoke.

    Dumb-hance: “… a man so convinced of the rightness of his cause that it justifies the complete destruction of all life on earth – or at least the deliberate breaking of bill-posting regulations”.

    As for the claim itself, yes, it’s the standard clive-hamilton-as-stalin stuff, backed up with previous click-baitarticles where AB says exactly the same thing. And like so many other of its sort, a thread that selectively quotes its source to avoid confusing the reader with what us totalitarians on the left like to call “context”.

    Any of the hameliners who bother to follow the link (it’s ok, GLW, you needn’t be expecting a rush – a link from an AB article is almost the opposite of being slash-dotted) will discover a whole bunch of examples from recent history of other groups who thought that maybe not doing everything the police said was justified, in the circumstances. I recommend a read. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but it’s not quite the communist manifesto.

  14. Matthew of Canberra

    “It appears that the US is chewing over whether or not to relase a Snuff Video or at the very least Snuff pic’s of OBL.”

    I don’t think they should. It doesn’t appear to me that there’s much actual doubt going around about whether they got the guy. Until there is, releasing the photos would just give the bad guys a cause.

  15. John Many Johns

    From The Age http://www.theage.com.au/world/bin-laden-corpse-photo-gruesome-20110504-1e730.html#poll

    It appears that the US is chewing over whether or not to relase a Snuff Video or at the very least Snuff pic’s of OBL.

  16. SHV

    “…Whether the woman died before the fatal head shot was fired or not is irrelevant…”

    Irrelevant?

    So, the guy is dead by a ‘fatal head shot’ (two, if we believe the latest media) and THEN they kill the wife? Irrelevant?

    Wouldn’t that be murder? Of a hostage?

    I’m not into blind support for murderous actions based on broad and wobbly objectives or justifications.

    Maybe she was also shooting at them with an AK-47? Maybe she was actualy holding HIM as a human shield?

    Go on, out-weird me.

  17. confessions

    The pitfalls of twitter, Lesson #213: When tweets completely fail to accurately describe the article they are linking to. Otherwise known as ‘why 140 characters is insufficient for an article review’.

    Lesson eg: the IPA’s Chris Berg, tweeting his description of a column written for the ABC’s the Drum by his wife about the royal wedding.

    [chrisberg | 2 minutes ago
    good words by my wife RT @abcthedrum @BronwynHinz: The dream wedding is a feminist nightmare. http://bit.ly/lkiHPV ]

    Anyone could be forgiven for thinking they were about to read yet another feminist-bashing, ‘feminists HATE weddings!’, usual young-women-reject-the-hairy-armpit-brigade piece. Instead it is quite the opposite. Hopefully author Hinz has had a serious chat with her husband about promoting her work on twitter. 😉

  18. PeeBee

    Garth Paltridge emeritus professor and honorary research fellow at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania has uncovered a conspiracy and wrote about it in the AFR today.

    http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/an_ignoble_climate_of_consensus_wDFQbIqNc9s6AOZZbO5pQK?hl

    He claims all scientists are beholden to the Government’s whim because ‘She (Gillard) and her predecessors bought them”.

    Putting aside where the eminent Professor gets his income from, his point is that because most research money comes from the government, scientists only produce science that is sympathetic to the government’s ‘social engineering’ so ‘that something drastic and expensive has to be done to the structure of society’.

    He acknowledges that if the science is incorrect ‘the sorting out the problem of vested scientific can take many decades’. Well if it is really that fraudulent, it usually doesn’t take decades. And certainly after many decades of research in the field of climate science problems would have come to light by now.

    And what evidence does he present to back up his claims of a conspiracy? Non!!! NON!!! Not one skerrick, it is just his opinion!

    I would have thought the good professor could have produced some fraudulent science to back up his claims, but he didn’t. Instead, he uses the total absence of such material as evidence that there is a conspiracy as scientists are too timid ‘to go against the tide of official opinion set by the research activists of his field”.

    What galls me is that AFR would print this rubbish and allowing someone to slander whole groups of people like that. That is something I come to expect from less reputable daily rags.

  19. Gavin R. Putland

    LOGICALLY BANKRUPT AND FACTUALLY WRONG: EDDIE KUTNER ON NEGATIVE GEARING

    The Smage, having published articles critical of negative gearing on Mar.7, Mar.30 and Apr.25, fell back into line on May 2 when it published an article by Central Equity Group chairman Eddie Kutner under the headline “A negative impression” — with comments disabled.

    “As part of the campaign against negative gearing, investors are often described as ‘speculators’,” says Kutner. As negatively geared investors are betting on rising prices, perhaps they should rather be called gamblers. And because their winnings (if any) come at the expense of those who join the game later, they are, by definition, participating in a Ponzi scheme. Calling them speculators is putting it politely.

    Without a pause, Kutner then complains that “negative gearing is wrongly discussed as exclusively applying in relation to housing.” By whom? I haven’t noticed anyone pretending that negative gearing applies exclusively to housing or even to property. But I have seen it pointed out that negative gearing is not allowed if you start a business to supplement your day job, although it is allowed if you buy a property to supplement your day job. Wherever the line between those two cases is drawn, the system is inconsistent.

    Kutner seems ignorant of this anomaly when he later writes that negative gearing applies “equally to those who buy shares, borrow funds to expand their business, or buy real estate” and whether you are a “sole trader, family trust or corporation”. Or maybe he just doesn’t know what negative gearing is. “Negative gearing is simply claiming your costs, including interest, against income generated from an investment,” he says. Not in Australia, mate! It’s claiming the excess of costs over income earned from the investment, against income earned from something else!

    The most generous interpretation of Kutner’s definition is “quarantined” negative gearing, whereby losses can be carried forward but not claimed against other income streams. That is precisely the system that Hawke and Keating tried to establish, and of which Kutner brings up the old canard: “For a short period, from 1986–88 [sic], treasurer Paul Keating abolished negative gearing for property investment, but quickly reinstated it when the disastrous impact of this policy on the housing market became obvious.”

    The relevant dates are July 1985 and September 1987 and the relevant facts are: (i) between those dates, CPI-deflated rents rose in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth but fell in Brisbane and Adelaide, whereas any reaction to a federal policy would be expected to be nationwide; (ii) the clearest nationwide blowout in rents occurred between 2006 and 2009, while negative gearing was undisturbed; (iii) the quarantining of negative gearing began during (not before) a long bull market in stocks, which beguiled investors who might otherwise have put their money in rental property; and (iv) the restoration of the old rules was the month before the global “crash of ’87”, which caused a flight of money from stocks to property.

    Hawke and Keating reversed their policy not because it raised rents, but because the shrill propaganda of the property lobby alleged that it raised rents. The allegation has been comprehensively discredited, but the property lobby continues to repeat it without addressing the arguments that disprove it.

    “So entrenched is the assumption of a link between negative gearing and the lack of affordable housing,” says Kutner, “that it is not even considered necessary to present evidence that a link exists.”

    Here’s the link. Consider a property for which the interest on the borrowable portion of the purchase price exceeds the rental value. In other words, consider almost any residential property. The law lets you claim the excess as a deduction against your other income if you buy the property as an investment, but not if you buy it to live in. So an investor can afford to borrow more, hence pay more, than a prospective owner-occupant on the same income. So prospective owner-occupants — especially first-timers with no capital gains to cash in — find it hard to compete with investors. The link is not an “assumption”; it’s the law.

    Then comes this gem: “Surely if negative gearing didn’t have a positive influence on supply (given that it involves a loss of tax revenue), it would be scrapped immediately.”

    Bwa-ha-ha! As if policy were made solely on its merits, and never on the prescriptions of well-heeled interest groups whose support is needed to win elections. And as if governments never spent or sacrificed revenue in pursuit of such support. And as if the only alternative to the current negative gearing deduction were to scrap it altogether, rather than modifying it to exert a more explicit “positive influence on supply” — e.g. by allowing it only for new construction!

    “Simply put,” says Kutner, “were it not for negative gearing, many investors could not afford and would not invest in property.” In that case they wouldn’t take homes from prospective owner-occupants, forcing them onto the rental market. Or if investors had to build new homes to qualify for negative gearing, they wouldn’t displace so many prospective owner-occupants from existing homes.

    Kutner quotes the NAB residential property survey for the March quarter: “Australian investors have become much more important in driving new residential developments. Resident investors are now expected to account for 33 per cent of the market in the next 12 months.” How much more development would they drive if they had to build new homes in order to claim negative gearing? Kutner doesn’t address the question explicitly, but his implicit answer is zero: “The abolition or tampering with negative gearing will not create one new job or one new home.” That prejudicial expression “tampering with” constitutes his entire consideration of modifying, rather than abolishing, the present negative gearing deduction.

    Kutner mentions five “incentives to increase supply”, namely “the first home buyer’s grants, capital gains exemption, negative gearing, expanding areas to be developed and releasing government land.” Of these, the first three would indeed increase supply if they were contingent on building new accommodation; but they are not. And the last two cost more per dwelling, in direct construction costs and incidental infrastructure costs, than increasing density in established suburbs.

    “In the end,” says Kutner, “encouraging new construction is the only way to address housing supply and the economy.” He got that part right. Unfortunately he shows no interest in tax reforms that would actually encourage new construction.

  20. Matthew of Canberra

    So … does this mean the comparisons between obama and carter will come to an end?

    Curious that the news that OBL’s missus wasn’t killed means it’s no longer necessary to say she was a human shield.

  21. GavinM

    “……necessitates bringing people in for trial at all costs.”

    Of course that’s easy to say when you aren’t the one being shot at.

    At any rate, we do have evidence — videotaped footage of Bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11 as well as the evidence of him being the financier and leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for numerous other terrorist attacks around the globe, and I have no doubt there will be plenty of interesting information in the files that the US forces took with them from the compound.

  22. revolutionary

    SHV @ 56

    If that dump was worth $1 million, then Sydney real estate is suddenly looking good value.

  23. GavinM

    On another subject — and just to stir the pot a little, I think in light of current events someone here might owe an apology to a certain well-hated Melbourne news rag

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/03/04/if-the-figures-dont-say-what-we-want-them-to-say-they-must-be-wrong/

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-chief-heavied-on-eve-of-poll-20110502-1e551.html#ixzz1LEG9gmWi

  24. Eponymous

    Ambai:
    ‘Given the opportunity, would you have killed Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or a score of other murderous bastards to prevent them killing more?’

    While I agree with the thrust of your statement, I believe it is more important that the rule of law be maintained, mostly to avoid setting the precedent in other cases. Lets say we ‘know’ Osama was the guilty party, agreed it does not seem that evil to kill him in a fire fight. But for me, the doubt that we might be wrong in a justice case (particularly one where guilty=fatal) necessitates bringing people in for trial at all costs. Everytime someone is found guilty without a trial, our judicial system is weakened and we’re one step closer to Andrew’s barbarians.

    There is a chance (admittedly an incredible outside chance) that Osama actually wasn’t the mastermind at all and someone had been puppetting him all along. Now there are 2 things wrong; we have no way of finding out who the puppet master might have been and the person being puppetted has been executed incorrectly.

    So, yes it’s not that bad, but these are my ethical fundamentals and I think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

  25. GavinM

    SHV

    I’ve also responded to your Norriega comment on the other thread — I really don’t think there’s much point in doing so because you clearly aren’t interested in the practicalities of the operation, but if you really want to continue this conversation, perhaps we should move it over there ?

  26. GavinM

    What was reported “no attempt at capture”, was clearly incorrect — read the link I just gave you — 2 US officials have stated it was a kill or capture mission. They can’t make it any clearer than that.

    It means capture if you can, kill if capture is not possible.

    They discussed bombing the place as an option — did they carry it out ? No.

    Wether the woman died before the fatal head shot was fired or not is irrelevant if, as is reported, Bin Laden continued to fire at the troops.

    The helicopter crash due to mechanical failure is no reflection on the planning of the operation and a spare wasn’t required, if you bother to read the articles linked you’ll see there was room on the other one to carry all of them out.

  27. SHV

    Right from the start my point was about what is reported, ie: no attempt at capture.

    That has nothing to do with secret planning as you well know.

    On the other thread someone (monkeywrench?) just put up a link about a plan to drop a huge bomb on the place. Your quote above (“kill or capture”) doesn’t bear out any attempt at the “capture” part, a bit like “wanted dead or alive” it suggests two options but everything points to the “kill” bit being the goal. Especially the rhetoric coming from, eg, Obama about “justice” being done etc…

    Of course they didn’t crash deliberately: therefore the “careful planning and execution” didn’t work out how they expected. Nobody said they have to die, simply that now you’re down one helicopter that you haven’t brought along just as a spare, presumably. Get it?

    Just as an exercise, do you suppose they killed the woman he was using as a “human shield” before or after the expert fatal ‘headshot’ that killed him? If it was before, then he no longer had a ‘human shield’. I have no interest in telling soldiers how to do their job. My question is about the objective of the exercise – so far it seems that the objective was to kill a guy.

    So why play games about that objective?

    As for the other question: Noriega (in the other thread).

  28. Jason

    With Bolts new show starting this Sunday! How many weeks will it last?

  29. GavinM

    Oh and this,

    “Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the US does not kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two US officials said.”

    So you see — it wasn’t a kill only mission at all, as I said above somewhere.

    “The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.”

    Only the pilot was on board, and presumably strapped in, crashing from obviously a low altitude would not necessarily suffer any serious injuries.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/osama-bin-laden/a/-/article/9300618/a-phone-call-led-us-to-bin-laden-doorstep/

    From the same article

    “In the ensuing firefight, Brennan said, bin Laden used a woman as a human shield and returned fire. The SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet to the head.”

  30. GavinM

    SHV

    I think I can be forgiven for thinking your comment about the Osama/Obama confusion was directed at me, given that it was placed in between two other points in which you were responding to my posts.

    My “snide” comment about Al Jazeera was appropriate — they cut a portion of a quote and used it to misrepresent what was actually said…There’s a term for that isn’t there ?

    “Anyway, the essence of my first point was “…I haven’t been able to see the bit where they tried to arrest him without having to kill him.”

    So you’re privy to everything that was said during the planning stage, the briefing to the troops involved and also to everything that the troops on the ground said are you ?

    I’m still waiting for you to tell me how you think they might have gone about arresting him while they were being shot at — it seems to me your full of advice to blokes risking their lives from the safety of your keyboard thousands of kms away.

    “As an aside, if it was all so perfectly planned and executed – which bit of the manual covers deliberately stacking your helicopter? If it wasn’t shot down (this has been clearly denied) and it crashed by accident/mechanical failure,”

    A mechanical failure in a helicopter doesn’t mean anyone on board has to be killed or injured, you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about, they didn’t deliberately “stack” it at all, and it certainly has no relevance to the planning of the operation.

  31. confessions

    Gavin:

    Thanks for your reply. In reports I’ve read it would seem the house/apartment/mansion (depending on what media outlet you read) was surrounded by a high brick wall, and hardly any windows. It sounds as if Osama was trapped by his own security. 🙂

  32. SHV

    Sorry GavinM, as much as it will surprise you, you are not the centre of the universe.

    The reference to the “slip up” was of a general nature, on topic in light of the “Fox” and Bolt “slip ups” and other comments above. I did refer to your snide comment about AJ and give an IRNA link as a nudge in the ribs – sorry if I hurt you.

    Anyway, the essence of my first point was “…I haven’t been able to see the bit where they tried to arrest him without having to kill him.”

    So you can go on about sitting around waiting for plod, waving a white flag etc…, but it remains that there is nothing yet to suggest they had any intention of taking him alive.

    As an aside, if it was all so perfectly planned and executed – which bit of the manual covers deliberately stacking your helicopter? If it wasn’t shot down (this has been clearly denied) and it crashed by accident/mechanical failure, that just makes it even more remarkable that there were zero US casualties, they achieved their aim and all the bad guys/girls died.

  33. Ambai

    Either you are a pacifist and do not condone killing under any circumstance, or you are a pragmatist and believe that sometimes the end justifies the means.

    The circus that would have surrounded the capture and trail of OBL alive would have been oxygen for the fires of extremism. Anyway who would have tried him? Saudi Arabia, where he comes from and where his family has important links with the Royals? The US which would never be seen as capable of trying him (as per Gitmo)? The International Criminal Court which the US doesn’t recognise?

  34. GavinM

    SHV,

    No idea what relevance the Obama/Osama slip up has to do with anything I’ve said, but I’m sure its all crystal clear in your mind.

    Who was this security official and how close was he/she to the planning of the operation

    At any rate, try reading the full quote from this unnamed “security official”, you know, the bit where it says “if he had tried to surrender”.

    It doesn’t negate anything I’ve said at all — please do tell us how you would’ve gone about arresting a bloke who had refused to surrender and was firing an automatic weapon at you, I’m on the edge of my seat with anticipation.

    Of course when Special Ops are sent on a mission the expectation is that there will be a possibility that the target will be killed, it also doesn’t mean its the only option considered and that capturing that person if possible is ruled out.

  35. Ambai

    What’s wrong with killing the leader of your enemy who has murdered thousand’s of your people? There are many precedents in international law for this.

    Given the opportunity, would you have killed Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or a score of other murderous bastards to prevent them killing more?

  36. GavinM

    Hi confessions,

    I won’t try to lay claim to being an expert but I’ve tried to answer your question @53 — its in moderation though 🙂

  37. SHV

    Don’t like AJ?

    Isn’t it a coincidence how many people are making that freudian slip (Obama/Osama)? How’s IRNA work for you?

    http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30367576&SRCH=1

    And by the way, “it was a kill operation”, negates your earlier points about the impossibility of capturing him alive.

  38. GavinM

    SHV @50 & 56,

    Please stop making a fool of yourself with such inane posts.

    Oh, and using Al Jazeera as a source — please.

    ““This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.”

    Lets get the rest of that quote shall we..

    “This was a kill operation,” one security official told Reuters, but added: “If he had waved a white flag of surrender he would have been taken alive.”

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/osama-bin-laden/a/-/article/9300479/world-on-alert-after-u-s-kills-bin-laden/

    Strange that Al Jazeera would leave that last bit out — or not.

  39. GavinM

    Hi confessions,

    It is a rare occurrence for this type of operation to be carried out without casualties to both sides but not entirely unprecedented, and more than possible given that there appears to have only been 4 combattants (including Bin Laden in the compound), I think it can probably be put down to close study of the area, careful planning, the excellent training of the U.S. troops involved, (every nation’s special forces troops carry out training exercises involving mock ups of exactly this type of operation as part of their normal routine, so each man would know exactly where he had to be, what to do when he got there and where his colleagues would be), a degree of surprise and a measure of good luck – there’s also the possibility that flares and smoke canisters could be used to cover their movements thus making themselves difficult targets.

    In terms of civilian casualties, apparently one of Bin Laden’s wives was killed reportedly because she was being used as a human shield, so I guess we have to count at least one.

    To be honest without knowing the details of the outlay of the compound, or of the plan of attack it’s difficult to judge how casualties to the attacking force were avoided, but from my own experience I would say planning in particular and the element of surprise would’ve been the major factors – I heard a report that Osama was the last person found on the top floor of the building and he refused a call to surrender, once again without knowing the layout of the room and the positions of those involved its hard to judge, but I’d say a clean shot to the head would be highly possible – US SEALS are also highly trained in marksmanship.

    The situation with Gaddafi is a little different, he keeps far more than 3 bodyguards with him at all times and is in the country that he rules so he could, at least until recently, freely move around and make use of his own military infrastructure.

  40. quantize

    I stay the hell away from twitter, the number of typos I make…but in the case of ‘journalists’ this Obama/Osama thing is utterly embarrassing. Their business IS words!

    Akin to your mechanic returning your car from service with 3 wheels.

  41. SHV

    http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/asia/live-blog-osama-bin-laden-killed-us-forces

    “3:16pm The US special forces team that hunted down Osama bin Laden was under orders to kill the al-Qaeda mastermind, not capture him, a US national security official told Reuters.

    “This was a kill operation,” the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.”

    Obviously there was no intention to ‘bring him in’.

  42. Think Big

    Via twitter:
    It looks like our own Southbank touch-typist has made his own freudian typo this evening.

    Now changed I believe with no acknowledgement. Tsk tsk very sloppy!

  43. Ambai

    Guardian reports the same.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/bin-laden-body-buried-sea

    Meanwhile, Taliban and Al Qaida leaders have vowed revenge.

    “A Taliban commander in Afghanistan has promised that his fighters would mount attacks to avenge the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden.

    The commander, who gave his name as Qudos and operates in the northern province of Baghlan, said: “The killing of Osama bin Laden will bring no change to jihad. Osama is the leader of al-Qaida and he is a powerful man in jihad. Losing him will be very painful for the mujahideen, but the shahadat [martyrdom] of Osama, will never stop the jihad. We will continue our fight until we liberate our lands from the Kafirs.”

    He said his fighters planned to launch an operation called Bader “to avenge the killing of Osama” and claimed many other similar operations would be launched. “

  44. fakeheadlines

    liliwyt: Looks like it…’Bin Laden’s body buried at sea’

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/02/3205738.htm

    As for Gillard’s response of ‘I welcome the death of Osama bin Laden, I welcome this news, and I thank president Obama and the US forces who have made this possible’ – That made me cringe, how can the leader of a country without capital punishment – even when we did, Ned Kelly was nursed back to health before trial – ‘welcome’ someone’s extrajudicial death?

  45. SHV

    Never mind all that.

    Look at the evidence:

    Everyone else takes out their rubbish nightly.
    This house burns theirs.
    The Mansion was 8 times bigger than other houses.
    It was worth $1 million.
    The walls were four to six metres high.

    Case closed. Justice done.

    And yes, lilwyt, all MSM now reporting that “in accordance with Islamic tradition and out of respect, his body was flown to Afghanistan and buried at sea”.

    Respect? Surely they’re not thinking of “appeasing” these peoples’ religious rituals?

    Of course, when you think about it: that Saddam guy was captured and given a “trial” and “execution” which proved the US has no respect at all for the proper role of a justice system and the rule of law. Can’t blame them for ‘getting it right’ this time.

  46. confessions

    Just on the whole Obama/Osama confusion thing, on twitter earlier Caroline Overington was trying to hashtag #osamadead in her earlier tweets, but kept referring to #obamadead. Some people just shouldn’t bother with twitter.

  47. liliwyt

    A US Correspondent on the 7pm Project tonight said that Osama’s body has been buried at sea, at an unnamed position. Any other confirmation of that?

  48. confessions

    Gavin:

    Genuinely interested in your military expertise here.

    No drones, no lucky break with bombing. This was a calculated and planned attack that produced (according to Obama) no civilian casualties. To me this has been a well coordinated strategic attack that went off without hitch, and according to reports, resulted in US troops killing Osama with a shot to the head. How often does this happen with such a high profile target? They’ve been trying to get Gaddafi for a while now, and no cigar.

  49. Ambai

    Wow – this is the definitive explanation, from a US blog which apparently many thousand’s of people believe fervently.

    “Osama Bin Laden (Mabus), Killed by the Black King (Obama)

    Osama = (correct phonetic pronunciation) Usama
    Rearrange the letters to: Maaus
    You can replace one redundant letter with only one letter missing, which is the b.
    Thus you get Maaus = Ma(a)us = Mabus.

    The story of Mabus, the Third Antichrist does not end but begins with his death. The Mabus prophecy reads:

    2 Q62

    Mabus very soon then will die, then will come,
    A horrible undoing of people and animals,
    At once one will see vengeance,
    One hundred powers, thirst, famine, when the comet will pass.

    So, Mabus is Osama Bin Laden. The horrible undoing of people and animals and the thirst and famine will likely be caused by a planned false flag New Madrid earthquake, which will be induced by HAARP —>

    This planned false flag New Madrid earthquake would then lead to the dreaded fulfillment of the prophecies of Edgar Cayce and Gordon Michael Scallion —>

    The comet (which will destroy most of the US) is obviously Comet Elenin —>

    The Nostradamus Century 2 Quatrain 62 Mabus prophecy is likely about to be fulfilled.”

    Gosh, I’m really scared now.

  50. Brizben

    Right from the start there was no way Osama Bin Laden was going to be brought in alive.

    He would have used the courtroom as a pulpit and he would have gotten even more press coverage. There was no way he was ever going to be given a voice.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...