Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
And I kept it civil and made sure it respected reality rather then falling into racism/ignorance/jingoism/conspiracies.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
Not really, I was simply stating an opinion. I guess I forgot who owned the site.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
Not really, I was simply stating an opinion. I guess I forgot who owned the site.
For reference they perma ban people who box multiple accounts to avoid bans. Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it as an adult (hence why it doesn't apply to minors). You demonstrated a repeated inability to do that. This is a private semi commercial site about a figure toy game. Not your local statehouse. Some things are kind of taboo dude.
Assuming this spam of sock puppets is all happydude, I feel like I can say that your opinions could widely be considered offensive and inappropriate. While we can't stop you from holding such feelings, I can't help but say that it is a testament to dakkaites that no one really flamed you horribly. We kept our discourse fairly civil considering the topic matter.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
And I kept it civil and made sure it respected reality rather then falling into racism/ignorance/jingoism/conspiracies.
You started by saying that I shouldn't make a comparison between V-J day and the day we killed Bin Laden. I said that killing Osama was almost as big if not as big as that day, I meant the joy and celebrations we should be having, not the overall effort expended. There was no racism/ignorance/etc just pure elation over the fact that something historical had happened. Then some people started criticizing the war effort, which doesn't really belong in this thread, this thread is for celebration of something that's been 10 years in the making.
As I also said before, we got him, we should celebrate, dance on his grave, and God bless the troops and those who pulled the final trigger. I just feel bad that they were CIA because we really can't throw them the parade they deserve.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
Not really, I was simply stating an opinion. I guess I forgot who owned the site.
For reference they perma ban people who box multiple accounts to avoid bans. Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it as an adult (hence why it doesn't apply to minors). You demonstrated a repeated inability to do that. This is a private semi commercial site about a figure toy game. Not your local statehouse. Some things are kind of taboo dude.
Oh I figured it's taboo, and since I use this site to find new gamers I decided to comply with rules and regulations. Believe it or not I am actually a really nice guy who would give a homeless guy the shirt off of his back ( Actually happened with a sweater once on dundas and yonge if anyone knows where that is in Toronto ). I am just so used to conversing heavily with friends and colleagues that I forget how pc the online community can be and to use that community I must respect that. No offense to my southern brothers any further, although I still say our beer is better up here ;p
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
halonachos wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
happydude wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
And I kept it civil and made sure it respected reality rather then falling into racism/ignorance/jingoism/conspiracies.
You started by saying that I shouldn't make a comparison between V-J day and the day we killed Bin Laden. I said that killing Osama was almost as big if not as big as that day, I meant the joy and celebrations we should be having, not the overall effort expended. There was no racism/ignorance/etc just pure elation over the fact that something historical had happened. Then some people started criticizing the war effort, which doesn't really belong in this thread, this thread is for celebration of something that's been 10 years in the making.
As I also said before, we got him, we should celebrate, dance on his grave, and God bless the troops and those who pulled the final trigger. I just feel bad that they were CIA because we really can't throw them the parade they deserve.
I wouldn't go as far as dancing on someones grave, kind of tacky really and really you seem better than that.
halonachos wrote:Can't really dance on his grave anyways, but I'm going to take a boat and jetski over his grave.
And they tell me to be civil lol. Nevermind that business, the man is dead and done with so say your oorah's and let him become food for the marine life.
Mannahnin wrote:While criticism of and observations on foreign policy are not necessarily inappropriate, blanket bashing or denigration of any country or religion is totally inappropriate.
Thread reopened because I have great faith in MOST of your ability to remain polite and civil with one another.
Please prove me right. Thanks.
Most were, you simply edited many posts to suit your views. Thank you for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
I'm not sure we were reading the same posts by you. You may have a duplicate who is using your name to spread infamy. That said while I was asleep this thread has turned pretty awful.
And people say it's bad that I shout at trolls a lot. This thread didn't fall apart until I went missing. Don't worry! I'll keep her on the right track for a while.
Really, because you were one of the first people to try to bring an argument into the thread.
And I kept it civil and made sure it respected reality rather then falling into racism/ignorance/jingoism/conspiracies.
You started by saying that I shouldn't make a comparison between V-J day and the day we killed Bin Laden. I said that killing Osama was almost as big if not as big as that day, I meant the joy and celebrations we should be having, not the overall effort expended. There was no racism/ignorance/etc just pure elation over the fact that something historical had happened. Then some people started criticizing the war effort, which doesn't really belong in this thread, this thread is for celebration of something that's been 10 years in the making.
As I also said before, we got him, we should celebrate, dance on his grave, and God bless the troops and those who pulled the final trigger. I just feel bad that they were CIA because we really can't throw them the parade they deserve.
And by comparing the muted sense of satisfaction Americans should feel here to the pure elation resulting from the end of the most major conflict in the history of the planet you show yourself to be without perspective on either event. That said I wasn't calling you racist or jingoist or anything. Each of those is in reply to a different post from a different poster, none to anything you've said (except minimally the ignorant bit).
Either way, I'm sure some organizations will handle this even worse then us.
halonachos wrote:Can't really dance on his grave anyways, but I'm going to take a boat and jetski over his grave.
And they tell me to be civil lol. Nevermind that business, the man is dead and done with so say your oorah's and let him become food for the marine life.
There is a difference between insulting a man that the world hated and is not a Dakka user and insulting Dakka users you know. The difference being there's a rule against insulting Dakka users.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ shuma, I know you weren't calling me a rascist. Its just that you kind of were starting something before anything else happened. In fact I recall myself somebody to chill with the whole "That's Mission Accomplished Bush" thing. And no, we stopped two hated enemies of the country who were just about the only two groups to ever do damage on American soil in the modern era(excluding anything pre-1900's). We should be happy about both, when we pull out of Afghanistan we should take pictures of sailors kissing people in Time Square, until then we should set off fireworks and play the Team America theme song.
I question anybody who isn't happy that a man who threatened people's loved ones with horrific deaths at the hands of terrorists is dead. Seriously. The man contributed absolutely nothing to the world except for pain and suffering. By what right does a man deserve to exist? Of course we should be happy, Of course we should gloat, Of course we should be proud of the USA. Why?
They had the ****s to remove a man who threatened the world. Forget revenge attacks; anything will set a terrorist off so theres no point worrying about that now.
Hats off to the US. Shame my fellow British could not be the ones to put a bullet in his brain.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Funny no flames on my Facebook, everyone's pretty happy.
My only regret is they didn't impale his corpse on the Empire State Building like i wanted...
No flames either, but most of my friends are either in the military or related directly to someone who is. My brother goes to Virginia Military Institute and he said that everyone was shouting that Osama was dead and cheering and it woke him up.
Albatross wrote:That said, it doesn't matter who 'got' him, just that he was 'got'. I must say, I'm finding all the American chest-beating a little distasteful and crass. I would have been nice if they could have dealt with this news by showing quiet dignity and paying sombre tribute to those who perished on that awful day, but perhaps I'm expecting them to be British, when in fact they are American.
Come again?
I do think us british are more reserved.
We would announce his death, and quietly congratulate ourselves on a job well done.
I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
The man was a wanted criminal and admitted to the 9/11 attacks in a video he released shortly after. If a video of Osama saying that he did it isn't enough proof then I wouldn't have any faith in that law system.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
No.
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
He mourned the dead, and most of the conservatives are giving him kudos for making the call.
Overall, its knowing that we finally got him after ten years that's making people chant USA. We'll most likely mourn the dead as a nation at some point in time after the 'era of good feelings' comes to an end.
I have no qualms whatsoever about rejoicing over his death. He’s responsible for the death of thousands and he would have gladly killed thousands more if he could have. I see it as rejoicing that no more lives will be lost because of him.
I thought Obama's speech was rather funny, “I worked to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority… I was briefed on a possible lead… I met repeatedly with my national security team… I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action” Like no one else had bothered looking for him before he came along. I was almost expecting to hear something like "I deemed this mission to be so important that I decided to lead the assault myself."
Oh and someone mentioned that they should have tried to capture him instead of just killing him. I just heard some audio on the radio from a security advisor (I think) stating that they tried to get him to surrender but he wouldn't/
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
No.
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.
So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution? Murderers, rapists and paedophiles all get a trial. Nazis and Japanese get trials. Saddam got a trial. In all these cases at least an appearance of civilized justice is preserved, however biased the justice might be.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution?
For one specific individual who lived until yesterday and a few other unique individuals currently alive and in hiding, I do hold that view.
For the collateral damage we inflict upon other nations and people, that is a heavy bueden regardless of the end result.
Graveyman wrote:I have no qualms whatsoever about rejoicing over his death. He’s responsible for the death of thousands and he would have gladly killed thousands more if he could have. I see it as rejoicing that no more lives will be lost because of him.
I thought Obama's speech was rather funny, “I worked to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority… I was briefed on a possible lead… I met repeatedly with my national security team… I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action” Like no one else had bothered looking for him before he came along. I was almost expecting to hear something like "I deemed this mission to be so important that I decided to lead the assault myself."
Oh and someone mentioned that they should have tried to capture him instead of just killing him. I just heard some audio on the radio from a security advisor (I think) stating that they tried to get him to surrender but he wouldn't/
Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
etc. ,etc.
Seriously, perhaps stop the anti-Obama retoric for maybe five minutes or so and enjoy the fact that this piece of S**t is dead...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
He's got a pretty well known face, he's the most wanted man in American history. Given that we're using robots in the sky controlled from the other side of the planet to shoot people one would think you would drop the gak and appreciate the fact that he was killed in a shootout because Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to be taken alive whether that was our intention or not (it likely was the priority objective to take him alive given that we dislike martyring figurehead leaders).
But then you're not arguing from a basis of logic.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
Actually there are set guidelines as to who is considered a guerrilla fighter, terrorist, etc.
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
They have to have matching uniforms or markings(such as armbands, etc) to be considered a guerrilla force. No check.
They have to show clear preparation of attacks, including the collection of arms and a battleplan(instead of going out and killing random targets, ie; Civilians with suicide bombers). Not really a check.
They lack a clear uniform(as they sometimes hide in women's clothing and wear nothing to mark themselves as fighters) so they don't fall into the Geneva Convention's definition of a guerrilla fighter.
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
I don't know if Al Qaeda is organized to the degree necessary to fulfill the requirement.
The Geneva Convention really only concerned itself with the nature of conflicts between nation states and within them. The current war on terror was not a kind of conflict foreseen by it and doesn't fit into the mold very well.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
So you're equating the barbarism of mass murdering terrorists to the barbarism of internet tough guy boasting. Good to know you're a troll.
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
I guess I missed the memo were saying nasty things about someone on the internet = actually wanting to do them. Far as I can tell, no one's done any of those 'barbaric' things to Osama.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
Wow, have ever looked at your country's history? Just asking.
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
He's got a pretty well known face, he's the most wanted man in American history. Given that we're using robots in the sky controlled from the other side of the planet to shoot people one would think you would drop the gak and appreciate the fact that he was killed in a shootout because Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to be taken alive whether that was our intention or not (it likely was the priority objective to take him alive given that we dislike martyring figurehead leaders).
But then you're not arguing from a basis of logic.
Ah yes, it was clearly a priority objective to catch him alive, despite the fact that the US government has declared today that it was in fact a kill-mission, and that Team 6 were definitely there to KILL, not CAPTURE. Thus the mission was conceived as an execution, regardless of what Bin Laden happened to do.... He could have been sat taking a dump, or quietly asleep (and all that footage of bloodied bedrooms rather suggests someone was in bed at the time.) They were there, as has been openly admitted TO KILL HIM. Perhaps you should appreciate THAT fact before you say I'm talking gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
Wow, have ever looked at your country's history? Just asking.
And that is monumentally irrelevant. The behaviour of my nation, or any other nation on Earth at any time, does not make such behaviour as suggested above any LESS barbaric or uncivilized, or more acceptable.
halonachos wrote:
Actually there are set guidelines as to who is considered a guerrilla fighter, terrorist, etc.
No, that's wrong. There are set laws regarding who is considered a lawful, or unlawful combatant.
halonachos wrote:
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
They merely need to have a commander, so long as the group is not a simple mob, they qualify.
halonachos wrote:
They have to show clear preparation of attacks, including the collection of arms and a battleplan(instead of going out and killing random targets, ie; Civilians with suicide bombers). Not really a check.
This is incorrect as well. Francs-tireurs merely need to carry arms openly, while recognizing the rules of war. They don't need to show clear preparation, or even consistency with respect to target selection.
halonachos wrote:
They lack a clear uniform(as they sometimes hide in women's clothing and wear nothing to mark themselves as fighters) so they don't fall into the Geneva Convention's definition of a guerrilla fighter.
No, they don't fall under the Geneva Convetions' definition of lawful combatant. Its possible to have a guerrilla force composed on unlawful combatants.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
So you're equating the barbarism of mass murdering terrorists to the barbarism of internet tough guy boasting. Good to know you're a troll.
Internet tough guy boasting? Ah, because clearly such sentiment only exists on the internet and nowhere else...
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
Right...
Are you disagreeing that Rush Limbaugh or tea party members have not blamed Obama for every death in Afghanistan? Any evidence?
Are you disagreeing that some in the American Left blamed Bush for every death in Iraq? Would you like to know more?
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
Right...
Are you disagreeing that Rush Limbaugh or tea party members have not blamed Obama for every death in Afghanistan? Any evidence?
Are you disagreeing that some in the American Left blamed Bush for every death in Iraq? Would you like to know more?
i don't believe I mentioned Afghanistan.
I stated that if this mission to get Osama had gone tragically wrong that plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the "he" statements ...
I understand what you are blathering on about, it just isn't what I said nor do I care...
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention concerning POWs.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
etc. ,etc.
Wow. First, I would never say either of those things even though I don't really like this president. I especially wouldn't have blamed him for any loss of lives on our side in any atempt, sucessful or otherwise, to get Osama. (And before anyone jumps on me for not caring-I served in the military so I'm not indifferent to my brothers lives)And even though I lean towards the Tea party movement, I don't refer to any group with inflamatory remarks or name calling (like tea Baggers) because I find it rather counter porductive. All I was saying was that I found it funny that he made it seem like he was the only one who cared enough to try to find this guy and that there has not been a ongoing search for him for years.
And yes, even if the parties were reversed, I would still say the same thing.
Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.
As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.
He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.
The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.
I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.
As for the bedroom pics (the only pics), its a lot of blood. It doesn't really resemble splatter or drippage from moving a body. But its not really important. The important part is the mission parameter. They went there to kill him, regardless of what he was doing or what state he was in. Some rumour him to have been on dialysis. Unlikely to have been a lot of "resisting" from a man on dialysis either way, but that doesn't matter. Lets say he was on it.. they were sent to kill him even so. Not capture. Which makes it a summary execution without any manner of trial.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
I am glad we finally put a stop to a monster of our own creation and all but the timing is odd and does nothing to instill faith in the system for me.
For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.
To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.
You will notice there is no mention of Sept 11 on the FBI charges.
Just because it is common knowledge does not mean it is accurate.
Further, it should be noted that if I recall correctly in 01 the Taliban agreed to turn him over to a third party country for trial if we would stop our bombings and we refused under the premise ' we know he is guilty'.
Furthermore, it bugs me to no end that all this comes as we near the ramp up to campaign season, 10 years after the alleged incident that instilled such public comradery and after his influence had dissapated tremendously....a day late and a dollar short.
If we had spent majority of our war resources alotted finding Bin laden shortly after 9/11 and kept our focus and he turned up dead after a fire fight alledegly refusing to surrender, i may feel a little better about our government. As it stands now I for one am not at all comfortable with the way we seem to stumble like the town drunk between arrogant hegemony and pure brute force.
Yeah, we totally arbitrarily killed Public Enemy No. 1 after he had committed and confessed to many crimes. No sense in it whatsoever.*
*Please serve with at least a 1/2 cup of sarcasm. While some people may prefer a larger dose, please keep in mind that large doses of sarcasm have been found to be harmful to your health.
CT GAMER wrote:i don't believe I mentioned Afghanistan.
I stated that if this mission to get Osama had gone tragically wrong that plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the "he" statements ...
I understand what you are blathering on about, it just isn't what I said nor do I care...
Given that the war in Afghanistan was directed towards capturing Osama, and that the expansion into Pakistan is a consequence of the war in Afghanistan, there's no way that Afghanistan deaths are not relevant.
Your belief that "plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the 'he' statements" is founded on an incorrect assumption.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?
Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.
Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.
I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.
So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?
thedude wrote:For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.
To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.
I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.
halonachos wrote:Article 4 of the Geneva Convention concerning POWs.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Yes, that says that organized militias and volunteer corps shall be regarded as protected combatants (required for POW status) if they fulfill those requirements. It does not say that they shall only be regarded as organized militias or volunteer corps if they fulfill those requirements. It also says that you were wrong in regard to the presence of an explicit chain of command, and the need for massing of firearms, or prepared attacks.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
He wasn't killed out of a desire to prove the US is better. he was killed because he was a fanatical mass murderer who espoused a desire to do so again and who was a figurehead to others of similar intent.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.
This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.
The policy regarding the authority to kill or capture this kind of terrorist personnel has been established and consistent for several years. Many of us do have objections of principle to it. Many of us (Americans and other) have raised objections and communicated to our representatives in government that we would prefer these people to be captured and tried whenever feasible.
That being said, it seems very odd for you to raise this objection regarding Bin Laden, of all people, who has repeatedly and publicly taken responsiblity for multiple heinous acts of murder against civilians. If there were ever a person whose extrajudicial killing was justified, it's probably a mass-murderer who repeatedly proclaims his guilt to the world and vows to keep doing it.
However it does seem likely that we would have tried to grab him if we could. The moral authority we would have displayed/gained by granting this monster due process would have been a breathtaking display of the power of our convictions and our believe in the Rule of Law. All that said, however, if it came down to a choice between shooting him or risking his escape, shooting him is certainly the better and more moral option.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
As noted, you are making a rather insulting leap of logic in concluding that Americans or anyone else would necessarily, in general, abandon our convictions or commit heinous acts in real life just because a bunch of people post tough-guy crap on the internet.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
I never knew that 'Taliban' was a legitimate citizenship. You know, like a country called 'Taliba' and its citizens are called 'Talibans', yeah that exists, I'm sure of it.
Yes, we wanted him dead. Kind of because he could be used for a figurehead if we put him on trial. But spies, anyone who isn't marked as a uniformed soldier and takes up arms is something we can legitimately kill. If you took up a weapon and fired at a british soldier, they would shoot you. If Ireland was at war with Britain and you took up a weapon against them they would shoot you. If they occupied England and you took up a weapon they would still shoot you.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Our reason for this was to gain freedom from a government that was not accurately representing us. Bin Laden's motives were to eradicate the USA and all its inhabitants.
Also, if we're "barbaric and bloodthirsty", how come we gave OBL a proper burial, as dictated by his religion?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
No.
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.
So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution? Murderers, rapists and paedophiles all get a trial. Nazis and Japanese get trials. Saddam got a trial. In all these cases at least an appearance of civilized justice is preserved, however biased the justice might be.
Bin Laden got killed trying to evade capture. If he had been taken alive, then shot out of hand, you would have a good claim that it was illegal, and he should be have been on trial.
Personally I think it would have been useful to capture him for interrogation. He must have known a lot about the higher levels of Al Quaeda. But there you go.
As regards the rejoicing, I can understand it. I wonder how many people have read the Vatican statement on the topic and what your thoughts are?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?
Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.
Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.
I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.
So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?
You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.
As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.
He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.
The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.
I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.
Proof? I mean, I know you haven't been speaking in specifics this entire time. It's why people are calling you a troll. But you're citing an event that you weren't personally there for so you must have a source for this information.
killkrazy I must say, I respect the Vatican's statement. It was a wise and judicious move. For those who don't want to search for it, here ya go:
The Vatican wrote:“This morning, following the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Director of the Holy See Press Office, P. Federico Lombardi, issued the following statement to reporters:
Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose.
Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Actually we had guerrillas AND an armed forces. The armed forces wore the nice blue coats and your guys wore nice red coats. If our guys in blue coats were captured they were treated as POWs and used to trade with the blue coats to get captured red coats. Now if a guerrilla was captured they were killed. And then the red coats hired some people called Hessians, who were mercenaries, and we captured them. Then we had a guy named "Benedict Arnold" who worked for the british, but wasn't wearing a red coat. The blue coats shot him on the spot.
During WW2 we took some pilots and told them that they were going to be Guerrilla fighters. They accepted despite the fact that we acknowledged that they would be killed if captured because they had no rights and were unlawful combatants. We were willing to give up the rights of those pilots and acknowledged them as guerrillas and resigned to the fact that they would be killed if captured. I guess that we should give rights to other guerrillas because they aren't american?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Your statement here shows a vast amount of ignorance in regards to why the colonies rebelled against the British Empire, as well as the manner in which the revolution was fought.
Mannahnin wrote:This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.
Assuming the poster you're quoting is sincere, then it's not necessarily a bad time or circumstance to raise the issue. This is a very visible and widely discussed issue, and the outliers (those condemning the killing rather than praising it) are more likely to be heard than they would be in the regular day-to-day news cycle.
Using this as a moment to get out the message is not improper.
That said, I agree with Mannahnin (and others) that this isn't a good case to hang your hat on. He wasn't killed in a targetted strike, but during capture. His body was treated with due reverance and it seems like everyone tried their hardest to behave appropriately (contra the Saddam Hussein execution).
Most of the war on terror does raise interesting questions about the authority of a government to sentence someone outside of the country to death without due process. But this case isn't really a very good case, factually speaking.
I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.
He was not the financier, that is simply wrong. What it appears we know about Al-Queda, that is all evidence shows they raise funds through donations, be it through sympathisers or unknowing mosque attendees. Anyway, I dont suggest it is not possible he was responsible, only that it is possible he was not. Or at the very least we did not follow our own due process which is our stated reason for occupying so many regions in the middle east, that is to 'spread democracy'. I dont dispute that he got what he deserved, but I question a culture who blindly accepts in practice where the ends justify the means even when it runs contrary to that same cultures stated ideals.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.
This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.
The policy regarding the authority to kill or capture this kind of terrorist personnel has been established and consistent for several years. Many of us do have objections of principle to it. Many of us (Americans and other) have raised objections and communicated to our representatives in government that we would prefer these people to be captured and tried whenever feasible.
That being said, it seems very odd for you to raise this objection regarding Bin Laden, of all people, who has repeatedly and publicly taken responsiblity for multiple heinous acts of murder against civilians. If there were ever a person whose extrajudicial killing was justified, it's probably a mass-murderer who repeatedly proclaims his guilt to the world and vows to keep doing it.
However it does seem likely that we would have tried to grab him if we could. The moral authority we would have displayed/gained by granting this monster due process would have been a breathtaking display of the power of our convictions and our believe in the Rule of Law. All that said, however, if it came down to a choice between shooting him or risking his escape, shooting him is certainly the better and more moral option.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
As noted, you are making a rather insulting leap of logic in concluding that Americans or anyone else would necessarily, in general, abandon our convictions or commit heinous acts in real life just because a bunch of people post tough-guy crap on the internet.
Well, if you consider other cases of American action in this ilk on topic, then we should totally bring them up. (This ilk being "America ignoring the rules it sets for others/committing dubious acts/war crimes etc.) I rather assumed that they would be considered a little off-topic, much like the earlier discussion about Hitler and Japan which was only mildly related. Also, "sound the alarm"? This isn't the first, last or only time I've brought this manner of thing up...just not yet on Dakka is all.
The fact that its Bin Laden of all people makes it even more high-profile that America should have taken the path of moral authority, not "the dark side." Rushing out of the night and blatting the guy was not the correct path. Capture and trial was. As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture. Resistance or lack of it is irrelevant to those orders. Or your own Military is retroactively making up missions and printing rubbish..and if we go down that line, we end up in the "how do we know its even him?" conspiracy.
I already pointed out that just because some of it appears on a forum, does not render it wholly "net tough guy talk". I only cited the examples appearing in this thread. Its been turning up in all manner of media since it went down, and many times such sentiments have been offered beforehand. (Not just from America either. There are more than a few here who fly the same path.) Also, I don't necessarily consider that many of these people are actually capable of such acts. Most of them would vomit and cry before they got near to being able to torture someone... its the suggestion that such acts are acceptable in circumstances of the United States choosing, and the agreement with that suggestion that is unpalatable and barbaric. And lets be honest, there ARE members of the US regime who can and will gladly engage in the acts described, and there always have been.
Not to mention, a capture and trial (even a show trial) would have allowed the US to demonstrate conclusively that they had indeed taken him. The actions they have taken today will just mean that in a week, Osama will be seen in a chip-shop in Retford. (Akin to the cult around Hitlers 'survival', or Elvis actually living in a retirement home or whatever.)
thedude wrote:I am glad we finally put a stop to a monster of our own creation and all but the timing is odd and does nothing to instill faith in the system for me.
Here we go again...
For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.
To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.
Well, if you consider other cases of American action in this ilk on topic, then we should totally bring them up. (This ilk being "America ignoring the rules it sets for others/committing dubious acts/war crimes etc.) I rather assumed that they would be considered a little off-topic, much like the earlier discussion about Hitler and Japan which was only mildly related. Also, "sound the alarm"? This isn't the first, last or only time I've brought this manner of thing up...just not yet on Dakka is all.
The conversation has been had here a dozen times. Start a topic on it and avoid being intentionally antagonistic and insulting if you want an actual discussion about it.
The fact that its Bin Laden of all people makes it even more high-profile that America should have taken the path of moral authority, not "the dark side." Rushing out of the night and blatting the guy was not the correct path. Capture and trial was. As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture. Resistance or lack of it is irrelevant to those orders. Or your own Military is retroactively making up missions and printing rubbish..and if we go down that line, we end up in the "how do we know its even him?" conspiracy.
This has been "confirmed" by one unnamed state department official who likely had nothing to do with the operation (now I know why you didn't source it). I'll wait for the actual government release before hedging my bet on that.
I already pointed out that just because some of it appears on a forum, does not render it wholly "net tough guy talk". I only cited the examples appearing in this thread. Its been turning up in all manner of media since it went down, and many times such sentiments have been offered beforehand. (Not just from America either. There are more than a few here who fly the same path.) Also, I don't necessarily consider that many of these people are actually capable of such acts. Most of them would vomit and cry before they got near to being able to torture someone... its the suggestion that such acts are acceptable in circumstances of the United States choosing, and the agreement with that suggestion that is unpalatable and barbaric. And lets be honest, there ARE members of the US regime who can and will gladly engage in the acts described, and there always have been.
And there always will be.
Not to mention, a capture and trial (even a show trial) would have allowed the US to demonstrate conclusively that they had indeed taken him. The actions they have taken today will just mean that in a week, Osama will be seen in a chip-shop in Retford. (Akin to the cult around Hitlers 'survival', or Elvis actually living in a retirement home or whatever.)
As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture.
Where are you getting this? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm asking because the live interview I heard this morning with Whitehouse staff stated they attempted to capture him.
As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture.
Where are you getting this? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm asking because the live interview I heard this morning with Whitehouse staff stated they attempted to capture him.
thedude wrote:For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.
To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.
I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.
Just gloating and claiming responsibility for a crime does not in itself prove that you engaged in that crime. Its a common occurrence for a terrorist organisation to claim acts that do not belong to it. And in order to charge him, one would have to capture him, and place him on trial, which wasn't done.
Just to clarify: I am not saying now, nor have I EVER claimed that Bin Laden did not commit or cause to commit terror attacks, or get up to all manner of ill behaviour. Seems that people are happy to equate wanting to see justice done properly with thinking he was somehow innocent. I do hope that is crystal clear, because there IS a distinction. Wanting a murderer or paedophile to stand trial for their crimes does not mean a person supports murder or paedophilia.
Their established command chain isn't really much of one. It's decentralized to ensure that it can continue causing damage even if one part is cut off.
I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.
He was not the financier, that is simply wrong. What it appears we know about Al-Queda, that is all evidence shows they raise funds through donations, be it through sympathisers or unknowing mosque attendees. Anyway, I dont suggest it is not possible he was responsible, only that it is possible he was not. Or at the very least we did not follow our own due process which is our stated reason for occupying so many regions in the middle east, that is to 'spread democracy'. I dont dispute that he got what he deserved, but I question a culture who blindly accepts in practice where the ends justify the means even when it runs contrary to that same cultures stated ideals.
Edit: for less confrontational language.
Bin Laden inherited anywhere from $10 million to $100 million from his father, mostly by cutting his siblings out of the deal. He started Al Quaida with this money, and took part in many of its actions, such as the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, but the actual person who had the title of "leader" for the 9/11 mission was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . While it's entirely possible, and quite likely that he had Osama whispering in his ear, Khalid was the man behind the attacks.
We have been spreading democracy and helping equality in Western Asia. Remember Osama's pal, Saddam Hussein?
Yes, because it was a giant conspiracy, but somebody forgot to put it on his FBI page...
::FACEPALM
Please at least attempt to express and intelligent thought if you are going to comment on a post instead of furthering another negative America stereo type. Anyway, I am stating fact, that is to my knowledge he was not charged with any crimes relating to 9/11. If you have information with evidence to the contrary please share.
thedude wrote:Please at least attempt to express and intelligent thought if you are going to comment on a post instead of furthering another negative America stereo type. Anyway, I am stating fact, that is to my knowledge he was not charged with any crimes relating to 9/11. If you have information with evidence to the contrary please share.
Does it matter if he was charged in the 9/11 attacks? He was charged with the '98 embassy bombings, which should be enough for arrest.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Our reason for this was to gain freedom from a government that was not accurately representing us. Bin Laden's motives were to eradicate the USA and all its inhabitants.
Also, if we're "barbaric and bloodthirsty", how come we gave OBL a proper burial, as dictated by his religion?
Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.
I'm grimly amused how my comments have transmogrified from being appalled that some people (predominantly Americans at this time) were openly supporting the use of barbaric and criminal acts against another person, into "All Americans are barbaric and bloodthirsty."
I'm glad he's gone. It's possible that the US intel services might have gotten some useful information out of him if he'd been taken alive, but overall I think what happened was probably for the best - particularly the burial at sea (last thing anyone needs is a grave that becomes a shrine to his would-be followers; let him be consigned to the dustbin of history and forgotten).
It's hard to say what this will mean in the short or long-term. My understanding was that he was sick enough already that he was somewhat removed from the organization (though I could be wrong on that). So it's hard to say what practical effect this will have other than cementing his number two as the new head of the organization. The other effect is on the morale. Short term I suspect that some will be "inspired" to try and join the terrorists, but I suspect most of those who do so would have done so anyway. Long term I suspect it will dampen enthusiasm ever so slightly.
It's also been noted elsewhere that the timing on this is rather interesting (in a non-conspiratorial fashion). OBL's death occurred at the same time that the Middle East is in the midst of a number of popular uprisings, which distracts immediate attention somewhat away from his death. If you live in, say, Syria, you're likely to find the news of interest. But you'll probably be much more concerned about avoiding the tanks from the 4th Division rolling down your city streets...
Edit -
The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Personally, I would prefer "One man's freedom fighter is another man's rebel." I've always kepts a fairly large mental seperation between rebels and terrorists.
Does it matter if he was charged in the 9/11 attacks? He was charged with the '98 embassy bombings, which should be enough for arrest.
I'm not disputing that in the least. He deserved the death penalty to be expedisiously carried out as far as I am concerned. I was originaly stating with all the 9/11 talk and everyone congratulating themselves for a job well done, it was worth noting two things, America had the chance to bring him to trial in '01 which we refused and that we never charged him for a crime related to 9/11. That is all.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.
Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.
I'm grimly amused how my comments have transmogrified from being appalled that some people (predominantly Americans at this time) were openly supporting the use of barbaric and criminal acts against another person, into "All Americans are barbaric and bloodthirsty."
A pair of, supposedly, shots to the head during a firefight is a "barbaric and criminal act"?
Well. Better not tell SWAT teams that have to take down hostage takers with headshots. They're violating the hostage taker's rights!
ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?
Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.
Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.
I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.
So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?
You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.
Really? Did I do that? Or did I just express distaste that many Americans have been supporting the use of torture and other similarly barbaric methods? I find that worrying. It IS worrying. And now I'm a troll because of the manner in which I choose to ridcule the accusation that I am a troll on top of that...
Where the heck has anyone said anything serious about supporting torture?
The closest I can think of was things like stringing his body up to get punched/kicked/spit on or impaling him on the Empire State Building. And let's face it--that's hyperbolic and not going to happen.
thedude wrote:I was originaly stating with all the 9/11 talk and everyone congratulating themselves for a job well done, it was worth noting two things, America had the chance to bring him to trial which we refused and that we never charged him for a crime related to 9/11. That is all.
Well, he was the titular head of the organization that committed 9/11, so he could have been charged with conspiracy if nothing else.
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
That's not necessarily true. Terrorists target civilians while "freedom fighters" target the military.
The military force of a country is always a valid target. Civilians are never a valid target.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?
Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.
Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.
I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.
So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?
You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.
Really? Did I do that? Or did I just express distaste that many Americans have been supporting the use of torture and other similarly barbaric methods? I find that worrying. It IS worrying. And now I'm a troll because of the manner in which I choose to ridcule the accusation that I am a troll on top of that...
I think the problem is that you are speaking as if you know with 100% certainty that he was executed in cold blood, or not given a chance to surender, when in fact you have no way of knowing this...
As for internet toughguys applauding the result, well it is the internet and it is Dakka: And you are shocked by this why?
Maybe get back to watching the royal wedding on Tivo and settle down a bit huh?
the American rebels were fighting for the right to govern themselves. Al Quaida is fighting for an extremist religious belief that calls for the death of millions of people.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
Sorry, but you must have missed "really only targeted civilians".
Previous to the Western troops coming into Afghanistan, Al Qaeda pretty much only struck civilian targets in the West.
Or do you not remember who was responsible for the 1994 WTC bombing?
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
Then stop giving a really crappy general point. Comparing the American Revolution to Al Qaeda's behavior is ridiculous.
A better example would have been the Bolshevik Revolution or *gasp* the behavior of the Nazi Party prior to them getting power.
Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.
As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.
He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.
The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.
I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.
Proof? I mean, I know you haven't been speaking in specifics this entire time. It's why people are calling you a troll. But you're citing an event that you weren't personally there for so you must have a source for this information.
Because I don't wish to fill a page with unsolicited links, I must be a troll? The information I have access to is freely available in exactly the same place anyone else could get it from. My first encounter with the statement was a BBC tv news segment earlier this afternoon. It has since been similarly stated on other UK news outlets, and I imagine by tomorrow morning it will be in all the major news papers as well. If I flick over to Sky News or CNN I catch the same reports at random.
Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.
That statement is not helping your case. I for one see your point, but even with a brief glance at a non US history book of US history one can make the statement that 'on its darkest day the America revolution was purely motivated by greed'. There were many contributing factors of course but chief among them was the founding fathers perception of failure in the king to provide economic stability in tough economic times. It is true we did not have fanatical religious worship as most of our founding fathers rebeled against what they considered a corrupt English church and our the colonist did not wish to exist simply to comitt murder.
But to be fair, the Al Queda are religious fanatics to be sure, they believe that anything that is not Shengri law is evil and from the devil so it must not be tolarated...but to claim that they cause terrorist attacks because they are jealous of American freedom or because they revel in murder is a dangerously naive thing to accept.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Your statement here shows a vast amount of ignorance in regards to why the colonies rebelled against the British Empire, as well as the manner in which the revolution was fought.
No. They actually show my desire to summarize very shortly a conflict without getting bogged down in irrelevant details of specific actions. The War of Independence is complicated, like all conflicts are..but the two combatants CAN be summarised as "Imperials/Rebels" or "Regime/Freedom Fighters" or even "Legitimate Government/Terrorists" depending on which point of view you care to take. Which was entirely my point.
ArbeitsSchu wrote: Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.
Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.
Let's be honest, they were trying to get out of paying taxes.
The UK was at the time one of the most liberal countries in the world. The king had a lot of prestige power, but limited real power. The basic problem was the lack of representation in Parliament.
Plenty of colonists were up for sticking with the UK but they wanted representation. That was a totally fair idea, and the British government were very stupid not to have gone with it.
I feel we are dragging the thread somewhat off topic.
Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.
That statement is not helping your case. I for one see your point, but even with a brief glance at a non US history book of US history one can make the statement that 'on its darkest day the America revolution was purely motivated by greed'. There were many contributing factors of course but chief among them was the founding fathers perception of failure in the king to provide economic stability in tough economic times. It is true we did not have fanatical religious worship as most of our founding fathers rebeled against what they considered a corrupt English church and our the colonist did not wish to exist simply to comitt murder.
But it still doesn't change that even the guerillas and woodsmen that were so decried by the British were nowhere near the level of the atrocities committed by Al'Qaeda.
But to be fair, the Al Queda are religious fanatics to be sure, they believe that anything that is not Shengri law is evil and from the devil so it must not be tolarated...but to claim that they cause terrorist attacks because they are jealous of American freedom or because they revel in murder is a dangerously naive thing to accept.
It is oversimplifying it, yeah. I could have clarified it better. I'm not saying that "They're Muslims/religious people and this makes them want to murder everyone!".
Al'Qaeda at heart has always been kind of an organization to 'stick it' to the West and claiming that it's because of religion. The whole reason it was founded was because Bin Laden heard an interpretation of Islamic Law that appealed to him.
I just find it offensive to equate the American Revolution to the behaviors of this group.
Well, if you consider other cases of American action in this ilk on topic, then we should totally bring them up. (This ilk being "America ignoring the rules it sets for others/committing dubious acts/war crimes etc.) I rather assumed that they would be considered a little off-topic, much like the earlier discussion about Hitler and Japan which was only mildly related. Also, "sound the alarm"? This isn't the first, last or only time I've brought this manner of thing up...just not yet on Dakka is all.
The conversation has been had here a dozen times. Start a topic on it and avoid being intentionally antagonistic and insulting if you want an actual discussion about it.
The fact that its Bin Laden of all people makes it even more high-profile that America should have taken the path of moral authority, not "the dark side." Rushing out of the night and blatting the guy was not the correct path. Capture and trial was. As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture. Resistance or lack of it is irrelevant to those orders. Or your own Military is retroactively making up missions and printing rubbish..and if we go down that line, we end up in the "how do we know its even him?" conspiracy.
This has been "confirmed" by one unnamed state department official who likely had nothing to do with the operation (now I know why you didn't source it). I'll wait for the actual government release before hedging my bet on that.
I already pointed out that just because some of it appears on a forum, does not render it wholly "net tough guy talk". I only cited the examples appearing in this thread. Its been turning up in all manner of media since it went down, and many times such sentiments have been offered beforehand. (Not just from America either. There are more than a few here who fly the same path.) Also, I don't necessarily consider that many of these people are actually capable of such acts. Most of them would vomit and cry before they got near to being able to torture someone... its the suggestion that such acts are acceptable in circumstances of the United States choosing, and the agreement with that suggestion that is unpalatable and barbaric. And lets be honest, there ARE members of the US regime who can and will gladly engage in the acts described, and there always have been.
And there always will be.
Not to mention, a capture and trial (even a show trial) would have allowed the US to demonstrate conclusively that they had indeed taken him. The actions they have taken today will just mean that in a week, Osama will be seen in a chip-shop in Retford. (Akin to the cult around Hitlers 'survival', or Elvis actually living in a retirement home or whatever.)
Utterly irrelevant.
I'll explain it again. I didn't make a huge post about things like Bradley Manning, or Gitmo, or other cases of American behaviour of a dubious nature because they are only partially relevant, and as the thread was nearly locked over digressions about Hitler and Japan, I figured that I would keep as close to the specific subject at hand. I didn't "want" a discussion about those specifics, nor was I fishing for one. Then a MOD queried why I was only "sounding the alarm" now. I haven't just sounded the alarm now, but in fact spoken out on all of those subjects and more. The fact I haven't done it on Dakka, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. This isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp, so I am led to assume that by mentioning this, you are trying to cause an argument about it. Trying to stay on topic is NOT antagonstic or insulting, nor does it mean I haven't previously discussed such topics.
I've cited a source or two above, but I haven't seen (as of this post) you citing a link countering it or refuting it. You just said its an un-named state department official. Am I being held to a different set of rules than you? If you can rudely demand i "prove" my statements, are you not likewise required to provide some kind of proof?
I'm not sure why your agreeing that some Americans CAN torture others is important enough for you to state it in this context, and the whole point is that having a trial and following the rule of law and not acting like judge, jury and executioner is EXACTLY relevant. Its one of the two reasons I said anything in the first place.
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop. Here is an article from Oct 01
So it would appear, America was bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, the Taliban said "Okay, show us some evidence and we will turn him over, just stop bombing." We said no. They then came back and offered " Okay, okay, you dont need to show us evidence, we will turn him over to a third party country for trial now, just stop the bombing' and we again said no.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.
Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.
I'm grimly amused how my comments have transmogrified from being appalled that some people (predominantly Americans at this time) were openly supporting the use of barbaric and criminal acts against another person, into "All Americans are barbaric and bloodthirsty."
A pair of, supposedly, shots to the head during a firefight is a "barbaric and criminal act"?
Well. Better not tell SWAT teams that have to take down hostage takers with headshots. They're violating the hostage taker's rights!
Did you miss the part of the thread where I mentioned all the frank and open suggestions of how he should have been tortured, or had his head put on a spike (or a CNN aerial) or wrapped in pork and fed to hungry Jews or any other manner of barbaric commentary that has been made since the event? The general and seemingly prevalent belief cited by a substantial number of Americans that because of who or what he was, normal and civilized treatment of an enemy or criminal need not apply. THAT is the barbarism I refer to.
Kanluwen wrote:Where the heck has anyone said anything serious about supporting torture?
The closest I can think of was things like stringing his body up to get punched/kicked/spit on or impaling him on the Empire State Building. And let's face it--that's hyperbolic and not going to happen.
I'll point you back to the earlier post where I explained that it isn't about someone being capable of whatever act they wish upon him, or even of that act being feasible. Its the general suggestion that if such an act were to occur, (or any act of a similar kind) it would be acceptable to these people.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Did you miss the part of the thread where I mentioned all the frank and open suggestions of how he should have been tortured, or had his head put on a spike (or a CNN aerial) or wrapped in pork and fed to hungry Jews or any other manner of barbaric commentary that has been made since the event? The general and seemingly prevalent belief cited by a substantial number of Americans that because of who or what he was, normal and civilized treatment of an enemy or criminal need not apply. THAT is the barbarism I refer to.
Because clearly, every single one of those statements was serious.
I still see no reason to believe that any significant percentage of that crude hyperbole is actually sincere or evidence of a damning barbarity among Americans in general.
Basing such a condemnatory judgment of Americans generally on such remarks, in such a context, seems inflammatory and inappropriate.
Mannahnin wrote:I still see no reason to believe that any significant percentage of that crude hyperbole is actually sincere or evidence of a damning barbarity among Americans in general.
Basing such a condemnatory judgment of Americans generally on such remarks, in such a context, seems inflammatory and inappropriate.
Exactly.
I don't think most Americans would suggest we condemn the peoples of Middle Eastern countries when they burn effigies of our Presidents as "barbarians" and "terrorist sympathizers".
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop.
The Taliban tried to sell us a line of BS to buy time for him to get away. We tried buying their cooperation and getting them to hand him over first. They refused, and he did get away.
thedude wrote:I was originaly stating with all the 9/11 talk and everyone congratulating themselves for a job well done, it was worth noting two things, America had the chance to bring him to trial which we refused and that we never charged him for a crime related to 9/11. That is all.
Well, he was the titular head of the organization that committed 9/11, so he could have been charged with conspiracy if nothing else.
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
That's not necessarily true. Terrorists target civilians while "freedom fighters" target the military.
The military force of a country is always a valid target. Civilians are never a valid target.[/quote
This is wholly true, if applied from relatively modern Western values. But one of the basic problems with this conflict as a whole is that it concerns an ideology and value system that is markedly different to the one that established the Geneva Convention and other such measures of validity and legitimacy. A clear parallel would be the conflict between Japan and the West, and the problems surrounding "surrender". In one culture it is recognised as acceptable, and that values and ruiles apply to people who choose that route. (Even if they are often ignored.) In the opposing culture, it is shameful, wrong, and no rights are applied. When those two meet in war, there are bound to be problems. Also, the groups associated with Al Quaeda regularly attack military targets as well, and often conflate military and civilian together.
To clarify, before anyone decides I'm defending Japanese war crimes or something daft.. I'm not saying this is RIGHT, or laudable, or GOOD, I'm just saying that IT IS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Did you miss the part of the thread where I mentioned all the frank and open suggestions of how he should have been tortured, or had his head put on a spike (or a CNN aerial) or wrapped in pork and fed to hungry Jews or any other manner of barbaric commentary that has been made since the event? The general and seemingly prevalent belief cited by a substantial number of Americans that because of who or what he was, normal and civilized treatment of an enemy or criminal need not apply. THAT is the barbarism I refer to.
Because clearly, every single one of those statements was serious.
Maybe its the way I tell them, but you seem to be unclear as to where I'm seeing these statements, serious or facetious.
Such comments have appeared in this thread. They have also appeared in a large number of places outside of this thread. There is a substantial quantity of such comments across a variety of mediums and all manner of forums and suchlike. Facebook threads, TV news articles, all over the place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I still see no reason to believe that any significant percentage of that crude hyperbole is actually sincere or evidence of a damning barbarity among Americans in general.
Basing such a condemnatory judgment of Americans generally on such remarks, in such a context, seems inflammatory and inappropriate.
Exactly.
I don't think most Americans would suggest we condemn the peoples of Middle Eastern countries when they burn effigies of our Presidents as "barbarians" and "terrorist sympathizers".
The majority of such remarks are originating from American sources. Not ALL, and it is equally unpalatable coming from the people in my street or on the other side of the world. But nevertheless, the sentiment that civilized rules can be laid aside on a case by case basis is coming predominantly from American citizens. It is also a heart-warming thing when I see other Americans express the opposing belief, which I have..but so far they have been in the minority. I don't know how many times this needs to be clarified. I find it unsettling when so many people express such an opinion. That opinion has so far been expressed predominantly by Americans. Its what I have been saying since post one.
Kanluwen wrote:Because clearly, every single one of those statements was serious.
What if they were?
People are going to be happy that the guy who claimed responsibility for 9/11 is dead, and it isn't unreasonable to wish him more harm than he got. It's a rather emotional topic. Not everyone is a postmodern cyborg, you know.
If someone is allowed to spout uninformed and foolish conspiracy theories, I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to voice their disapproval of someone who could at least be nominated as one of the biggest dickheads of the current times.
The Taliban tried to sell us a line of BS to buy time for him to get away. We tried buying their cooperation and getting them to hand him over first. They refused, and he did get away.
Can you explain this? From what I gathered our unconditional terms where that they deliver Bin laden to us post haste no questions asked if you will.
From what I can tell,
They asked for evidence, we refused stating our terms are unconditional
They said fine, we will go ahead and extradite him to a third party coutnry if we stop bombing
We said no.
I am no fan of the taliban but it appears to me that we were being a bit bull headed if we seriously assumed that the Afghan leadership would simply turn over one of their own without the slightest hint of diplomacy. This exchange looked more like a pissing contest where bringing Bin laden to justice was not the number 1 priority. I fail to understand the difficulty of compromise when the alleged perpetrator of one of the most haneous crimes against our country swung in the balance.
Congrats to the Administration, intelligence community, pilots, CIA assets, and DEVGRU operators that pulled this off with no friendly casualties and minimal collateral damage.
They handled the aftermath, including burial, exactly right.
It doesn't change anything, nor does it increase our immediate security, but I'm glad itmwas done, and I'm glad they did it the way they did.
I hope the bastard defecated himself, and I wish long lives and peace to the men who conducted the assault. A hearty thank you to the President, for showing patience and fortitude.
The Taliban tried to sell us a line of BS to buy time for him to get away. We tried buying their cooperation and getting them to hand him over first. They refused, and he did get away.
Can you explain this? From what I gathered our unconditional terms where that they deliver Bin laden to us post haste no questions asked if you will.
We tried getting them to hand him over and they refused. They tried imposing preconditions and delays. I'm mostly remembering from Clarke's book, Against All Enemies.
And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop. Here is an article from Oct 01
I was assuming you were talking about when the Sudan had Osama and offered him to Clinton.
Also, if we're "barbaric and bloodthirsty", how come we gave OBL a proper burial, as dictated by his religion?
To hide the corpse so we cannot verify that he was killed, to prevent any martyrdom-esqe shrines. Also the speed at which they managed to get DNA to a lab to be compared against what they have on record seemed a bit quick.
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
Only for the extremists who follow his teachings, in which case they already want the death of the West, so you're good.
biccat wrote:
thedude wrote:
Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.
Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop. Here is an article from Oct 01
I was assuming you were talking about when the Sudan had Osama and offered him to Clinton.
And at that moment, we did not have enough proof to convict him, so we abided by our rules and did not take the offer. Unfortunately, we did get evidence shortly after he escaped Sudan.
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
I think most Muslims tend to distance themselves from OBL's methods, don't they?
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
I think most Muslims tend to distance themselves from OBL's methods, don't they?
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
And calling Osama a devout Muslim is the same sign of disrespect for Islam.
It's like saying the KKK are devout Christians.
Or it's like saying that Al'Qaeda has any interest, whatsoever, in being an organization that believes in 'freedom'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:I thought he had 'doubles' like most of these guys?
A double wouldn't be a genetic match.
You mean along with one of the helicopters breaking down?
Unconfirmed reports from the people who lived near the compound are that the helicopter was damaged by gunfire during the insertion.
It had to make an emergency landing and was then scuttled.
Helicopters always break down. Always. That is one of the reasons JSOC exists. The aborted attempt in Iran 30 years ago. Somalia. That is hardly indicative of the level of detail in the plan.
Osama and G.W. Bush were pals before he was elected president, and they helped each other get to power in their respective organizations, andn that Bush Sr. had to play along because he had help Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, which partially helped to cover up that Bin Laden was one of the two shooters of JFK (he was on the grassy knoll-his aim was rather poor when he was younger, and his back-up man had to finish the job)! This lead to the republican party secretly supporting OBL and stealing a genetic sample of him so that when they make the perfect dummy, they can place a patch of fake DNA on the body of the guy who took the fall so that it seems to be him! I mean, the guy had 50 or so siblings, and he must've had a brother who looked SOMEWHAT like him!
All joking aside, that was a lot of fun to come up with. Sorry to be so sarcastic, but I'm actually gonna trust the government on this one.
dienekes96 wrote:Helicopters always break down. Always. That is one of the reasons JSOC exists. The aborted attempt in Iran 30 years ago. Somalia. That is hardly indicative of the level of detail in the plan.
Never said it was. I said Tightly planned is not Tightly Executed. Its a variation on "No plan survives contact with the enemy." Just because they "tightly planned" the DNA/Burial parts, doesn't mean they would go swimmingly. They may still have not succeeded in that part of the plan. Its only been a day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
And calling Osama a devout Muslim is the same sign of disrespect for Islam.
It's like saying the KKK are devout Christians.
Or it's like saying that Al'Qaeda has any interest, whatsoever, in being an organization that believes in 'freedom'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:I thought he had 'doubles' like most of these guys?
A double wouldn't be a genetic match.
You mean along with one of the helicopters breaking down?
Unconfirmed reports from the people who lived near the compound are that the helicopter was damaged by gunfire during the insertion.
It had to make an emergency landing and was then scuttled.
Does it not rather depend on whether Osama thought himself a devout Muslim? Some people clearly think that. A shower of racists in bedsheets do appear to believe they are Christians as well. Also it depends what Al Quaeda define as "freedom". Its quite subjective.
I was not responding to you, as you made the same basic point I did. But I would also argue that the execution was also extraordinary. To lose NO operators. 40 minutes in time. Amazing.
I was merely pointing out that they supposedly used a quite a few different methods of I.D. to confirm it was him, including confirmation from some of his wives (and you KNOW they wouldn’t lie). No matter what is done, some people will say its fake-He had a body double, DNA was too quick, etc. I wonder how long before a picture is leaked. You know there photos of the body somewhere…
I’m surprised that with the large compound he was in, there were only 3 other soldiers there to fight back. And it took 40 minutes for the entire assault by over 2 dozen Seals (not just any Seals either-Devgru) plus some CIA. That kind of implies to me that they were being rather careful and not just entering with the intent to kill everyone. Of course this may be based on faulty info.
All he has to do to utterly destroy the credibility of the US is to appear on camera with a copy of tomorrows newspaper and then post it plus a hair sample to AlJazeera.
Lets just see shall we (not holding my breath)
The other more likely conspiricy is that he is alive in US custody under interrogation. If this is the case he will never be seen or heard from again anyway.
Then there is the most likely scenario. He is dead. Shot in the head and that his body was dropped in the Ocean.
Edit.
That picture is remarkable.
Im looking at Obamas face and body language. That there is the weight of responsibility.
I agree that Pete is probably correct. If they had him alive they would probably make it very public and show lots of photos of him in a prison jump suit.
pete wrote:Lets assume for a moment that he isnt dead.
All he has to do to utterly destroy the credibility of the US is to appear on camera with a copy of tomorrows newspaper and then post it plus a hair sample to AlJazeera.
Lets just see shall we (not holding my breath)
The other more likely conspiricy is that he is alive in US custody under interrogation. If this is the case he will never be seen or heard from again anyway.
Then there is the most likely scenario. He is dead. Shot in the head and that his body was dropped in the Ocean.
Edit.
That picture is remarkable.
Im looking at Obamas face and body language. That there is the weight of responsibility.
That or he probably has been dead for some time due to kidney failure but that's of no political use to anyone....
Well, in regards to clothing he appears rather civilian. However, I wager a guess he's wearing the most intense face in that room.
Think on this. At the White House Correspondence Dinner Seth Myers made a joke about Bin Laden hiding on C - Span and that's why nobody could find him. Here is Obama's reaction;
At this point----he had ordered the operation and was getting ready to launch. I bet he was really laughing on the outside while a stomach ulcer the size of my fist was forming on the inside.
Crablezworth wrote:I think we can all agree that the funnest part about all this will be watching fox news try and spin this against obama like they did on libya.
The radio conservative talk shows muted some of their criticism of Obama today.
My sentiments on the cospiracy are as what has already been stated, that all Osama has to do to completely undermine and really hurt the US is appear on a newspaper tomorrow and say 'I'm alive', regardless of how suspicious the Op seems, Obama can't come out and say that he killed Osama when it's not true.
One thing that has surprised me though is the kind of backlash out here. I mean, people are saying I'm celebrating them worrying about their families and loved ones, among other things....it may just be where I am, but it's surprising me quite a bit.
'
AgeOfEgos wrote:As an aside, here is a photo from the situation room as the operation was in progress;
I would rate that "Ass Sphincter Level: Critical"
I love how obama is the least powerful looking and also most simply dressed person in the room
"Dress Shirt? Tie? Screw that. Gak's going down, I'm rocking the polo shirt and windbreaker, and can't nobody tell me otherwise. Don't tell me about looking presidential. This could be my butt on the line if we feth this up."
dienekes96 wrote:Trust me, that one star is there to make sure the video feed is working.
And you get to dress how you want and look how you want when you are the boss.
In that room, it was HIS derriere on the line if there was an issue. Good to see SecState there as well.
The things which struck me about him in that photo are his relative youth and the intensity of his expression.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".
"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.
Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.
And calling Osama a devout Muslim is the same sign of disrespect for Islam.
It's like saying the KKK are devout Christians.
Does it not rather depend on whether Osama thought himself a devout Muslim? Some people clearly think that. A shower of racists in bedsheets do appear to believe they are Christians as well.
Regardless of whether Osama sincerely believed, the actions he put into practice were betrayals and perversions of all the positive teachings of Islam. Much as the murders and terrorism committed by the KKK were perversions and betrayals of the peaceful teachings of Christianity.
Referring to the hateful philosophy and murderous ideas advanced by Bin Laden as a "pathetic excuse of teachings" is not a reflection on the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world. It is a judgment on the philosophy of hatred and evil which Osama himself supported and recruited others into.
ChrisWWII wrote:My sentiments on the cospiracy are as what has already been stated, that all Osama has to do to completely undermine and really hurt the US is appear on a newspaper tomorrow and say 'I'm alive', regardless of how suspicious the Op seems, Obama can't come out and say that he killed Osama when it's not true.
One thing that has surprised me though is the kind of backlash out here. I mean, people are saying I'm celebrating them worrying about their families and loved ones, among other things....it may just be where I am, but it's surprising me quite a bit.
'
The premise I'm putting forward is not that he is still alive, merely that he was dead beforehand.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
Once again, you show an astounding amount of ignorance with regards to the reasons why the American Revolution was fought, how it was executed, and the outcome of the conflict. Trying to link the American revolution with the war on terror is like comparing apples to tomatoes. There are similarities, like there are similarities between just about every conflict in history. So now you've made your point...what have you proven?
ChrisWWII wrote:My sentiments on the cospiracy are as what has already been stated, that all Osama has to do to completely undermine and really hurt the US is appear on a newspaper tomorrow and say 'I'm alive', regardless of how suspicious the Op seems, Obama can't come out and say that he killed Osama when it's not true.
One thing that has surprised me though is the kind of backlash out here. I mean, people are saying I'm celebrating them worrying about their families and loved ones, among other things....it may just be where I am, but it's surprising me quite a bit.
'
The premise I'm putting forward is not that he is still alive, merely that he was dead beforehand.
There is a good chance that this was the case, I mean, burying him at sea within 24 hours because it is a muslim tradition? I don't think so... Did they even ask other countries if they would bury him or just presume that?
Still, whether he is dead now or dead 9 years ago, it makes little difference in the long run. The world can revel in the deah of Bin Laden, enough said.
ChrisWWII wrote:My sentiments on the cospiracy are as what has already been stated, that all Osama has to do to completely undermine and really hurt the US is appear on a newspaper tomorrow and say 'I'm alive', regardless of how suspicious the Op seems, Obama can't come out and say that he killed Osama when it's not true.
One thing that has surprised me though is the kind of backlash out here. I mean, people are saying I'm celebrating them worrying about their families and loved ones, among other things....it may just be where I am, but it's surprising me quite a bit.
'
The premise I'm putting forward is not that he is still alive, merely that he was dead beforehand.
There is a good chance that this was the case, I mean, burying him at sea within 24 hours because it is a muslim tradition? I don't think so... Did they even ask other countries if they would bury him or just presume that?
"Burying him at sea" isn't a Muslim tradition. The preparation of the body and the burial rites themselves were done "in accordance with Muslim tradition".
The whole point of burying him at sea is to make it so that three major things can not happen.
1)The erection of shrines and placing of offerings with the body.
2) This method ensures that there's nowhere for Al Qaeda to send members on 'pilgrimages' to. It also ensures that there's no way for Al Qaeda to be able to covertly use it as a meeting place or recruiting tool.
3) It ensures that the body cannot be desecrated.
Now there can be no shrine of his body, the U.S. cannot be vilified for trampling burial rites, and in the unlikely event that the dead walk the earth, he will drown.
Altruizine wrote:It's absolutely true. One of the biggest silent motivators behind the Iraq war was the desire/demand to punish somebody, specifically an Arab state, since Afghanistan does not qualify, for 9/11.
Your thing about the ease of convincing Americans to go to war is a huge overstatement/generalization. Maybe you could say that pre-Vietnam, but not in the context of the early 2000s. Not at all.
Well, yeah, I mean, obviously the desire to get revenge for 9/11 made the sale of Iraq to the US people much easier. But if you believe that the US people would not have tolerated a war in Iraq without 9/11, then you'd perhaps like to list all the wars that government wanted that the people rejected, and managed to prevent.
I think it's a sad reality that if one's government says some random group of people are a grave and serious threat, the majority of ordinary citizens are inclined to believe them, and support war. If the war drags on that enthusiasm quickly fades, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:I did. And you will still have Americans who will not trust the Pakistani government because they believe some element of it probably helped Osama Bin Laden.
I think it's pretty clear some part of the government did.
How many Americans do you think go beyond the generalized level of talking about a national government without going into detail about political factions, various levels of governance, ect.?
Sadly very few.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:Making the assumption than your enemies have no strategic goals is the worst possible assumption that can be made in a war.
Maybe, but there's no point pretending their goals are ingenious, machiavellian masterplans when they're simply not. AQ's goals are the establishment of a single caliphate to rule over the Islamic world.
This is an absolute impossibility and can basically be summed up as the power fantasy of a collection of delusional, murderous dickheads. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken very seriously, because they've killed people, but we should treat the practicality of their strategic goals with the contempt it deserves.
Actualy Bin Laden did have long term strategic goals. He was very vocal about them and would frequently broadcast them to the world, but most Americans never listened to him or even bothered to ask what our enemies are trying to achieve.
That is not AQ's long term, strategic goal. You're making the mistake of seeing this through a very US filter, defining AQ in terms of their intentions towards you, not towards what they personally want to achieve.
The US is a convenient marker for the modern world that AQ rails against, scoring victories against it serves as a PR boost, nothing more.
Think about it, if AQ was actually dedicated to the collapse of the US system, wouldn't they focus on far more practical, constant economic attacks? Taking out power lines and rail lines, blowing up water pipes? No, instead they focus on one-off, high profile terror attacks, that require lots of planning and symbolism, in order to gain maximum media attention.
followed by a ground war in Afghanistan
Forming a plan that involves having your bases of operations destroyed and your networks dismantled is a stupid plan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Besides, Bin Laden was in charge of the Taliban when 9/11 occured and took responsibility for the attack. The Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, put two and two together and we have a good reason to invade. Bin Laden evaded us for 10 years and we finally got him, its a big thing.
bin Laden was never in charge of the Taliban. The Taliban were sheltering AQ, which is a very different state of affairs.
Not that I'm disagreeing with the need to invade Afghanistan, if an Irish government were sheltering the IRA, damn straight the British should, and would have invaded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
spyfunk wrote:We're celebrating something you'll hopefully never have to understand.
Excuse me? No-one else but the US has ever suffered terrorism?
That's more than a little rich, there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.
They can't operate anywhere they want. Pakistan gave the US authority to operate on its soil. You should have read about it in the news, it was a pretty big deal a few years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've got your barbarism right here
You're on a forum filled mostly with teenagers, most of whom a war nerds. It really shouldn't be any surprise that a significant number like to play games about being really mean to bad guys.
I mean, there is an important point to be made about the dubious nature of US moral authority, particularly in the wake* of the US actually initiating policies for torturing prisoners, but if you actually care about that cause, and not just about being self-righteous on the internet, then you're really better off keeping those concerns to other thread, because you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone that the operation to kill Osama was morally dubious at all.
*Well, arguably we're still in the midst of it, really, we just stopped talking about when Obama won.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
I think we need less accusations of trolling around here, to be honest. There is a big difference between someone with a contraversial, minority opinion, and someone who's just saying something to upset the forum.
It seems to me like Arbeitschu is a guy with a strong interest in due process, and he just picked a really bad thread to try and make that point.
pete wrote:Surely the Pakistanis knew he was there. No internet, no phone line, all rubbish burned. They must have found that suspicious.
As I was explaining earlier in the thread, there is a massive difference between elements of Pakistani government knowing where he was, and the Pakistani government as a whole knowing where he was.
That some elements of the Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services are covertly supporting Islamic extremists is no secret, though this lends weight to those who've said the scope of support is considerable.
But it doesn't condemn the Pakistani government as a whole, there is still a good fight being waged within government. Though admittedly, this may indiicate they're losing by more than we had assumed.
Its turning out to be a bad week for evil.... sunday, airstikes in Libya kill gadahfies son (butchered his name...) and today, bin laden and two of his sons killed. YAY! AMERICA FTW!
Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.
Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case
sebster wrote:Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.
He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.
Looks like he's actually got his chair back, closer to the wall than the table. He's not actually sitting next to the one star; he's sitting back from the table, but leaning forward. He's actually roughly parallel with the gentleman in the tan shirt and black tie.
halonachos wrote:BTW the air force guy in the middle is updating his facebook status to "Lol, Osama's going to get a surprise."
I think he's typing "6th edition 40K needs integrated rules for super heavy tanks, and rules for throwing grenades, and better rules for sniper guns and shotguns."
Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.
Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case
Me too. Not all of us have stopped talking about torture because Bush is out of office. Though agreed, it doesn't get as much press.
In all likelihood the assault was over in a matter of minutes.
The last 35 minutes were probably spent destroying hard drives, burning papers, snatching the downed crew and planting thermite on the bird.
That was my first belief too but the article I read specifically said Bin Laden was taken down in the last 10 minutes. It may just be that the report is inaccurate.
sebster wrote:Is it just me or does Obama look out of proportion in that picture? He looks tiny.
He really does. I wonder if it's intentional.
Looks like he's actually got his chair back, closer to the wall than the table. He's not actually sitting next to the one star; he's sitting back from the table, but leaning forward. He's actually roughly parallel with the gentleman in the tan shirt and black tie.
Ah, I see it now, at first glance it looked like he was on the corner of the desk and weirdly small, but once I line up the back end of the desk I see what you're saying, he's actually in that back line of people. Photo was just taken on an odd angle.
Kanluwen wrote:Not just a really bad thread to make the point in, but really bad examples for that point as well.
Yeah, I mean I'm pretty much on his side, in terms of raising awareness about what the US has done and why it's a really bad idea, but this is just not the place to make that argument, and as you say he's made it very poorly. I'm staying well clear of trying to support the case
Me too. Not all of us have stopped talking about torture because Bush is out of office. Though agreed, it doesn't get as much press.
I'd say that's for two reasons, off the top of my head.
Either:
A) Obama's been far sneakier about how/where the torture is occurring.
or
B) It really has stopped.
Kanluwen wrote:I'd say that's for two reasons, off the top of my head.
Either:
A) Obama's been far sneakier about how/where the torture is occurring.
or
B) It really has stopped.
I think A is part of it, not because Obama has been particularly sneaky, but because much of the contraversy was caused by the Bush administration spending a lot of time talking about how torture was okay.
Part of it is leftwingers being okay when their guy does it.
But the biggest part is probably that with right now it's a problem without a solution. Four years ago people could complain about Bush doing it, and think it'll change when they vote in a leftwinger, but now they've got one and the torture is still going on, what are they supposed to do? Vote for Trump, hoping he'll stop the torture?
And it hasn't stopped. Look up what happened to the guy who gave up all those wikileaks documents.
Slarg232 wrote:I saw this on Facebook, thought it was funny.
(Dude 1): Bin Laden is dead : D
(Dude 2) likes this.
(Dude 2): Amazing what Americans can do when the Playstation Network is down....
lol
There's an insinuation in there somewhere, maybe related to a certain Air Force super computer. I knew they were playing Rachet and Clank behind out backs!
Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".
He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.
What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.
The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".
He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.
What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.
The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.
Probably because he's not a POW or just any criminal, he's under the control of the military. They take the law in their own hands, one time this guy on my dad's ship was breaking into someone's locker(guy had just got his paycheck cashed and put the money in there) with a crowbar and another guy in the room caught him. Well the guy with the crowbar tried to brain the witness but the crowbar got caught on the rail above the bunk. They beat the guy within an inch of his life, shoved his face in the nastiest toilet they could find on the ship, hogtied him, and left him in the commons with a sign saying "thief" around his neck. The captain saw this and said that it was done and over with after finding out what happened.
Another time a drunk sailor was put into the brig and kept spitting at the guard. The guard called the quartermaster who was then spat at by the drunk sailor, the drunk sailor got beat and didn't spit again.
The military is a different kind of beast and even if you decided to speak out against the treatments you were alienated by the people who may potentially have to save your life one day.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".
He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.
What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.
The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.
What exactly about his imprisonment is torturous? The forced nudity is his own damn fault for telling guards he could kill himself with the elastic of his underwear while on suicide watch. As far as everything else goes he is in MILITARY prison, all that prisoner's rights crap goes out the window.
They are still allowed to put him on bread and water for misbehaving, but they haven't.
Every other prisoner in that facility is isolated, so nothing special there..
He is damned lucky he isn't going to the firing squad for leaking CLASSIFIED documents to a foreigner to be plastered all over the internet.Which imho he deserves. If he didn't want to serve his country I don't remember any recent drafts...
Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".
He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.
What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.
The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.
He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.
As to the "sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear and attend morning parade naked"--he was placed on "Prevention of Injury Order". Manning was then stupid enough to, even jokingly, say that "harm himself with the waistband of his underwear or his flipflops".
Can you imagine the gakstorm if he had done it and it came out that he'd joked about it?
Glasses being taken away isn't unreasonable though. If they have reason to believe someone's a suicide risk, they will take pretty much everything away from you.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.
Mendez was denied access for an unmonitored meeting. There's a difference between that and "denied access to see Manning". He's still a prisoner after all. The only unmonitored access he's really allowed is with his lawyer.
I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though. Most of the crap being tossed the military's way is that "Oh he's being 'tortured'!". Far from it.
Many of the things described by David House('change from an intelligent young man' to 'a catatonic individual', for example) are not uncommon in people who are put into prison.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't consider Bradley Manning's treatment as "torture".
He violated laws under the US military justice codes, and is being treated as such. He is, after all, military personnel and subject to those rules.
What? That makes no sense. I didn't suggest that simply imprisoning him was torture, but that the actual conditions of his imprisonment are torture.
The plain fact is that he was made to sit in his cell in solitary in his underwear, attend morning parade naked, all the while without his prescription glasses leaving him basically blind.
The UN special rapporteur on torture has been denied access to see Manning, and Amnesty International has undertaken multiple efforts to have the conditions of his incarceration reviewed.
Solitary confinement is standard operating procedure for someone who'd be dead within minutes if placed with other inmates, especially when those inmates happen to be soldiers, and the person in question is awaiting trial for stealing documents from the state department and leaking them to an effectively random third party for only the most frivolous of reasons.
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:He is damned lucky he isn't going to the firing squad for leaking CLASSIFIED documents to a foreigner to be plastered all over the internet.Which imho he deserves. If he didn't want to serve his country I don't remember any recent drafts...
It's not torture if you think they're bad people?
And yeah, if the action was treason and the deserves death then try him, and shoot him if he's found guilty. But degradation and isolation before trial is obviously unacceptable to anyone who puts any value at all into due process or human dignity.
Oh feth, I said I wasn't going to try and mention due process in this thread... now look what you made me do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.
Umm, solitary isn't required for all maximum security prisoners. You can observe this by noting Manning has since been released from solitary...
I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though.
I have no particular sympathy to Manning. I just think that societies that like to consider themselves civilised shouldn't inflict suffering on people for its own sake, not only for the sake of the prisoner, but for the sake of society itself.
The justifications for the humiliation and isolation of Manning were obviously threadbare, and entirely contrived. The purpose for humliating and isolating Manning was to humiliate and isolate Manning, because he did a very bad thing.
And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.
He swore oaths, and broke them. That makes you a traitor from the jump, anything else is secondary. Of course, I may have singularly crystallized ideas about duty and integrity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.
Monster Rain wrote:I'm not a big fan of Manning either.
He swore oaths, and broke them. That makes you a traitor from the jump, anything else is secondary. Of course, I may have singularly crystallized ideas about duty and integrity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.
Politics are amusing, n'cest pas?
Because it changed, duh. Obama brought change in America's thinking about torture.
Besides, according to certain people we're not civilized because of our stance on gun laws and other than that we're not really civilized we just have better technology now.
Either that or it stems from the fact that you feel bad if someone robs you, but it feels worse if someone you know and trusted robbed you, not because he stole more but because he broke your trust. Trust is a vulnerability of one person based on the belief that the other will act in a way to benefit the person placing the trust. The government made him sign a contract and placed trust in him, he broke that trust and it feels a lot worse than if a foreign spy stole the information.
sebster wrote:And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.
The people who actually cared then still do, it's just no one listens to them because they're kind of annoying. The people who promptly shut up about it after Obama won didn't care in the first place, they just wanted something meaningful to level at Bush.
Kanluwen wrote:He was being held at a maximum security prison. Of course he was being made to sit in his cell in solitary.
Umm, solitary isn't required for all maximum security prisoners. You can observe this by noting Manning has since been released from solitary...
And is now at a 'medium' security prison. The pretrial housing was at Quantico, which was set up solely with solitary cells. He was not being treated differently.
I find it kind of hard to be sympathetic in Manning's case though.
I have no particular sympathy to Manning. I just think that societies that like to consider themselves civilised shouldn't inflict suffering on people for its own sake, not only for the sake of the prisoner, but for the sake of society itself.
What "suffering" is being inflicted on him for suffering's sake? Seriously. I want to know this. Everything I've heard from all the "Free Manning!" garbage is that he's "being horribly mistreated" by his time in prison.
The guy did what is considered a criminal act. He was being housed in a prison. It's not going to be sunshine and fething rainbows, especially when you make a suicide joke.
Whatever you want to lay at their feet, the end of the story is this:
The government is responsible for the well-being of those in its care. Prisoners are within their care. If something had happened to him or he really had intended to kill himself--then the blame would be at their doorstep.
You may say that it's cruel and overzealous with taking away his glasses, but I've heard tales from correctional officers about far less threatening items than eyeglasses being used by inmates to harm themselves or others.
The justifications for the humiliation and isolation of Manning were obviously threadbare, and entirely contrived. The purpose for humliating and isolating Manning was to humiliate and isolate Manning, because he did a very bad thing.
Really, it's silly to say this. Manning's own lawyer(as of December 2010) has said that "that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning."
It's really his own damned fault in this situation. His claims of "humiliation" were that he felt embarrassed being seen naked by the other detainees. Well, maybe next time don't crack a suicide joke when guards have already reported observing the symptoms of depression.
His "isolation" is, again, overblown. Every inmate in this facility is "isolated". They're allowed to communicate with each other, but they will not see each other. They also don't share their cells with other inmates, by all accounts.
And the original point is that people who were outraged when these things took place during the Bush administration are no longer quite so outraged.
If I saw a reason to be outraged with this case, I would be. I'm not seeing one. He's a ward of the military and under its care during the duration of his pretrial and trial.
Is he going to be likely given a raw deal at trial because he's being tied in with the WikiLeaks scandal? Probably.
That's what I'd be 'outraged' about if anything.
Monster Rain wrote:Politics are amusing, n'cest pas?
Yeah. But if there was a genuine reason for him being there in the first place, you think they would have risked moving him out of solitary?
halonachos wrote:Because it changed, duh. Obama brought change in America's thinking about torture.
No, he might have moved the line closer to where it was pre-Bush, pre-9/11, but that's all.
Besides, according to certain people we're not civilized because of our stance on gun laws and other than that we're not really civilized we just have better technology now.
You'll never please everyone, but who cares? You don't do these things so that other people will think you civilised, you do them because they are civilised.
Either that or it stems from the fact that you feel bad if someone robs you, but it feels worse if someone you know and trusted robbed you, not because he stole more but because he broke your trust. Trust is a vulnerability of one person based on the belief that the other will act in a way to benefit the person placing the trust. The government made him sign a contract and placed trust in him, he broke that trust and it feels a lot worse than if a foreign spy stole the information.
Yeah, there's no doubt the guy did a very bad thing. It just doesn't matter, the point is that you don't humiliate and isolate anyone purely for the sake of humiliating and isolating them.
Graveyman wrote:I am amazed at what people consider to be torture now days.
Those whacky folks at Amnesty International, whatever will they think of next?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:The people who actually cared then still do, it's just no one listens to them because they're kind of annoying. The people who promptly shut up about it after Obama won didn't care in the first place, they just wanted something meaningful to level at Bush.
I really don't think it's that simple, just as I don't believe it's as simple as the Tea Party complaining about deficits just because they want to complain about Obama (when the same people were very quiet about Bush's deficits). I think the reasons I gave earlier were much more comprehensive, and better explained the situation.
But yes, in general people don't pay too much attention to organisations that are trying to bring attention to things done to prisoners just for the sake of making them suffer. I think it's because people think people who've done a bad thing deserve whatever comes to them. Which is just fething pathetic, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:What "suffering" is being inflicted on him for suffering's sake? Seriously. I want to know this. Everything I've heard from all the "Free Manning!" garbage is that he's "being horribly mistreated" by his time in prison.
I already listed it. If you're not going to read other people's posts, go away.
It's really his own damned fault in this situation. His claims of "humiliation" were that he felt embarrassed being seen naked by the other detainees. Well, maybe next time don't crack a suicide joke when guards have already reported observing the symptoms of depression.
He was only kept naked for the period of inspection. When left to his own devices he was free to sit about in his underpants and their oh so deadly elastic. The justification was ludicrous, and here you are believing it.
Kanluwen wrote:What "suffering" is being inflicted on him for suffering's sake? Seriously. I want to know this. Everything I've heard from all the "Free Manning!" garbage is that he's "being horribly mistreated" by his time in prison.
I already listed it. If you're not going to read other people's posts, go away.
I read it. None of that is "suffering". That's common practice for prisons with inmates who pose a danger to themselves. It's not uncommon for mental hospitals either.
It's really his own damned fault in this situation. His claims of "humiliation" were that he felt embarrassed being seen naked by the other detainees. Well, maybe next time don't crack a suicide joke when guards have already reported observing the symptoms of depression.
He was only kept naked for the period of inspection.
That's not what I'm getting from my readings.
On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velcro fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide.
Of course, I'm going to assume you'll point to "required to sleep without clothing" as evidence of some kind of wrongdoing. It's, once again, not unheard of for prisons. It's so that they can ensure that the prisoner has no injuries with a cursory glance.
When left to his own devices he was free to sit about in his underpants and their oh so deadly elastic.
The justification was ludicrous, and here you are believing it.
It's really not that ludicrous though. They take no chances with prisoners. There's a reason he was wearing flip flops--or do you think shoe laces are a brilliant idea for a potentially depressed and suicidal individual?
Given that there's two major things involved here:
1) The mistaken assumption that he was placed in solitary as "punishment" and the ignorance that you're portraying by just glossing over the fact that every single Marine in the Quantico brig is housed the same way. I've said it once before: the lawyer has even said that this is the way the cells are laid out.
2) Ignoring the fact that the guards(and visitors as well) previously had reported that Manning seemed depressed and withdrawn(which isn't uncommon in prisoners as they're taken into pretrial housing. That's when the most suicides will happen, as security standards are more lax and in medium security facilities like the one he's been transferred to inmates who can't cope are deemed suicide risks) and then made a joking comment about suicide. That would be a political nightmare if he'd offed himself. The conspiracy theories would never end, and someone would be painted as the next Jack Ruby.
Now, is it likely that him being housed at Quantico is too much? Maybe. But at the same time: this is a military case. He was active duty, serving in a combat zone when he committed the crime.
'Objector' to the war or not: he broke the rules. He's being housed until his punishment. Until then he's the responsibility of the military and the government.
It's always possible that he'll get put into a mental facility though. Not betting on it however.
I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.
Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!
SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.
Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!
The media are in a feeding frenzy right now. It will all go back to normal when the next newsy thing happens. Too bad it stepped on the wedding.
Kanluwen wrote:
I read it. None of that is "suffering". That's common practice for prisons with inmates who pose a danger to themselves. It's not uncommon for mental hospitals either.
The two concepts are not exclusive, you know. Indeed, suffering is inflicted via common practice fairly often in much of the world.
SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.
Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!
Repetition is the best form of brain washing.
So now that the War on Terror has met its objectives of taking Saddam out of power and killing Osama bin Laden all the troops and reserves will be coming home for July 4th?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
Once again, you show an astounding amount of ignorance with regards to the reasons why the American Revolution was fought, how it was executed, and the outcome of the conflict. Trying to link the American revolution with the war on terror is like comparing apples to tomatoes. There are similarities, like there are similarities between just about every conflict in history. So now you've made your point...what have you proven?
Once again, someone appears to have missed various points I have raised..probably due to me having to respond to so many posts at once, a greater number of which gleefully misrepresent what I am saying, or are just plain insulting. You clearly haven't understood the comparison between the powerful state machine/Imperial regime, and the efforts of lesser "illegitimate" forces to oppose that regime. A very very very truncated and short summation of a conflict into a couple of sentences is not "ignorance". A comparison of the sort of arguments that happen with American citizens around the Fourth of July would demonstrate my point quite succinctly, as they engage in plenty of Anti-British/Anti-Monarchist Braveheart-style "Freedom from oppression" rhetoric. Is your reaction actually based on imagined historical inaccuracy in my statement, or a desire to demonstrate that the Revolution was fought on "higher" principles because it is unimaginable that the USA could be linked with "terror"?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.
They can't operate anywhere they want. Pakistan gave the US authority to operate on its soil. You should have read about it in the news, it was a pretty big deal a few years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I've got your barbarism right here
You're on a forum filled mostly with teenagers, most of whom a war nerds. It really shouldn't be any surprise that a significant number like to play games about being really mean to bad guys.
I mean, there is an important point to be made about the dubious nature of US moral authority, particularly in the wake* of the US actually initiating policies for torturing prisoners, but if you actually care about that cause, and not just about being self-righteous on the internet, then you're really better off keeping those concerns to other thread, because you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone that the operation to kill Osama was morally dubious at all.
*Well, arguably we're still in the midst of it, really, we just stopped talking about when Obama won.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.
I think we need less accusations of trolling around here, to be honest. There is a big difference between someone with a contraversial, minority opinion, and someone who's just saying something to upset the forum.
It seems to me like Arbeitschu is a guy with a strong interest in due process, and he just picked a really bad thread to try and make that point.
It gets tedious having to repeat points, but it seems its neccessary. I'm aware of the general nature of this forum and its posters. Which is why I already pointed out numerous times that as well as the comments in this thread, I am also referring to similar commentary coming from a variety of sources. A teenage war-gaming nerd advocating torture is one thing, but when servicemen (to pick an example) also advocate it. it snowballs, because a serving soldier is much more likely to be in a position to engage in it.
As for "right thread"... I see no reason to withhold commenting on the lack of due process just because a thread is mostly made up of Americans waving the flag. Be a dull world indeed if we only ever spoke out to people who agreed with us. Sadly, it quickly dissolved into people disagreeing with what they decided I had said, not what I actually said.
I'm slightly more offended that I got called a terrorist sympathiser because I desire to see due process followed than I am about "troll."
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that people are posting about Manning as if he is already tried and found guilty is exactly what I was getting at. He stands accused of various acts of treason etc etc. He has yet to be found guilty. Accusation is not proof of guilt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Dude, just drop it. This is neither the time, nor the place.
Its exactly the time, because its fresh...and as it is a thread about Bin Laden being shot, its the right place as well.
So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
Phototoxin wrote:
I thought he had 'doubles' like most of these guys?
A double wouldn't be a genetic match.
I am aware of that, that's why I question the speed of which they did the DNA test. Results seemed instantaneous. It would probably take at least 5 hours working flat out once it got to the lab.
halonachos wrote:Anybody else think that this may become a national holiday?
Was for me and I didn't even know it.
-Gas for going to a friend's wedding in deep deep hippy Austin. US$4.00
-Losing dispute with Wife after she hit curb pulling into wedding location. Will pay later...
-Price for attending wedding: 1 wine, 1 champaign, and three shots of rum
-Coming back and finding we'd finally fingered the Big Bad Guy-priceless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
snurl wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:I just hope the coverage of Osama's death will stop being repeated over and over on TV. We can't spare the time from re-runs, highlights and follow ups on the Royal Wedding.
Bloody Americans and their issues dominating the media!
The media are in a feeding frenzy right now. It will all go back to normal when the next newsy thing happens. Thank God it stepped on the wedding.
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
*anywhere, not just in this thread.
I don't think what I said is wrong. I'm the guy that (lets see if I can find what you said about me, ah, here we go)
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum
And I'm not some teenager with a war fetish. I am an adult working full time (thus I haven't been here the last 9 pages to defend myself) lost 2 family members in 9/11, live 20 minutes away from where the 4th plane crashed (amazing how many people around here don't remember that) and I lost a 3rd family member in Afghanistan. I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man. So you can sit there at your computer across the ocean and tell us what we feel is wrong. But we don't care
I myself am glad that Osama Bin Laden is gone.
We here in England have had our fair share of Terrorist Atrocities over the last 40 years, and I can only imagine what the good people of NY city went throu nearly 10 years ago.
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
*anywhere, not just in this thread.
Yes, and I'm sure you think that's noble. It isn't. It just reads as inflammatory to pretty much everyone here, because this isn't a thread about about why America is considered The Great Satan. If you want to talk about that, start a thread on it - hell, I'll probably contribute to the discussion. But coming here and posting what you have posted just looks like you're trying to thumb your nose at the Americans here by pissing on their chips. Osama is dead. Good riddance. Let them be happy about it.
In fact, YOU should be happy about it, considering he killed so many of our countrymen. Yes, some of our Yank brethren are going a little over-the-top with the whole 'USA! USA! USA!' thing, but on the whole, I'm glad they capped him. Dude was prick who would have slit your throat on camera without a moments hesitation, lest we forget.
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
*anywhere, not just in this thread.
I don't think what I said is wrong. I'm the guy that (lets see if I can find what you said about me, ah, here we go)
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum
And I'm not some teenager with a war fetish. I am an adult working full time (thus I haven't been here the last 9 pages to defend myself) lost 2 family members in 9/11, live 20 minutes away from where the 4th plane crashed (amazing how many people around here don't remember that) and I lost a 3rd family member in Afghanistan. I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man. So you can sit there at your computer across the ocean and tell us what we feel is wrong. But we don't care
EDIT: grammar
Ahem. Firstly, it wasn't me that classified you as a teen wargaming nerd. I don't recall classifiying you as anything at all other than "another poster." And seeing as I didn't make any assumptions about your nature, it would serve you well to not make them about me, my situation or experiences, or the experiences of my friends, families, relatives and so forth, or the effects that this individual had on everyone, especially given that all you have to go on are my posts in here and my location. Please do try and remember that not only were we on the receiving end of terror attacks from "Al Quaeda", and subsequently deployed our armed forces in the same places as yours, we have also been on the receiving end of constant terror attacks for a substantially longer time than the US. We know all about terrorism and its effects.
You are helpfully supporting my point though. Because of the hurt you feel Osama caused to you and yours through a barbaric and unlawful attack, you feel that it is acceptable to engage in barbaric, unlawful or un-civilised behaviour towards Osama. Perfectly understandable (and indeed I never said it wasn't understandable) but that doesn't make it right.
Regardless of what they have done, all Americans expect certain basic things to happen..."due process". Indeed, any right-thinking person should expect that, no matter where they are from. To then just decide that someone doesn't deserve those rights just because they did something you don't agree with, or committed a crime, or are foreign, or of a different religion defeats the point of having them at all. And christ knows every one of you would complain to high heaven if your rights were not respected... And because people no doubt think I'm just being Anti-American, I'll point out there is a great deal of that attitude over here as well. Its not JUST an American thing, but it becomes an exercise in irony from the self-proclaimed Policemen of the Free World.
I was assuming you were talking about when the Sudan had Osama and offered him to Clinton.
Lol, no I am talking about pursueing Bin laden after 9/11.
We tried getting them to hand him over and they refused. They tried imposing preconditions and delays. I'm mostly remembering from Clarke's book, Against All Enemies.
I have never seen anything that shows we tried to get the Taliban to hand him over other than our unconditional demand that Bin laden and several known AQ operatives be turned over without question and without evidence into US custody, which is a fools stance if we were really concerned with bringing Bin laden to justice through the help of the ruling powers in an anti american region. When all this was going on, my impression (even back then being much more patriotic and still serving in the armed forces) was that we were were not approaching the situation like someone who wants closure or resolution but instead like someone who is looking for a fight. Given the fact that we started making a case for invading Iraq shortly after and what transpired from there, I am not surprised now that we did not further pursue the retention of Bin laden when we had the chance.
Hell think of the response from the international community if we had turned around and said
' Fine, here is the evidence we have against bin laden for the various crimes against the US, send him to the third party country and we will stop the bombing" That would have been a huge show for democracy when a large chunk of the world was sympathetic to our tragedy an could appreciate our desire to bring the criminals to justice. From there we could have set time tables and effectively put the ball in their court in the eyes of the international community. If they did not deliver then we would be no worse off then where we were then. But instead we started invading and occupying territories which furthered the perception that America wanted to invade the middle east for it's oil...which of course was part of the propaganda reteric for recruiting terrorists and creating sympathisers.
But who knows, I have to keep the possiblity open that despite the bull headed bravado we portrayed or that I perceived at least, perhaps behind the scenes we actively were trying to find the best solution for the country to find the killers in a complex world and we were innocently drawn into Iraq with only the best intentions.
Anyway, I will have to check out that book and perhaps I will change my tune. I had meant to read it for a while back and as excited as I was to read about revelations on how the Bush administration failed from an insider, I do remember much of the controversy around the book at the time of the release was it was being spinned that Clark was just blaming the Bush administration for his failures. I have to admit makes sense since ultimatly a large potion of the responsiblity should fall to him.
That big blue part belongs to President George W. Bush.
Great countries fall because their economies fail, our pal Ezra Klein writes today. Osama bin Laden set out to bankrupt America, betting that American leaders would spend trillions -- every last cent in the Treasury -- on trying to defeat him:
[I]t isn't quite right to say bin Laden cost us all that money. We decided to spend more than a trillion dollars on homeland security measures to prevent another attack. We decided to invade Iraq as part of a grand, post-9/11 strategy of Middle Eastern transformation. We decided to pass hundreds of billions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts and add an unpaid-for prescription drug benefit in Medicare while we were involved in two wars. And now, partially though not entirely because of these actions, we are deep in debt. Bin Laden didn't — couldn't — bankrupt us. He could only provoke us into bankrupting ourselves. And he came pretty close.
All told, we lost twice as many American troops in the two declared wars that followed 9-11 as we lost people on 9-11 itself. We've spent an approximately crazy amount on the wars themselves. To recover from this, Republicans now want to cut taxes for the wealthy and end Medicare as we know it. And that's where we are, year 10.
On the show: America after 9-11 (remember when your family could meet you at the airport gate?).
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
*anywhere, not just in this thread.
Yes, and I'm sure you think that's noble. It isn't. It just reads as inflammatory to pretty much everyone here, because this isn't a thread about about why America is considered The Great Satan. If you want to talk about that, start a thread on it - hell, I'll probably contribute to the discussion. But coming here and posting what you have posted just looks like you're trying to thumb your nose at the Americans here by pissing on their chips. Osama is dead. Good riddance. Let them be happy about it.
In fact, YOU should be happy about it, considering he killed so many of our countrymen. Yes, some of our Yank brethren are going a little over-the-top with the whole 'USA! USA! USA!' thing, but on the whole, I'm glad they capped him. Dude was prick who would have slit your throat on camera without a moments hesitation, lest we forget.
I never said there shouldn't be some form of celebration. Its the nature of that celebration I find unpleasant. I also never claimed he was a great bloke or worthy of respect or that he shouldn't be brought to justice. I'm not (contrary to apparently popular belief) a terrorist sympathiser, and yes, I happen to believe that Osama was an unpleasant individual who can only really be described in terms that won't get through the filters. Murder and mass-murder are not laudable aims, and murderers should face punishment for their crimes. The fact that I also believe in due process does not mean I think that he was an innocent. The fact that I think torture etc is criminal and inhumane doesn't conflict with my belief that things should be done properly. These are not contradictory positions.
I posted in this thread because this is the thread where the "lynch mob" mentality was, and to be honest it strikes me now that such sentiments being posted must surely contravene some sort of ToS rule or other anyway.
And yes, the dude was a prick who would have had my throat slit on camera without blinking...and doing that to people is wrong and criminal and bestial and barbaric. Unless you do it to Osama, and then its fine...
Albatross wrote:So, basically you're just trying to crowbar your opinions on American foreign policy and treatment of detainees into a thread based around American triumphalist braggadocio? Did you see that ending WELL?
Clue: It hasn't ended well. This thread is farcical.
I comment on matters because I feel matters needed commenting on. I don't do it because I expect everyone to pat me on the back or suddenly change their minds en masse and admit they are wrong. "Ending Well" isn't my objective.
Far as I'm concerned, if my comments* make just one person think "Maybe its wrong for me to say I hope he shat himself to death and wish they had dragged him behind a truck" and actually consider things beyond bloodthirsty revenge, then its a win.
*anywhere, not just in this thread.
I don't think what I said is wrong. I'm the guy that (lets see if I can find what you said about me, ah, here we go)
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum
And I'm not some teenager with a war fetish. I am an adult working full time (thus I haven't been here the last 9 pages to defend myself) lost 2 family members in 9/11, live 20 minutes away from where the 4th plane crashed (amazing how many people around here don't remember that) and I lost a 3rd family member in Afghanistan. I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man. So you can sit there at your computer across the ocean and tell us what we feel is wrong. But we don't care
EDIT: grammar
Ahem. Firstly, it wasn't me that classified you as a teen wargaming nerd. I don't recall classifiying you as anything at all other than "another poster." And seeing as I didn't make any assumptions about your nature, it would serve you well to not make them about me, my situation or experiences, or the experiences of my friends, families, relatives and so forth, or the effects that this individual had on everyone, especially given that all you have to go on are my posts in here and my location. Please do try and remember that not only were we on the receiving end of terror attacks from "Al Quaeda", and subsequently deployed our armed forces in the same places as yours, we have also been on the receiving end of constant terror attacks for a substantially longer time than the US. We know all about terrorism and its effects.
You are helpfully supporting my point though. Because of the hurt you feel Osama caused to you and yours through a barbaric and unlawful attack, you feel that it is acceptable to engage in barbaric, unlawful or un-civilised behaviour towards Osama. Perfectly understandable (and indeed I never said it wasn't understandable) but that doesn't make it right.
Regardless of what they have done, all Americans expect certain basic things to happen..."due process". Indeed, any right-thinking person should expect that, no matter where they are from. To then just decide that someone doesn't deserve those rights just because they did something you don't agree with, or committed a crime, or are foreign, or of a different religion defeats the point of having them at all. And christ knows every one of you would complain to high heaven if your rights were not respected... And because people no doubt think I'm just being Anti-American, I'll point out there is a great deal of that attitude over here as well. Its not JUST an American thing, but it becomes an exercise in irony from the self-proclaimed Policemen of the Free World.
My apologies to your first point. I was not trying to imply that you were the one talking about posters ages, it was meant for the general audience. And I have said nothing about your nature or your situation other then the truth. You ARE siting at your computer, and you ARE across the ocean, and you ARE telling us what we feel is wrong. I don't believe I have implied anything else about you.
And I am not helping your point by saying it is acceptable to torture another human being. I know its wrong, but I really don't care in this case. Doesn't mean I think its acceptable, just understandable
And guess what? He would have had a right to "due process", but he didn't surrender, so he became a stain on the wall. It would have been much better for us to have captured him, paraded him to the courthouse, pronounce him guilty and hang him, but that isn't what happened, is it?
EDIT: Ninja'd by you.
And yes, the dude was a prick who would have had my throat slit on camera without blinking...and doing that to people is wrong and criminal and bestial and barbaric. Unless you do it to Osama, and then its fine...
"I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man."
The "unlike you" part of that sentence is the part I was responding to. I apologise if you weren't doing a "You don't know man, coz you weren't there" thing by saying that, but I read it as such.
Haven't studied the latest batch of reports about the details of the operation this morning, so I'm non the wiser as to what the current status is about how much "resisting" went on, or how much "capturing" was attempted. I have a healthy skepticism about such claims, which should be understandable.
Edit: Counter Ninja'd. You specifically might not claim its "fine" if its Osama getting cut up, but I wasn't aiming my point specifically at you, so much as at the general mood generated by posters here, there and everywhere.
"I would agree with what I would do to him is barbaric and uncivilized, but unlike you, and most likely a lot of the posters here, I have daily reminders of what has been taken from me and mine by the actions of this man."
The "unlike you" part of that sentence is the part I was responding to. I apologise if you weren't doing a "You don't know man, coz you weren't there" thing by saying that, but I read it as such.
That was aimed at the group as a whole. I made what could be viewed by some as a "shocking" comment, and everything I said applies to every person here, you just happened to be the one to bring up my comment. Sorry for the confusion and bad wording.
Nobody other then the SEAL team and high officials will ever know what actually happened. It would have been better to drag him here in chains and publicly execute him after a trial, but that's not what happened, and unfortunately the way it was handled will lead to conspiracy theories about him actually being dead and people saying there was no reason to outright kill him.
According to the US ambassador to the UK who was interviewed on the BBC the other day, the SEAL team were sent in with explicit orders not to take him alive.
Further reports coming out in the UK tabloids today seem to suggest that Bin Laden was cowering behind one of his wives when shot.
Kanluwen wrote:
I read it. None of that is "suffering". That's common practice for prisons with inmates who pose a danger to themselves. It's not uncommon for mental hospitals either.
The two concepts are not exclusive, you know. Indeed, suffering is inflicted via common practice fairly often in much of the world.
Of course the two concepts are not exclusive.
But if Manning is complaining of unnecessary suffering, then why aren't the rest of the detainees at Quantico?
Manning's lawyer has made a point to say that he was being treated well by the guards and staff of the facility. The only exception was when he threatened suicide and they altered methods of monitoring accordingly.
As an American, I'm overjoyed. As a human being who comprehends the power his followers have, I'm nervous. As a dakkadakka user, I feel like I should be more Gung-Ho.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
Once again, you show an astounding amount of ignorance with regards to the reasons why the American Revolution was fought, how it was executed, and the outcome of the conflict. Trying to link the American revolution with the war on terror is like comparing apples to tomatoes. There are similarities, like there are similarities between just about every conflict in history. So now you've made your point...what have you proven?
Once again, someone appears to have missed various points I have raised..probably due to me having to respond to so many posts at once, a greater number of which gleefully misrepresent what I am saying, or are just plain insulting. You clearly haven't understood the comparison between the powerful state machine/Imperial regime, and the efforts of lesser "illegitimate" forces to oppose that regime. A very very very truncated and short summation of a conflict into a couple of sentences is not "ignorance". A comparison of the sort of arguments that happen with American citizens around the Fourth of July would demonstrate my point quite succinctly, as they engage in plenty of Anti-British/Anti-Monarchist Braveheart-style "Freedom from oppression" rhetoric. Is your reaction actually based on imagined historical inaccuracy in my statement, or a desire to demonstrate that the Revolution was fought on "higher" principles because it is unimaginable that the USA could be linked with "terror"?
So the cusp of your argument is that the US fought the Revolution because it wanted to cause terror? I must be missing something.
Back to the main point that you made, which is...what? There are similarities between what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Revolution? Yes, I read what you said and I fully understand it. My issue is that the argument you're making stops at about there. Yes, we could be seen as the evil Imperial power and the terrorist as the poor freedom fighters. The difference is, they attack and kill innocent civilians. The Colonial militia did no such thing. They targeted military forces and instillation.
But if your main point is that we could be compared to the British Empire then...well yes. I guess you're right. I'll concede the point. But leaving it at that is willfully ignorant.
biccat wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:Bin Laden sought to bankrupt America (and nearly did)
In the chart shown on that page, Bush's contribution to the debt is shown as 3x Obama's.
The counter-factual Maddow? You're kidding me...As apposed to Bill O'Reilly? He's a truth hound, no doubts there...
Most of the debt that Obama has "burdened" the US with can actually be traced directly back to Bush. Defense spending, slowed tax cuts, gross benefits to oil and gas companies...you know, the good things.
filbert wrote:According to the US ambassador to the UK who was interviewed on the BBC the other day, the SEAL team were sent in with explicit orders not to take him alive.
Further reports coming out in the UK tabloids today seem to suggest that Bin Laden was cowering behind one of his wives when shot.
Just spotted a newsflash a moment ago which states he was unarmed as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lusall wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Lusall wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.
Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.
You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.
If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.
But they didn't and you don't.
Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.
You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.
Once again, you show an astounding amount of ignorance with regards to the reasons why the American Revolution was fought, how it was executed, and the outcome of the conflict. Trying to link the American revolution with the war on terror is like comparing apples to tomatoes. There are similarities, like there are similarities between just about every conflict in history. So now you've made your point...what have you proven?
Once again, someone appears to have missed various points I have raised..probably due to me having to respond to so many posts at once, a greater number of which gleefully misrepresent what I am saying, or are just plain insulting. You clearly haven't understood the comparison between the powerful state machine/Imperial regime, and the efforts of lesser "illegitimate" forces to oppose that regime. A very very very truncated and short summation of a conflict into a couple of sentences is not "ignorance". A comparison of the sort of arguments that happen with American citizens around the Fourth of July would demonstrate my point quite succinctly, as they engage in plenty of Anti-British/Anti-Monarchist Braveheart-style "Freedom from oppression" rhetoric. Is your reaction actually based on imagined historical inaccuracy in my statement, or a desire to demonstrate that the Revolution was fought on "higher" principles because it is unimaginable that the USA could be linked with "terror"?
So the cusp of your argument is that the US fought the Revolution because it wanted to cause terror? I must be missing something.
Back to the main point that you made, which is...what? There are similarities between what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Revolution? Yes, I read what you said and I fully understand it. My issue is that the argument you're making stops at about there. Yes, we could be seen as the evil Imperial power and the terrorist as the poor freedom fighters. The difference is, they attack and kill innocent civilians. The Colonial militia did no such thing. They targeted military forces and instillation.
But if your main point is that we could be compared to the British Empire then...well yes. I guess you're right. I'll concede the point. But leaving it at that is willfully ignorant.
No, its not about "terror". But yes, the two "empires", British and American, is one part of it. It isn't about the style of combat, or choice of targets. Its the fact that one side of the battle is considered illegitimate by the other. During the revolution it was the "Americans".. or traitor colonists to be more accurate. It is entirely the status of the two forces I am referring to, not the nature of the combat, nor even the end goals. One is a nation/empire enforcing its will on a global basis, the other is considered illegitimate. Its really as simple as that.
In the chart shown on that page, Bush's contribution to the debt is shown as 3x Obama's.
The counter-factual Maddow? You're kidding me...As apposed to Bill O'Reilly? He's a truth hound, no doubts there...
Most of the debt that Obama has "burdened" the US with can actually be traced directly back to Bush. Defense spending, slowed tax cuts, gross benefits to oil and gas companies...you know, the good things.
Truthfulness isn't subjective. I didn't compare Maddow to O'Reilly, I compared her statement with (what appeard to be) an honest assessment by CBS news.
Maddow is a political hack that regularly stumps for the DNC and liberal views. O'Reilly is a hack, but usually is more center-right, and tends to criticize Republicans. A more appropriate analogy (from Fox) would be Hannity.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
filbert wrote:According to the US ambassador to the UK who was interviewed on the BBC the other day, the SEAL team were sent in with explicit orders not to take him alive.
Further reports coming out in the UK tabloids today seem to suggest that Bin Laden was cowering behind one of his wives when shot.
Did Osama bin Laden win? No. Did he succeed? Well, America is still standing, and he isn’t. So why, when I called Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism expert who specializes in al-Qaeda, did he tell me that “bin Laden has been enormously successful”? There’s no caliphate. There’s no sweeping sharia law. Didn’t we win this one in a clean knockout?
Apparently not. Bin Laden, according to Gartenstein-Ross, had a strategy that we never bothered to understand, and thus that we never bothered to defend against. What he really wanted to do — and, more to the point, what he thought he could do — was bankrupt the United States of America. After all, he’d done the bankrupt-a-superpower thing before. And though it didn’t quite work out this time, it worked a lot better than most of us, in this exultant moment, are willing to admit.
Bin Laden’s transition from scion of a wealthy family to terrorist mastermind came in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union was trying to conquer Afghanistan. Bin Laden was part of the resistance, and the resistance was successful — not only in repelling the Soviet invasion, but in contributing to the communist super-state’s collapse a few years later. “We, alongside the mujaheddin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt,” he later explained.
The campaign taught bin Laden a lot. For one thing, superpowers fall because their economies crumble, not because they’re beaten on the battlefield. For another, superpowers are so allergic to losing that they’ll bankrupt themselves trying to conquer a mass of rocks and sand. This was bin Laden’s plan for the United States, too.
“He has compared the United States to the Soviet Union on numerous occasions — and these comparisons have been explicitly economic,” Gartenstein-Ross argues in a Foreign Policy article. “For example, in October 2004 bin Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujaheddin had destroyed Russia economically, al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, ‘continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.’ ”
For bin Laden, in other words, success was not to be measured in body counts. It was to be measured in deficits, in borrowing costs, in investments we weren’t able to make in our country’s continued economic strength. And by those measures, bin Laden landed a lot of blows.
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the price tag on the Iraq War alone will surpass $3 trillion. Afghanistan likely amounts to another trillion or two. Add in the build-up in homeland security spending since 9/11 and you’re looking at yet another trillion. And don’t forget the indirect costs of all this turmoil: The Federal Reserve, worried about a fear-induced recession, slashed interest rates after the attack on the World Trade Center, and then kept them low to combat skyrocketing oil prices, a byproduct of the war in Iraq. That decade of loose monetary policy may well have contributed to the credit bubble that crashed the economy in 2007 and 2008.
Then there’s the post-9/11 slowdown in the economy, the time wasted in airports, the foregone returns on investments we didn’t make, the rise in oil prices as a result of the Iraq War, the cost of rebuilding Ground Zero, health care for the first responders and much, much more.
But it isn’t quite right to say bin Laden cost us all that money. We decided to spend more than a trillion dollars on homeland security measures to prevent another attack. We decided to invade Iraq as part of a grand, post-9/11 strategy of Middle Eastern transformation. We decided to pass hundreds of billions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts and add an unpaid-for prescription drug benefit in Medicare while we were involved in two wars. And now, partially though not entirely because of these actions, we are deep in debt. Bin Laden didn’t — couldn’t — bankrupt us. He could only provoke us into bankrupting ourselves. And he came pretty close.
It’s a smart play against a superpower. We didn’t need to respond to 9/11 by trying to reshape the entire Middle East, but we’re a superpower, and we think on that scale. We didn’t need to respond to failed attempts to smuggle bombs onto airplanes through shoes and shampoo bottles by screening all footwear and banning large shampoo bottles, but we’re a superpower, and our tolerance for risk is extremely low. His greatest achievement was getting our psychology at least somewhat right.
In the end, of course, bin Laden was just another bag of meat and bones, hiding in a walled compound in Pakistan, so deeply afraid of death that he tried to use his wife as a shield when the special forces came for him. But he understood the mind of the superpower well enough to use our capabilities against us. He may not have won, but he did succeed, at least partially.
But then, we can learn from our mistakes. He can’t.
filbert wrote:According to the US ambassador to the UK who was interviewed on the BBC the other day, the SEAL team were sent in with explicit orders not to take him alive.
Further reports coming out in the UK tabloids today seem to suggest that Bin Laden was cowering behind one of his wives when shot.
Just spotted a newsflash a moment ago which states he was unarmed as well.
And deep down inside, I hope he died of blood loss, his life slowly draining out of him as all of his life passes before his eyes and the blood loss causes him to regret everything he has ever done, before he is brought to the pearly gates, spat on by Gabriel before being kicked down to hell 300-style by the spirit of the woman who died because he used her as a human shield.
So it seems that the early report I saw about "Kill not capture" may well have been entirely accurate, and that he was unarmed. I'll stick with my "execution" position.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So it seems that the early report I saw about "Kill not capture" may well have been entirely accurate, and that he was unarmed. I'll stick with my "execution" position.
As noted, thats so much better. Again, on kneed, hands up, begging for his life would have been ideal, but you can't have everything can you.
Panetta only learned that the President had been convinced by his arguments on Friday, when Obama said he was authorizing the helicopter mission and made his order official in a signed letter. After he received the order, Panetta told McRaven of the President’s decision and instructed him to launch. He told him the mission was “to go in there [and] get bin Laden, and if bin Laden isn’t there, get the hell out!”
*shrug* Orders were to capture him, but circumstances dictated otherwise. I'm not gonna denigrate the soldiers who participated.
To be honest the mission could have been kill or capture or kill tickle or capture
It would be easy to intimate to the team that the best outcome would be kill.
If you kill him grab his body and get the hell out of there
If you capture him secure the facility and wait for the Pakistani authorities to arrive. We will have you guys out in a couple of months and him extradited in perhaps a year or so...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So it seems that the early report I saw about "Kill not capture" may well have been entirely accurate, and that he was unarmed. I'll stick with my "execution" position.
It said he was resisting,not that American forces lined him up against a wall and shot him. It's not even an execution style murder, as he was actively resisting. I personally believe capturing would have been better, but I'm still not too bummed he's dead. To be honest, having him in custody would likely be even more dangerous.
The Colbert Report "His million dollar compound was less than 40 miles from Pakistan's captial. That's like escaping Washington D.C. by hiding out in Baltimore, except that Abbottabad is much less dangerous than Baltimore." -- Stephen Colbert
And I always love to hear how certain people conveniently are able to forget that the spending going on now is to try to clean up the mess left by 8 years the US suffered under the control of a complete idiot.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So it seems that the early report I saw about "Kill not capture" may well have been entirely accurate, and that he was unarmed. I'll stick with my "execution" position.
It said he was resisting,not that American forces lined him up against a wall and shot him. It's not even an execution style murder, as he was actively resisting. I personally believe capturing would have been better, but I'm still not too bummed he's dead. To be honest, having him in custody would likely be even more dangerous.
Anybody who has ever been arrested (by regular police or military) should have a fair idea how elastic a term "resisting" is. Navy SEALs can't subdue an unarmed individual? (Not that they were supposed to, but by the mission standard it wouldn't matter what he was doing.)
Its a bit of an odd distinction that you believe its not an execution if someone resists it. Plenty of people dragged to the gallows and the chair or decapitated or neck-shot tried to resist.
The Colbert Report
"His million dollar compound was less than 40 miles from Pakistan's captial. That's like escaping Washington D.C. by hiding out in Baltimore, except that Abbottabad is much less dangerous than Baltimore." -- Stephen Colbert
To be fair the country of Pakistan is a fair bit smaller than that of the US.
It was the presence of a Military barracks just a few minutes away that amazed me. The Special Forces took a real risk of coming under attack from Pakistani forces in the confusion, since the barracks wasn't notified until after the mission apparently.
Kanluwen wrote:
Of course the two concepts are not exclusive.
But if Manning is complaining of unnecessary suffering, then why aren't the rest of the detainees at Quantico?
They aren't? The absence of high profile news regarding the conditions in a given place does not mean that the people in that place aren't complaining, it indicates that there is not high profile news regarding complaints in that place.
Now, I'm not advocating crazy suspicion here, but when one person complains, then its generally worth considering whether or not their complaints have merit, and not simply saying " no one else seems to be doing it" when you aren't in a position which is necessarily defined by superfluous information.
Kanluwen wrote:
Manning's lawyer has made a point to say that he was being treated well by the guards and staff of the facility. The only exception was when he threatened suicide and they altered methods of monitoring accordingly.
I'm not seeing that in any statement release by Coombs. I'm seeing statements from Coombs claiming that Manning's classification is unfair, and that it is tacit to unique treatment, but no specific mention of "Manning is being treated like everyone else". In fact, I can't even imagine why they would say something like that at all, as its directly compromises their negotiating position, and therefore their responsibility to their client.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Anybody who has ever been arrested (by regular police or military) should have a fair idea how elastic a term "resisting" is. Navy SEALs can't subdue an unarmed individual? (Not that they were supposed to, but by the mission standard it wouldn't matter what he was doing.)
Its a bit of an odd distinction that you believe its not an execution if someone resists it. Plenty of people dragged to the gallows and the chair or decapitated or neck-shot tried to resist.
There's a distinction between 'capital punishment' which is the type of execution initiated by the state.
The type of execution you seem to be talking about is a 'execution style murder' which wikipedia describes as a murder: "where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape."
If the SEALS had subdued him, and tied him up, THEN shot him, then I'd consider it an execution. As it stands, he was resisting them even though he wasn't necessarily armed, and got shot.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Anybody who has ever been arrested (by regular police or military) should have a fair idea how elastic a term "resisting" is. Navy SEALs can't subdue an unarmed individual? (Not that they were supposed to, but by the mission standard it wouldn't matter what he was doing.)
Its a bit of an odd distinction that you believe its not an execution if someone resists it. Plenty of people dragged to the gallows and the chair or decapitated or neck-shot tried to resist.
There's a distinction between 'capital punishment' which is the type of execution initiated by the state.
The type of execution you seem to be talking about is a 'execution style murder' which wikipedia describes as a murder: "where the perpetrator kills at close range a conscious victim who is under the complete physical control of the assailant and who has been left with no course of resistance or escape."
If the SEALS had subdued him, and tied him up, THEN shot him, then I'd consider it an execution. As it stands, he was resisting them even though he wasn't necessarily armed, and got shot.
You're using a wiki definition to decide if something is an "execution" or not? And "no course of resistance" does not preclude the attempt to resist...but TBH thats getting a little semantic. He wasn't shot BECAUSE he was resisting, was he? He was shot because they were sent to shoot him. So he could have been on his knees in supplication and they would still have shot him, which makes it an execution.
I guess the literall definition of execution is too much for you. They shot a bad man that does bad things. Why, cause he looked at us funny. Good enough for me.
Kanluwen wrote:
Of course the two concepts are not exclusive.
But if Manning is complaining of unnecessary suffering, then why aren't the rest of the detainees at Quantico?
They aren't? The absence of high profile news regarding the conditions in a given place does not mean that the people in that place aren't complaining, it indicates that there is not high profile news regarding complaints in that place.
It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?
Now, I'm not advocating crazy suspicion here, but when one person complains, then its generally worth considering whether or not their complaints have merit, and not simply saying " no one else seems to be doing it" when you aren't in a position which is necessarily defined by superfluous information.
At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.
I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.
Kanluwen wrote:
Manning's lawyer has made a point to say that he was being treated well by the guards and staff of the facility. The only exception was when he threatened suicide and they altered methods of monitoring accordingly.
I'm not seeing that in any statement release by Coombs. I'm seeing statements from Coombs claiming that Manning's classification is unfair, and that it is tacit to unique treatment, but no specific mention of "Manning is being treated like everyone else". In fact, I can't even imagine why they would say something like that at all, as its directly compromises their negotiating position, and therefore their responsibility to their client.
Are we now second guessing the decisions of the operator in the room who had to make a split second decision on whether to put two in the dome? A decision made with very basic risk assessment, in that a dead man poses no risk to him, his teammates, and the operation, and a live man absolutely may. Continue to recognize they had one mode of egress from a country that may not look kindly on their presence.
I'd quote Teddy Roosevelt at Sorbonne, but why bother.
The guy who made the shot was better at shooting and tactical decisionmaking than anyone in this thread is at anything in their entire life. He isn't a cop. This isn't innocent until proven guilty. It is a delicate military operation. If it was easy, jackasses like us would in the SEALs.
I won't agree with excessive celebrating and invoking jingoistic patriotism over killing OBL. That is juvenile and unworthy of a solemn moment. But it is OK to smile when I think of two in the face.
"This occasion should remind the West in general and the United States in particular - as well as all those fighting what they call international terrorism - that occupation, oppression, stealing others' rights and the absence of justice are all focal points for fanaticism. They should be reminded that anyone fighting this fanaticism should fight the reasons behind it as well as those who are trying to exploit it." A relevant quote from a Palestinian news editor.
Let's say I'm a U.S. Navy SEAL. I'm in the middle of Pakistan on a mission that the Pakistani government doesn't know about. It's thirty minutes into the mission.One of the helicopters we rode in on has just crash-landed and may need to be abandoned. All around me, I can hear gunfire. Oh, yes, and I'm trying to find and capture/kill one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. If I screw this up, it's my butt, my boss' butt, the President's butt, and United States' military reputation on the line.
I bust into the bedroom where the target is. Some chick rushes us and my buddy puts one in her leg before she can tangle us up. I see the target across the room, possibly laying in bed.
At that point, if the guy does anything other than lay very still with his hands where I can see them? He's getting two rounds, bam bam, no hesitation. If he reaches for the bedsheets, he could have a gun under that pillow, or the triggering device for a bomb, or any other manner of nasty little thingy that could feth up me and my boys.
I don't know what the hell happened in that house, but if it was anything short of lining bin Laden up against the wall and putting two in the back of his head gangland style, I ain't gonna question the judgement of the guy on the scene.
The thing of it is...it wasn't "just" a SEAL. BUDS attrites between 70-90% of candidates. About 90% of the remainder qualify as SEALs. The best 10-15% of them are considered for DEVGRU. About half of those considered make it onto one of the DEVGRU squadrons. Then they start the hardcore training to do this type of work.
But we should feel free, with our vast experience at Call of Duty and watching The Unit, to second guess decisions made during the operation.
To be fair, we found Bin Laden after 4 years of progressing intel. About 1.75 years under Bush, and about 2.25 under Obama. With that said, Obama made all of the right decisions leading up to this. He deserves all of the credit and amusing gifs and photoshops.
dienekes96 wrote:The thing of it is...it wasn't "just" a SEAL. BUDS attrites between 70-90% of candidates. About 90% of the remainder qualify as SEALs. The best 10-15% of them are considered for DEVGRU. About half of those considered make it onto one of the DEVGRU squadrons. Then they start the hardcore training to do this type of work.
But we should feel free, with our vast experience at Call of Duty and watching The Unit, to second guess decisions made during the operation.
I'm agreeing with you. Like I said, I don't know what happened, I don't know how it happened, but unless it turns out it was something blatantly out of line like gakking on the corpse, I'm not going to judge the guys on the ground for anything they did.
If you missed the Daily Show last night you missed a real treat with some hilarious graphics. You can see some of them at the link below. My favorite was, "Hairy Plotter and the Deathly Hello"
dienekes96 wrote:Are we now second guessing the decisions of the operator in the room who had to make a split second decision on whether to put two in the dome? A decision made with very basic risk assessment, in that a dead man poses no risk to him, his teammates, and the operation, and a live man absolutely may. Continue to recognize they had one mode of egress from a country that may not look kindly on their presence.
I'd quote Teddy Roosevelt at Sorbonne, but why bother.
The guy who made the shot was better at shooting and tactical decisionmaking than anyone in this thread is at anything in their entire life. He isn't a cop. This isn't innocent until proven guilty. It is a delicate military operation. If it was easy, jackasses like us would in the SEALs.
I won't agree with excessive celebrating and invoking jingoistic patriotism over killing OBL. That is juvenile and unworthy of a solemn moment. But it is OK to smile when I think of two in the face.
Well said, sir, that is certainly sigworthy if I did that anymore.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?
I think what you meant to say is "Where are the news stories relating to complaints made about the brig at Qunatico."
Its important to note that simply because you lack a particular piece of information does not indicate that it does not exist.
Kanluwen wrote:
At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.
I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.
Even if that's the case, why shouldn't he? Its an effective means of generating political controversy, and thus influencing the outcome of the case.
That's from Coombs' own blog. I didn't have to look hard for it.
It is possible for a given inmate to be subject to unnecessary scrutiny, thereby causing suffering, without being targetted by facility staff; which has actually been Coombs' argument all along. It was in that context that I took your comment regarding Manning's treatment by the guards at Qunatico, as I assumed you were making an argument regarding something other than exceptionalims towards Manning within the facility itself.
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not like Quantico is a new facility, nor is the brig there. So where are the complaints in the likely decades that it's been operating and used as a brig?
I think what you meant to say is "Where are the news stories relating to complaints made about the brig at Qunatico."
Its important to note that simply because you lack a particular piece of information does not indicate that it does not exist.
No, I'm saying where are the complaints.
Just because there's a news story doesn't necessarily make it true.
Kanluwen wrote:
At the same time, just because one person complains doesn't mean that there's necessarily an issue.
I'm not saying that there's absolutely 100% no chance that something fishy's going on. But everything reads more and more like Manning's wimping out and crying about the fact that he's being held in a prison for violating the UCMJ.
Even if that's the case, why shouldn't he? Its an effective means of generating political controversy, and thus influencing the outcome of the case.
And it's bull. He did the crime. Suck it up and take your punishment.
I mean, let's face it. The only reason this is such an issue is because of him giving the information to WikiLeaks.
If he'd been leaking his information to the New York Times or Washington Post, we wouldn't be seeing this same outcry over Manning.
That's from Coombs' own blog. I didn't have to look hard for it.
It is possible for a given inmate to be subject to unnecessary scrutiny, thereby causing suffering, without being targeted by facility staff; which has actually been Coombs' argument all along. It was in that context that I took your comment regarding Manning's treatment by the guards at Qunatico, as I assumed you were making an argument regarding something other than exceptionalisms towards Manning within the facility itself.
It's also possible for a given inmate to be subject to necessary scrutiny, which the inmate then cries foul on.
There was an interesting post on Coombs' blog about why the brig commander felt this was necessary. Namely that "If Manning did anything, it's my ass on the line with all the bigwigs".
Edit: Counter Ninja'd. You specifically might not claim its "fine" if its Osama getting cut up, but I wasn't aiming my point specifically at you, so much as at the general mood generated by posters here, there and everywhere.
The saying 'Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword' comes to mind you know. Criminals who murder people get killed and it makes us happy, total a-holes who get beat up make us happy. If you watched the video of Casey Haynes beating up his bully and felt bad for the bully you have some pretty fethed up ideology, but from what I'm getting from what you write you probably did feel bad for the bully.
Osama Bin Laden bullied America by having some brainwashed followers crash planes filled with everyday citizens into skyscrapers filled with even more everyday citizens. He then had some crash a plane into the Pentagon and a final plane was crashed after the passengers fought back. Bin Laden released a tape saying that he was in charge of plotting the attack so we went after him and the government that harbored him(the Taliban who were in charge of Afghanistan at the time). Just because we decided to take the law into our own hands and went after him I guess we're evil and barbaric. I guess the more civilized approach would've been to ask him why he did it, put him to trial, and let him soak up media attention so that he may potentially die as a martyr.
I for one didn't like watching people jump from a burning skyscraper when I was 11 years old, and I really didn't like learning that people hated me just because I was an american citizen. I also didn't like the fact that my dad had to go overseas on a ship to deliver troops, ammo, and fuel. I didn't like the fact that he worked below decks in a ship filled with fuel and that sometimes Iranian helicopters would fly so close that they could see the pilot's mustache from the deck. I didn't like the fact that the man in charge of this attack got away with it, the fact that justice wasn't done to an evil man.
Now that Osama is dead, killed while he used his wife as a human shield I feel that the world's karma has balanced out a bit. I feel overjoyed that those who died in the War on Terror didn't die for nothing and the fact that he was shot and killed made me ecstatic because many americans would've loved to be the ones to pull the trigger. People like those who lost a loved one on 9/11, the families of all of the dead and wounded soldiers, the families victimized by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and the world in general. We showed the Taliban that their figurehead, who was supposed to be protected by Allah, was nothing but a coward.
Most importantly it shows all of our enemies that we won't tolerate their aggression and that we will respond with equal measure along with some added interest.
You may think that we're barbaric for celebrating the death of a hated enemy, but this is a great moment for us because we got our spirit back. Ten years of fighting had been for nothing until now and now the war has been justified for many people. How many news stories portrayed the American armed services as evil barbarians who murdered civilians or showed them as bringers of wonton destruction? We've been vilified for almost ten whole years and now that we actually get the bad guy we're the heros again, we have something to feel good about now. That's why we celebrate, we killed a bad guy, we regained some status as the world's good guys, and we broke the chain of us going to wars for 'no reason' or for economic gain.
I really don't want to believe that you sympathize for Osama, I really don't but for some reason I feel that you do. Either that or you're an incredibly audacious troll.
Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.
ChrisWWII wrote:
It said he was resisting,not that American forces lined him up against a wall and shot him. It's not even an execution style murder, as he was actively resisting. I personally believe capturing would have been better, but I'm still not too bummed he's dead. To be honest, having him in custody would likely be even more dangerous.
The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...
@ halonachos: Celebrating the downfall of an enemy is perfectly acceptable, even necessary from a psychological viewpoint. Never disputed that. Its the constant need to say things like "I hope he *insert foul inhumane torture* before he died." that I disagree with, whether it come from the aforementioned "Not-Wargaming Nerd", and actual teen nerd fantasy, or serving front-line troops...mostly because its demanding of Osama the exact same terrible death as he caused for other people, civilian or military.
Look at it this way: I was IN an Arab country when 9/11 went down (and got stuck there.) and I saw firsthand how riotously happy they were that America had finally got its come-uppance. These are the same people who, when they see a video of a bombed Afghan village, think "I wish we could get some of those Americans and drag them behind a truck." As it happens they were also the same people who rose up and overthrew their own government without Al Quaeda help...
The argument about which side is "Right" is irrelevant in this topic, and I do happen to agree that killing civilians, women and children is wrong. What I'm saying is that demands for bloodthirtsy vengeance outside the rule of law, and acts of that nature, bring everybody down to the same level. We do not "murder" murderers...we give them a trial, and present the evidence etc etc...and that is the distinction that (theoretically at least) stops you being murderers.
If I sympathize with anyone, its the poor bastards who end up getting dead whilst just living their lives day to day, because of high-handed decisions made by politicians and religious leaders..often decades before the people involved were even born. ON BOTH SIDES.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Extra thought: Its also unfair to decide that I must be either a troll or a terrorist sympathiser, as if I couldn't be anything else.
I can't help but get a little pissed off over this whole thing. Seriously they are complaining because he shouldn't have been buried at sea now? I am pretty sure a lot of religious beliefs were screwed up when people were being beheaded by members of al-Qaeda. Do you think they got an appropriate memorial service as defined by their customs? To me, Osama got a lot more respect in the end then what he gave the people he murdered.
You want respect you better give respect.
Anyways hasn't there been a standing order that US forces will find and kill Osama for like almost a decade? Any naysayers who have problems with his appropriate execution should have been voicing their concern years ago, not after the fact. You have had plenty of opportunity to voice your opinions to your senators.
Now personally I think Osama should have had a go at the Running Man...
Oh wait he did! Team 6 ran him down! Oh how I wish this comic would have been entitled Team 6 instead. I could have made me some money by altering the cover with someone's corpse.
I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.
I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.
After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.
Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.
I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Extra thought: Its also unfair to decide that I must be either a troll or a terrorist sympathiser, as if I couldn't be anything else.
It's also unfair for you to come in here preaching all this garbage when pretty much the entire world is better off without him.
Stop posting in this thread if it frustrates you so much.
Ketara wrote:I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.
I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.
After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.
Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.
I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.
Depends where it came from. The White House has had to release further info to try and counter some of the stories that are cropping up. Apparently, Bin Laden's wife ran at the US forces and wasn't used as a human shield as was being reported. She was shot in the leg but survived.
Ketara wrote:I find it very interesting that it comes out that Osama was 'cowering like a dog' and 'using his wife as a shield'.
I sense some excellent, excellent propaganda spinning there. Far more effective to portray him as a weak and ineffectual coward, than as someone who was either a)shot whilst asleep
or b) shot with a gun or knife in hand.
After all, it was Navy SEALs who did the job, they won't contradict the official government stance. And if Osama did go out in what could be described as a suitably heroic fashion, he would be martyred, and become a symbol of dying whilst resisting.
Its difficult to spin a positive tale out of someone who supposedly died wetting his bedsheets and using his wife as a meatshield in an attempt to save his own life though.
I'm not saying this is the case. But looking over how the whole thing has been reported, and considering the possibilities of the different ways of presenting his death, and the reactions it would spawn in the various factions worldwide, it seems by far the most beneficial to have him have died whilst 'cowering like a dog'.
I have to admit,I too raised an eyebrow at the reports of Bin Laden's supposed reactions moments before his death,seems a bit too "Packaged movie Villain" IMO.
Now...I'm in no way saying Bin Laden was a "Brave or Noble" man...and I'm glad he was killed,I'm simply saying that the reports of him going out like a cliched mustache twirling "bad guy" seem more like propaganda of the "America!! feth yeah!!" varitey than anything else.
EDIT:...I should note I'm in no way attempting to cast a negative light on the men who carried out the actual mission...they,of course,have my deepest respect.
(1822)
