Phototoxin wrote:Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.
It might be, but I'm still glad I'm not on the same planet as that son of a anymore.
I
The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...
For once I agree with Frazzled. Unless one of us dakkaites is a Navy SEAL or equivalent special forces soldier, who are we to question what happened? Or to make judgements of the troops based on that? We don't know all the facts, and we can't make any calls without knowing the facts.
This was one of the most dangerous men in the world, and he never had to fire a bullet himself to kill that many people. Not someone you take lightly. In the end, one could even argue that he died out of respect for him as a villain-- that it was because of his inherent danger that was the reason he was killed.
Lord Scythican wrote: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.
I believe that people have done so, and many people have "had a problem" with that standing order and said it before now. Bit difficult to have said it "here" in a thread thats only a few days old, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
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.
I never said the world wouldn't be better off without him. In fact I fully expected him to be executed after the due process, much like Saddam (though they made a crappy job of his actual execution.). I can't believe that so many people are having such a hard time grasping what I'm saying, after endless explanations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:This was one of the most dangerous men in the world, and he never had to fire a bullet himself to kill that many people. Not someone you take lightly. In the end, one could even argue that he died out of respect for him as a villain-- that it was because of his inherent danger that was the reason he was killed.
[/devil's advocate]
Granted, he could order many things to occur, and may well have been a fair shot with an AK, (which he didn't have at the time) but physically he is still just an unarmed man, and a fairly ill one by many accounts. Its not as if he could do Force Lightening, or summon Undead warriors to do his bidding, or hypnotize his foes. His danger was in his power over other people, not in any physical ability to harm an individual. Some of the most deadly individuals in the world have been physically unimpressive and no threat at all. Barak Obama is probably the most powerful men in the world, and thus "dangerous" in many ways, but unarmed against SpecOps assailants, he's going to end up full of holes. Now if we were talking about Putin, THEN you might have a man who is dangerous armed or otherwise.
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.
I never said the world wouldn't be better off without him. In fact I fully expected him to be executed after the due process, much like Saddam (though they made a crappy job of his actual execution.).
Saddam's trial was a circus. His execution was botched and leaked. It also sparked another wave of insurgent attacks immediately after.
I can't believe that so many people are having such a hard time grasping what I'm saying, after endless explanations.
Nobody's having a "hard time grasping what you're saying".
You're just coming across as obnoxious by using this thread as a soapbox and consistently stating that Americans are bloodthirsty barbarians who only are celebrating this because "we dun got our vengeance!" and likening Al Qaeda to the American Revolution or the Nazi leadership. This isn't the time or place to be making these statements and not expecting some kind of backlash.
In related news... I've noticed that many of the "facts" that have been cited by American posters from their news sources differ quite a lot from what is available from UK news sources. It seems that we are getting items before the US, and possibly even getting things US networks simply are not saying. For example, earlier someone claimed that the American forces were operating on Pakistani soil with permission. It transpires that this is not true, and that the Pakistani government claims that their sovereignty has been violated, that the raid has undermined co-operation and may constitute a threat to international peace and security. They were not even told (because of security risks, it is stated.) They have warned they will not tolerate repeat raids of this kind.
That is quite a difference, and I can't help but wonder whether information is being passed on through American news media as accurately as it might be. It would also explain some of the rowing that has gone on here needlessly. So..has anyone states side seen a similar report from an American source about that statement from Pakistan? If so, when?
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.
I never said the world wouldn't be better off without him. In fact I fully expected him to be executed after the due process, much like Saddam (though they made a crappy job of his actual execution.).
Saddam's trial was a circus. His execution was botched and leaked. It also sparked another wave of insurgent attacks immediately after.
I can't believe that so many people are having such a hard time grasping what I'm saying, after endless explanations.
Nobody's having a "hard time grasping what you're saying".
You're just coming across as obnoxious by using this thread as a soapbox and consistently stating that Americans are bloodthirsty barbarians who only are celebrating this because "we dun got our vengeance!" and likening Al Qaeda to the American Revolution or the Nazi leadership. This isn't the time or place to be making these statements and not expecting some kind of backlash.
Except that I'm NOT saying that. Clearly you didn't read the post where I clarified the "celebration" thing, nor have you read the one clarifying the "Revolution" thing. I don't recall mentioning Nazis at all. So yes, you ARE failing to grasp what I'm saying because you appear to be busy making it up instead.
"You dun said this". No. I didn't. And I'm supposed to be a troll?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:In related news... I've noticed that many of the "facts" that have been cited by American posters from their news sources differ quite a lot from what is available from UK news sources. It seems that we are getting items before the US, and possibly even getting things US networks simply are not saying. For example, earlier someone claimed that the American forces were operating on Pakistani soil with permission. It transpires that this is not true, and that the Pakistani government claims that their sovereignty has been violated, that the raid has undermined co-operation and may constitute a threat to international peace and security. They were not even told (because of security risks, it is stated.) They have warned they will not tolerate repeat raids of this kind.
I've been reading British sources. I've seen nothing that the "Pakistani government claims that their sovereignty has been violated".
They're concerned about the implications of Bin Laden being where he's been, there's been a statement by the ISI that this was a "failure by the world intelligence community, not just the ISI", and a statement that "we weren't trusted with the information on the raid".
That is quite a difference, and I can't help but wonder whether information is being passed on through American news media as accurately as it might be. It would also explain some of the rowing that has gone on here needlessly. So..has anyone states side seen a similar report from an American source about that statement from Pakistan? If so, when?
No, and I haven't even seen it in British sources. Cite.
The other real big thing is simply that there was a rush to get the information out there as soon as it happened. People were going to find out, and the US wanted to announce it first.
htj wrote:Do you have a link to a source for that, ArbeitsSchu?
It appears in the Independent, in a centre-spread insert titled "The Death of Bin Laden". (Hard copy newspaper edition.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/ is the website. I haven't yet found the relevant article online, because I quite literally only opened their website a moment ago, but I am looking at this time. Feel free to look for yourselves in the meantime.
the U.S. had considered expanding the assault to include coordination with other countries, notably Pakistan. But the CIA ruled out participating with its nominal South Asian ally early on because “it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission. They might alert the targets,” Panetta says.
No mention of a statement from Pakistan, however.
edit: Here's a story where Prevez Musharraf accuses the US of violating the sovereignty of Pakistan.
Lord Scythican wrote: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.
I believe that people have done so, and many people have "had a problem" with that standing order and said it before now. Bit difficult to have said it "here" in a thread thats only a few days old, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
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.
I never said the world wouldn't be better off without him. In fact I fully expected him to be executed after the due process, much like Saddam (though they made a crappy job of his actual execution.). I can't believe that so many people are having such a hard time grasping what I'm saying, after endless explanations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:This was one of the most dangerous men in the world, and he never had to fire a bullet himself to kill that many people. Not someone you take lightly. In the end, one could even argue that he died out of respect for him as a villain-- that it was because of his inherent danger that was the reason he was killed.
[/devil's advocate]
Granted, he could order many things to occur, and may well have been a fair shot with an AK, (which he didn't have at the time) but physically he is still just an unarmed man, and a fairly ill one by many accounts. Its not as if he could do Force Lightening, or summon Undead warriors to do his bidding, or hypnotize his foes. His danger was in his power over other people, not in any physical ability to harm an individual. Some of the most deadly individuals in the world have been physically unimpressive and no threat at all. Barak Obama is probably the most powerful men in the world, and thus "dangerous" in many ways, but unarmed against SpecOps assailants, he's going to end up full of holes. Now if we were talking about Putin, THEN you might have a man who is dangerous armed or otherwise.
Nuts.
You're forgetting the whole explosive vest he could have been wearing. Push a button and BOOM. So yea, cap him on sight unless you plan on capturing and submerging in a vat of bacon on our amusement.
A cursory examination of the first few paragraphs suggests this article is the one that mirrors the one in the hard copy, the hard copy being the one I quoted from.
Phototoxin wrote:Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.
It might be, but I'm still glad I'm not on the same planet as that son of a anymore.
I
The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...
For once I agree with Frazzled. Unless one of us dakkaites is a Navy SEAL or equivalent special forces soldier, who are we to question what happened? Or to make judgements of the troops based on that? We don't know all the facts, and we can't make any calls without knowing the facts.
Rememer that when you get wrongly convicted on DNA evidence - who are you to question legal and scientific professionals?
Facts:
Bin Laden was unarmed
Bin Laden was in Pakistan
US Troops went into Pakistan (illegally)
US Troops shot and killed an unarmed man.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Except that I'm NOT saying that. Clearly you didn't read the post where I clarified the "celebration" thing, nor have you read the one clarifying the "Revolution" thing.
I'm going to be extra nice and pull up your "clarification".
ArbeitsSchu wrote: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.
I'm not sure where you were going with this.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
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.
And this is actually wrong. The United States was recognized and was a legitimate force. Or was the Continental Army a myth?
The guerillas and frontiersmen, however are a different story. But even then many of them wore uniforms and targeted British military, not sympathizers.
That's not to say that there weren't cases where British sympathizers were killed. There were.
I don't recall mentioning Nazis at all.
You're right on that. I thought it was you who likened Bin Laden to requiring something akin to the Trials at Nuremburg. I'll give you that one.
So yes, you ARE failing to grasp what I'm saying because you appear to be busy making it up instead.
"You dun said this". No. I didn't.
You've said everything outside of the Nazi relationship. That was me attributing someone else's posts to you.
And I'm supposed to be a troll?
If you're making inflammatory posts, have been asked politely by other posters to stop, and continue doing it to get a reaction...
You just might want to buy a bridge and hide under it.
Interesting anecdote: Apparently when local children inadvertently chipped cricket balls over the compound walls, they were never allowed in to fetch them, but were instead given a quid (150 rupees) to go to the local shop and get a new one. The driver of the compound delivery van was seen collecting grass and asking by a local girl what he was doing. Apparently they were for feeding the rabbits... and a few days later the man gifted her two rabbits! The banality of evil when it has to hide itself eh?
Phototoxin wrote:Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.
It might be, but I'm still glad I'm not on the same planet as that son of a anymore.
I
The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...
For once I agree with Frazzled. Unless one of us dakkaites is a Navy SEAL or equivalent special forces soldier, who are we to question what happened? Or to make judgements of the troops based on that? We don't know all the facts, and we can't make any calls without knowing the facts.
Rememer that when you get wrongly convicted on DNA evidence - who are you to question legal and scientific professionals?
Remember that when you "get wrongly convicted on DNA evidence" there's usually a reason. Things like bureaucracy, overworked analysts, et al.
The person doing the analysis here was likely not told who he was matching DNA against, just "Here's a sample, and here's the target data. Tell us if they match". They do the same thing for high profile cases to prevent bias or faking the results.
Facts:
Bin Laden was unarmed
Bin Laden was in Pakistan
US Troops went into Pakistan (illegally)
US forces have had operational jurisdiction in Pakistan for 3+ years, at least. The only difference with this operation is that the Pakistanis weren't told.
US Troops shot and killed an unarmed man.
I'd say they put down a rabid dog but you can call him a 'man' if you want to, I guess.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Except that I'm NOT saying that. Clearly you didn't read the post where I clarified the "celebration" thing, nor have you read the one clarifying the "Revolution" thing.
I'm going to be extra nice and pull up your "clarification".
ArbeitsSchu wrote: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.
I'm not sure where you were going with this.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
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.
And this is actually wrong. The United States was recognized and was a legitimate force. Or was the Continental Army a myth?
The guerillas and frontiersmen, however are a different story. But even then many of them wore uniforms and targeted British military, not sympathizers.
That's not to say that there weren't cases where British sympathizers were killed. There were.
I don't recall mentioning Nazis at all.
You're right on that. I thought it was you who likened Bin Laden to requiring something akin to the Trials at Nuremburg. I'll give you that one.
So yes, you ARE failing to grasp what I'm saying because you appear to be busy making it up instead.
"You dun said this". No. I didn't.
You've said everything outside of the Nazi relationship. That was me attributing someone else's posts to you.
And I'm supposed to be a troll?
If you're making inflammatory posts, have been asked politely by other posters to stop, and continue doing it to get a reaction...
You just might want to buy a bridge and hide under it.
Yeah, not quite sure you got the right post in the first part there. That one was in response to someone saying Al Quaeda only target civilians...which is obviously erroneous. Al Quaeda and its affiliates can and do target the military, thus they do not neatly fit a given definition of "terrorist." Some of them would fit "guerilla", and thusly if they fit "guerilla", they must from one perspective or another also be "freedom fighters." What were they when they were CIA-trained and fighting the Soviets? Guerillas? Terrorists to the Soviets no doubt.
As for "Legitimate"...a colonial rebellion led by the Continental Congress is only legitimate in the eyes of the rebellion. From the point of view of The Crown..its a colonial rebellion of subjects to the crown. The fact that they organised a standing army with matching hats does not de facto mean they are "legitimate". Legitimacy is subjective.
Also, you're reading "inflammatory." What I'm doing is generally just "Disagreeing with the majority." The "Inflammatory" part seems to be wholly based on someone deciding I had called all Americans barbarians..which is not what I said.
Phototoxin wrote:Murder is wrong. Murdering murders is equally wrong.
It might be, but I'm still glad I'm not on the same planet as that son of a anymore.
I
The special forces team musn't have be that brilliant if they cannot cpature an old man who was unarmed...
For once I agree with Frazzled. Unless one of us dakkaites is a Navy SEAL or equivalent special forces soldier, who are we to question what happened? Or to make judgements of the troops based on that? We don't know all the facts, and we can't make any calls without knowing the facts.
Rememer that when you get wrongly convicted on DNA evidence - who are you to question legal and scientific professionals?
Facts:
Bin Laden was unarmed
Bin Laden was in Pakistan
US Troops went into Pakistan (illegally)
US Troops shot and killed an unarmed man.
Wow, just wow.
I'm not saying you're insane at all.
Good good, we can do without the rest of the caring sentiments too please. ta.
reds8n.
But I will say to somehow tangentially attempt to link Osama Bin Laden, mastermind and killer of thousands, leader of a terrorist network that has spread terror and death to nearly every continent on the globe, to some sort of DNA evidence of a crime lacks credulity. Respectfully, I suggest you need to review your life choices.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Yeah, not quite sure you got the right post in the first part there. That one was in response to someone saying Al Quaeda only target civilians...which is obviously erroneous. Al Quaeda and its affiliates can and do target the military, thus they do not neatly fit a given definition of "terrorist." Some of them would fit "guerilla", and thusly if they fit "guerilla", they must from one perspective or another also be "freedom fighters." What were they when they were CIA-trained and fighting the Soviets? Guerillas? Terrorists to the Soviets no doubt.
Actually...the Soviets dubbed them as "guerillas". Al'Qaeda was not ever CIA trained to fight the Soviets. That was the Taliban and the Mujahadeen.
Taliban != Al'Qaeda.
Where things get fuzzy is that after the Soviets left Afghanistan, parts of the Taliban joined Al'Qaeda. They brought along a core of experienced fighters with training in guerilla warfare and insurgency.
As for "Legitimate"...a colonial rebellion led by the Continental Congress is only legitimate in the eyes of the rebellion. From the point of view of The Crown..its a colonial rebellion of subjects to the crown. The fact that they organised a standing army with matching hats does not de facto mean they are "legitimate". Legitimacy is subjective.
France and Spain recognized the colonies as an independent nation.
Also, you're reading "inflammatory." What I'm doing is generally just "Disagreeing with the majority." The "Inflammatory" part seems to be wholly based on someone deciding I had called all Americans barbarians..which is not what I said.
The fact that you're calling AQ "CIA trained to fight the Soviets" leads me to believe you've been arguing from a lack of information from the get go. Kindly, exit the thread.
Phototoxin wrote:
Bin Laden was unarmed but for the gifts of the dark gods he had pleased for murdering so many innocents
Bin Laden was in Pakistan
US Troops went into Pakistan (illegally)
US Troops shot and killed a mass murderer deserving of death several times over
This thread was only ever going to end one way but can a modicum of politeness at least be faked?
Its been quite interesting reading barring some of the inevitable dross and a lock would be disappointing (for now anyways).
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Yeah, not quite sure you got the right post in the first part there. That one was in response to someone saying Al Quaeda only target civilians...which is obviously erroneous. Al Quaeda and its affiliates can and do target the military, thus they do not neatly fit a given definition of "terrorist." Some of them would fit "guerilla", and thusly if they fit "guerilla", they must from one perspective or another also be "freedom fighters." What were they when they were CIA-trained and fighting the Soviets? Guerillas? Terrorists to the Soviets no doubt.
Actually...the Soviets dubbed them as "guerillas". Al'Qaeda was not ever CIA trained to fight the Soviets. That was the Taliban and the Mujahadeen.
Taliban != Al'Qaeda.
Where things get fuzzy is that after the Soviets left Afghanistan, parts of the Taliban joined Al'Qaeda. They brought along a core of experienced fighters with training in guerilla warfare and insurgency.
As for "Legitimate"...a colonial rebellion led by the Continental Congress is only legitimate in the eyes of the rebellion. From the point of view of The Crown..its a colonial rebellion of subjects to the crown. The fact that they organised a standing army with matching hats does not de facto mean they are "legitimate". Legitimacy is subjective.
France and Spain recognized the colonies as an independent nation.
Also, you're reading "inflammatory." What I'm doing is generally just "Disagreeing with the majority." The "Inflammatory" part seems to be wholly based on someone deciding I had called all Americans barbarians..which is not what I said.
The fact that you're calling AQ "CIA trained to fight the Soviets" leads me to believe you've been arguing from a lack of information from the get go. Kindly, exit the thread.
The various constituent parts, varied and disparate, of the entity that the West has chosen to label "Al Quaeda." Members of that "organisation" come from a variety pf places and backgrounds, and have a varied history. Even larger groups like "The Taliban" are not as straightforward to categorize as people choose to believe. That is the way of Afghan politics though. In the west there is a tendency to oversimplify such things. Clearly my attempt to simplify matters instead of saying:
"What did they call the loose affiliate of tribesmen who were titled Mujahideen who then went on in some parts to be Taliban but are mostly just, but not all Pashtun tribesmen, some of whom support or are members of some of the groups that make up the entity commonly known in the west as Al Quaeda...when the CIA were helping to train and supply them to fight against the Soviets...?" failed, so now I've had to make an even longer post explaining that as well.
And France and Spain? Because clearly the recognition and subsequent interference of two of the British Empires greatest opponents is going to make the Crown feel that the colonials are legit. Was the Taliban regime any more or less legitimate because it was recognised by only a handful of Arab states? Is Myanmar Burma or Myanmar because the UK will not recognise the sovereignty of its new regime?
I don't necessarily agree with the content of ArbeitsSchu's posts but I can take the point. Essentially, what we are looking at with the killing of Bin Laden is state sponsored assassination, which is never really a good thing. However, I don't think it would have been practical to put him on trial like Saddam (not to mention it may have inflamed the terrorist situation even more).
Personally speaking, I am glad they killed him rather than captured him for some sort of grotesque media parade. That would have made the attempts to turn him into a martyr by Islamic extremists easier, I think.
The US got it right in this case but who is to say they won't (and haven't) ordered black op assassinations on innocent people in the past? As I said, killing without recourse to a fair trial is a dangerous place to go.
ArbeitsSchu wrote: 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.
Which side is 'right' is not just some arbitrary argument here as its pretty well defined. Al Qaeda and the Taliban targeted innocent civilians(don't try to argue the terms of their innocence, they were just plain innocent) and we haven't directly targeted innocent civilians on purpose. We've had some isolated mistakes and we've also had collateral damage, but note we have never targeted exclusively civilians on purpose or had the death of civilians as a goal. If killing the innocent is wrong to you, and one side targets the innocent then I would have to say that the side targeting civilians is wrong.
Those cheering on the 9/11 bombers are cheering on the death of the innocent and are in the wrong. Those who get mad that their relatives are killed by collateral is incredibly understandable,but as soon as they decide to take up arms and target the innocent with their terrorist friends they are in the wrong. Besides, its kind of hard to murder someone on the other side in a fire fight.
Osama was not innocent, we know he wasn't innocent so anything he gets he deserves. He deserves to be dragged through the streets, but last I recall we gave him a burial at sea following islamic customs. If killing a man who is a self professed murderer without trial counts as murder, then I guess we murdered the hell out of him and we don't regret it.
So come off of your 'justice' high horse, your idealistic theory of what justice should be isn't the truth of the world and will never be the truth of the world. Everybody is inherently evil, its just that some are less evil.
As far as everything else goes Arbeits, we gave the Mujahadin stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet Hinds that were emasculating the Mujahadin fighters. Hadn't we done that the Soviets probably would've won seeing as though they don't believe in giving murderers the same rights we do.
Kind of like how the English government gave arms to the South during our Civil War, you know the side that supported slavery?
filbert wrote:The US got it right in this case but who is to say they won't (and haven't) ordered black op assassinations on innocent people in the past? As I said, killing without recourse to a fair trial is a dangerous place to go.
While that's a reasonable statement, the only way you can't think that OBL wasn't guilty of what he's accused of is if you discount the tapes of him actually saying that he did it.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The various constituent parts, varied and disparate, of the entity that the West has chosen to label "Al Quaeda." Members of that "organisation" come from a variety pf places and backgrounds, and have a varied history. Even larger groups like "The Taliban" are not as straightforward to categorize as people choose to believe. That is the way of Afghan politics though. In the west there is a tendency to oversimplify such things. Clearly my attempt to simplify matters instead of saying:
Al'Qaeda chose the name themselves. They also had nothing to do with "Afghan politics" at their formation.
"What did they call the loose affiliate of tribesmen who were titled Mujahideen who then went on in some parts to be Taliban but are mostly just, but not all Pashtun tribesmen, some of whom support or are members of some of the groups that make up the entity commonly known in the west as Al Quaeda...when the CIA were helping to train and supply them to fight against the Soviets...?" failed, so now I've had to make an even longer post explaining that as well.
And your explanation is still wrong.
And France and Spain? Because clearly the recognition and subsequent interference of two of the British Empires greatest opponents is going to make the Crown feel that the colonials are legit.
Which is still irrelevant to the main point that you completely failed to grasp.
The Continental Congress and Army followed all the 'rules of war' that were laid down at that time. The only exception was that there were militias that fought alongside them, but weren't necessarily sponsored or actively recruited.
Was the Taliban regime any more or less legitimate because it was recognised by only a handful of Arab states? Is Myanmar Burma or Myanmar because the UK will not recognise the sovereignty of its new regime?
Now you're splitting hairs, but the Taliban regime was recognized by more than "a handful of Arab states".
But really. You're clogging up the thread with garbage. Stop.
Phototoxin wrote:
Rememer that when you get wrongly convicted on DNA evidence - who are you to question legal and scientific professionals?
The difference here being that a DNA Analyst doesn't have to make the decision in a split second, and even if he does make a poor decision, it's not likely going to result in the death of him and everyone around him.
Bin Laden was unarmed
Bin Laden was in Pakistan
US Troops went into Pakistan (illegally)
US Troops shot and killed an unarmed man.
True, all true.
However think about those Navy SEALS, you have a man you know to be a dangerous terrorist. He appears to be unarmed, but how can you know for sure that his 'resistance' is not a feebled unarmed man resisting, or if it's him going for a hidden weapon, or a detonator? Hindsight is 20/20, and even though the US killed an unarmed man, the US still killed a mass murdering son of a who deserved to die.
I'm glad he's dead, I would prefer he was captured a live so we could question him, maybe even give him a fair trial in the US, but I refuse to say that killing him was a bad thing.
filbert wrote:The US got it right in this case but who is to say they won't (and haven't) ordered black op assassinations on innocent people in the past? As I said, killing without recourse to a fair trial is a dangerous place to go.
While that's a reasonable statement, the only way you can't think that OBL wasn't guilty of what he's accused of is if you discount the tapes of him actually saying that he did it.
Oh I agree totally and I am in no way disputing either his guilt or his evilness. But you and I concurring that he is a baddie and guilty of horrendous crimes is still not trial by law, is it?
filbert wrote:I don't necessarily agree with the content of ArbeitsSchu's posts but I can take the point. Essentially, what we are looking at with the killing of Bin Laden is state sponsored assassination, which is never really a good thing. However, I don't think it would have been practical to put him on trial like Saddam (not to mention it may have inflamed the terrorist situation even more).
I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it.
However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.
Personally speaking, I am glad they killed him rather than captured him for some sort of grotesque media parade. That would have made the attempts to turn him into a martyr by Islamic extremists easier, I think.
The US got it right in this case but who is to say they won't (and haven't) ordered black op assassinations on innocent people in the past? As I said, killing without recourse to a fair trial is a dangerous place to go.
There was some outcry awhile ago because there's a list of people that could theoretically be targeted for UAV strikes or justify the cost of a UAV strike upon a convoy/building that they're in. People were flipping out about it because it's "execution without a trial".
Kanluwen wrote: I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it. However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.
Not really sure I see the distinction. It doesn't matter where he was shot or how he was shot; he was killed on the orders of the US president. Whichever way you look at it, its state sponsored assassination. You might not like the term, but there you go...
filbert wrote:Oh I agree totally and I am in no way disputing either his guilt or his evilness. But you and I concurring that he is a baddie and guilty of horrendous crimes is still not trial by law, is it?
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it.
However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.
Not really sure I see the distinction. It doesn't matter where he was shot or how he was shot; he was killed on the orders of the US president. Whichever way you look at it, its state sponsored assassination. You might not like the term, but there you go...
He was killed. Not assassinated.
There's a distinction. "Assassination" implies that there was a sneak attack with no chance of defense.
Bin Laden's probably been dead for years. It's just a way for Obama to regain some face.
Bin Laden has been reported as dead since December 2001, as he had numerous ailments that could have cut his life short.
It's like a bad hide-and-go-seek game where they aren't very good at finding him. When they (the US) do finally find him he's locked hiding in a cupboard and all that's left is his charred remains...then they shoot the remains and claim they 'assassinated' him.
Ahtman wrote:Martin Luther King was assassinated, Bin Laden was killed.
We sent an entire flight of P-38s to specifically kill Yamamoto when we had intel of his flight. This is no different different,e xcept that Yamamoto didn't want to attack the US and chose military targets. OBL lived the dream when he killed thousands of men, women, and children who had nothing to do with a god damn thing he was ranting about for whatever justification he had.
Further, you don't put mad dogs on trial. You put them out of their misery, and to protect ourselves from them.
Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
Indeed, I'm studying in the UK, and the general opinion has been anti-American...I'm the only one actually celeberating his death, all the others are like 'oh you silly stupid Americans' (which is among one of the kinder phrases I've been on the receiving end of). What surprises me most is that the angriest comments I've been on the receiving end of have been from fellow Americans. At least one has gotten angry at me, as she took my celebration of Osama as saying that I was celebrating her worrying about her family now being under threat.
Yes, the American President ordered the assassination of one man. Yes, the killing of Bin Laden was a cold-blooded assassination. And you know what? Good for him.
This wasn't a criminal who protested his innocence and was gunned down by cops to prove a point. This was a man who is not only responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women, this is a man who has proudly taken credit for it and stated over and over again his desire for his followers to kill more. What would a trial prove that he himself has not already proudly taken credit for? What would it accomplish aside from spending lots of money and giving him another chance to spew his rhetoric again?
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Martin Luther King. His philosophy of nonviolence is, I feel, one of the best ways for human beings to seek societal change. But it only works when the people involved have a stake in maintaining a positive image to outsiders. It worked in India because Great Britain had to deal with other countries asking questions about the murders of peaceful protesters. It worked in the American South because people got angry over images of dogs and hoses used to blast unarmed innocents. It won't work for Al Qaeda because appearing like murderous jerks is what they want to be.
You don't try to convince a mad dog to stop biting people through sit-ins and peaceful protests. You get a man with a gun to shoot it in the head before it hurts more people, then you bleach the ground it lays on so the sickness doesn't spread. Turning the other cheek is good, but what do you do when the other guy decides to punch you in the other cheek too, then kick you in the ribs when you're down?
samrtk wrote:Bin Laden's probably been dead for years. It's just a way for Obama to regain some face.
Yes, because surely Bush wouldn't have tried this tactic, as popular as he was at the end of his term.
This is a silly thing to say. I wish people would stop.
Is it really silly? It's quite believeable. I've believed Bin Laden has been dead for three years of my life.
halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
You mean me? Haha.
halonachos wrote:I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
And not displaying any evidence? Oh I can believe anything my nation rulers say because they are just that. Don't simply take the food on the spoon. If Osama had REALLY been killed, there would be evidence displayed to confirm it. It's stuff like this that spawn all sorts of conspiracy theories; there is no validation. But, I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, too touchy of a zone.
But it's nice to see people united for a change, no matter how mislead they are.
fox wrote:WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.
Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.
In the portion of the tape that was broadcast, the Al Qaeda (search) leader refrained from directly warning of new attacks, although he said "there are still reasons to repeat what happened."
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."
Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.
I believe that the new threats against america are proof enough that we did something to make them very mad, something like kill their figurehead.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
I don't really think this analogy works in any, shape or form. The events on 9/11 were terrible but I don't this comparison works at all. I can appreciate that you're trying to express the affects the attack had but you're well wide of the mark here. On numerous levels. It'd be better if you chalked this one up to experience and moved on. Much obliged.
he had numerous ailments that could have cut his life short.
No, he didn't. He had some minor renal issues, but they were never life threatening.
Yes, the American President ordered the assassination of one man. Yes, the killing of Bin Laden was a cold-blooded assassination. And you know what? Good for him.
This wasn't a criminal who protested his innocence and was gunned down by cops to prove a point. This was a man who is not only responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women, this is a man who has proudly taken credit for it and stated over and over again his desire for his followers to kill more. What would a trial prove that he himself has not already proudly taken credit for? What would it accomplish aside from spending lots of money and giving him another chance to spew his rhetoric again?
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Martin Luther King. His philosophy of nonviolence is, I feel, one of the best ways for human beings to seek societal change. But it only works when the people involved have a stake in maintaining a positive image to outsiders. It worked in India because Great Britain had to deal with other countries asking questions about the murders of peaceful protesters. It worked in the American South because people got angry over images of dogs and hoses used to blast unarmed innocents. It won't work for Al Qaeda because appearing like murderous jerks is what they want to be.
You don't try to convince a mad dog to stop biting people through sit-ins and peaceful protests. You get a man with a gun to shoot it in the head before it hurts more people, then you bleach the ground it lays on so the sickness doesn't spread. Turning the other cheek is good, but what do you do when the other guy decides to punch you in the other cheek too, then kick you in the ribs when you're down?
Thank you Exactly. Agreeing with melissia when she was talking about feeling sympathy for conservatives, too.
Edited for rudeness. Was in a hurry talking to someone on the same issue
Samus_aran115 wrote:Thank you Exactly. Agreeing with melissia when she was talking about feeling sympathy for conservatives, too.
Why are the american people so stupid that they actually believe that you can win wars without expending human life? It makes me laugh to hear all these people hollering about how we killed some 'poor civilian woman', and how we shouldn't have done that, bawww.
It's similar to the kinship I feel with liberals whenever I see a Toby Keith video.
reds8n wrote: I don't really think this analogy works in any, shape or form. The events on 9/11 were terrible but I don't this comparison works at all. I can appreciate that you're trying to express the affects the attack had but you're well wide of the mark here. On numerous levels. It'd be better if you chalked this one up to experience and moved on. Much obliged.
I don't know the equivalent city and structure for England, my bad.
Indeed, see a landmark or something would have been a much better comparison than the Monarch and family.
Perhaps even something like Buckingham Palace for example, rather than the actual people who, asside from being living , breathing people also fuflfill certain const. roles that the WTC et al didn't.
No worries though, no har done here.
To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
reds8n wrote: To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
Or a Hattery, or an Ornamental Lamp store, or a pocketwatch repair shop.
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
If they mess with the start of the new series of "The Apprentice" next week then there will be blood.
Realistically I think the only thing that Terrorists could do to really annoy us would be to destroy Stephen Fry, during the F.A. Cup final, if it was held on a bank holiday and this also meant that whatever Bond film was showing on the other side was cancelled as well.
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
Emirates stadium when Arsenal was playing Manchester?
Is it really silly? It's quite believeable. I've believed Bin Laden has been dead for three years of my life.
Yes it is silly, why? Because multiple reasons.
1) If Osama died when Bush was still in office, why didn't Bush throw it out there to save his ratings? He could have milked the killing for a bunch of political capital.
2) If Osama died when Bush was in office, and then Obama replaced him, why didn't OBAMA do the same thing to discredit the Republicans and earn himself political capital?
3) If Osama has been dead for years, and Obama is only releasing that info now for political reasons, why do it in the late spirng of 2011? Why not release it in summer 2012 so that it would actually help his reelection campaign?
Remeber Hanlon's Razor as quoted in my sig, never accuse malice when stupidity will suffice. I mean all the people making a big deal about contradictory details, have they never been in a situation where crap tons of information is coming in, and processing just hasn't been able to keep up? Seriously.
The burden on proof is on the conspiracy theorists to provide PROOF of the conspiracy, not simply ask questions, and then when answers aren't satisfactory declare that they're right.
halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
That why they're called dern ferreners? Maybe their Al Qaeda, infiltrating us as we speak. Sounds like a job for Real American Hero
Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.
samrtk wrote:
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
ChrisWWII wrote:1) If Osama died when Bush was still in office, why didn't Bush throw it out there to save his ratings? He could have milked the killing for a bunch of political capital.
2) If Osama died when Bush was in office, and then Obama replaced him, why didn't OBAMA do the same thing to discredit the Republicans and earn himself political capital?
3) If Osama has been dead for years, and Obama is only releasing that info now for political reasons, why do it in the late spirng of 2011? Why not release it in summer 2012 so that it would actually help his reelection campaign?
1. It would defeat the purpose behidn the war. Oil.
2. Because Obama was pretending to be a new age messiah, he couldn't be petty at the time.
3. It keeps the action going in the east? Furthering profits. Wars which have caused more loss of life than the events of 9/11.
Empathy; people over in the east, innocents, are losing loved ones too, as many did that day. Two wrongs don't make a right. War only brings more misery. Then again if Obama really cared for his country he'd end the wars, but he's not that kind of president, he's another tool out of the machine. I really hope you guys elect Ron Paul in 2012, I'm not religious, but I'll pray for that if it'll give me some faith. He's the only guy who knows what America was meant to be when it was founded.
EDIT: I'm getting off-topic so I'm going to cut myself off
samrtk wrote:Then again if Obama really cared for his country he'd end the wars, but he's not that kind of president, he's another tool out of the machine.
He would if he could, but the Syndicate keeps him from making those kind of decisions.
Cane wrote:Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.
samrtk wrote:
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
Were ya around for the Falklands War?
Good point, though I would argue that people celebrated because we won, rather than because we killed a lot of Argentinian servicemen. There wasn't a specific hate figure on whom to focus.
The worry about Bin Laden is that he wasn't crucial to Al Qaeda, and things will go on much as before, after a brief moment of euphoria.
Apparently a lot of computer data was removed. Hopefully that will be a major boost to intelligence.
I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
Another thing that came up was this letter from the Apache tribe to Obama(in the link).
Kanluwen wrote:I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
Nobody important, anyway. Though we can't say that unequivocally just yet. State legislatures, and to a lesser extent the House, tend to lag behind the news by about a month, and that's where most of the stupid comments from ppoliticians come from.
Kanluwen wrote:
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
I think my favorite part of all this is "he was buried at sea to deny his followers a shrine." Shrines don't need bodies, despite what Mao, Lenin, and Khomeini have taught us.
Cane wrote:Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.
samrtk wrote:
reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.
I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.
Were ya around for the Falklands War?
Good point, though I would argue that people celebrated because we won, rather than because we killed a lot of Argentinian servicemen. There wasn't a specific hate figure on whom to focus.
The worry about Bin Laden is that he wasn't crucial to Al Qaeda, and things will go on much as before, after a brief moment of euphoria.
Apparently a lot of computer data was removed. Hopefully that will be a major boost to intelligence.
Depends who you talked to about the War when it comes to reasons for celebration and what or who they hated.
Killing Bin Laden was the right move even if he's just a figurehead.
Listening to the press conference, man I couldn't talk to the press people all day, every day. They literally ask the same question like 5 times in a row, or with slightly different wording.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't think anyone here in the US(aside from the "Can our troops come home now? He's dead!" crowd) has been operating under the illusion that Bin Laden's death will effectively change anything.
Nobody important, anyway. Though we can't say that unequivocally just yet. State legislatures, and to a lesser extent the House, tend to lag behind the news by about a month, and that's where most of the stupid comments from politicians come from.
But this gives us a great opportunity to clean out the crazies!
Kanluwen wrote:
At most: it will offset a lot of the recruiting furor that AQ and its associated agencies were able to associate to Bin Laden.
But it'll probably be offset with a martyrdom mixtape.
I think my favorite part of all this is "he was buried at sea to deny his followers a shrine." Shrines don't need bodies, despite what Mao, Lenin, and Khomeini have taught us.
I don't think that simply "denying his followers a shrine" was the point of it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.
It also prevents anyone who didn't like him from desecrating the body any more than a pair of bullets to the face already did.
You won't see Western tourists going to the 'shrine' or tomb and violating its sanctity. You won't see people being able to turn a shrine to him into a potential target either.
Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
That doesn't mean it's right to call them Al-Qaeda in many cases.
I would hesitate to call a group Al-Qaeda in many cases, but there's a trend emerging in terrorist groups for them to call themselves Al-Qaeda affiliates to kind of increase their profile. So it does make it a bit harder for the Western media to really keep up with it.
Kanluwen wrote:
But this gives us a great opportunity to clean out the crazies!
If only that were true. The thing about politicians, despite what everyone says, is that they're generally pretty smart about appealing to the people that are keeping them in office. That's why the House and similar organizations lag behind the news by a month, they don't say thing which they believe will get them in trouble.
Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that simply "denying his followers a shrine" was the point of it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again.
It also prevents anyone who didn't like him from desecrating the body any more than a pair of bullets to the face already did.
You won't see Western tourists going to the 'shrine' or tomb and violating its sanctity. You won't see people being able to turn a shrine to him into a potential target either.
Well, unless someone builds a symbolic tomb, which may well happen, though probably not, as Al-Qaeda has never been big on that type of concrete (literally this time) symbolism. He'll end up being declared a martyr, and probably Awliyā and that will be the end of it.
But you're right, much as killing him in action was probably the best solution (can you imagine the ridiculous circus any trial would have been?) burying him at sea neatly wipes any concern over rights to the body (and there would be tons) away.
I mean, its not like we can expect everyone in the US to behave like reasonable people. Just take this guy.
Bin Laden was a military target. It's the same way a general is a military target even though he may not even be carrying a weapon.
Also, there's a difference between being unarmed and surrendering. He has to actually surrender or be "out of combat." So it's doesn't matter if he had a gun, a bomb, or a colostomy bag - he didn't surrender so you can shoot him.
In short - he's a valid military target and Navy SEALS aren't Cops. The same standards don't apply.
sexiest_hero wrote:Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
Der Spiegal made the same argument. In fact, a lot of people in the international law area tend to think that there might have been problems with the operation.
Its a gray area. Traditionally international law regarding war does permit the killing of enemy commanders in the field, but using that line of argument with respect to bin Laden stretches precedent due to the former consideration of Al-Qaeda as a group of unprotected belligerents. In essence, you cannot name bin Laden an enemy commander without first according protected status to Al-Qaeda, which itself creates a number of other problems with respect to US policy regarding terrorist detainees.
Then you get to the matter of what constitutes "in the field", when the "field" is basically "where ever person X happens to be" At which point you're not talking about any particular battle space so much as any person you don't happen to like anywhere in the world, which essentially breaks the intention of the law.
f course, someone will then make the argument that bin Laden should be considered to be, for all intents and purposes, a saboteur; opening him to summary execution. This is a nonsense argument on its face as bin Laden himself sabotaged nothing. Per international law, leaders who order acts of espionage or sabotage are not subject to punitive action.
The argument that I expect the administration will make is that bin Laden represented an existential threat to US national security (which is probably false, though not so blatantly as to be challenged) as a high ranking member of a group of unprotected enemy combatants, which will probably get them out of everything other than the issue of "in the field"; itself largely a failing of international law, rather than administration policy.
On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Kanluwen wrote:And that's why terrorism is a pain in the arse to discuss.
Especially since most people seem to stop at "terrorism is evil!" and then spend hours trying to jump through hoops in order to prove that the US, UK, France, etc. has never committed terrorist acts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:My main problem is not the operation, but the milking of it by Obama.
I am getting the impression that Obama wants us to think War on Terror was his idea.
CIA put the hours in, Seals train for and do the job, Obama stands there and says, 'look what I did'.
Obama's announcement of bin LAden's death wrote:
"Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
"We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day.
Unless, for some reason, you really expected a person in high executive office to refrain from taking credit for an executive operation which he ordered, which really rings more as personal dislike for this particular office holder than it does with respect to an abnormal degree of media presence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
How does one cite speculation? Or are you talking about the fact that they were ecstatic about his death in the hours after it was announced?
Kanluwen wrote:On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
We are reading the same data different ways.
I am pretty sure Obama is milking it, declaring the news personally rather than through a military spokesman or state official. Making the point that 'he' gave the capture of Bin Laden as the highest priority, excuse me if i thought that Bush did that asnd Obama inherited. Showing all those photos of him in the White House ops room.
However the fact that he pissed off a foreign government unnecessarily and opened himself up to questions of heavy handedness, isn't that also typical Obama.
At a minimum he should have phoned the Pakistani government and advised them of the operation while it was ongoing, not doing so is a veiled accusation of collusion, which is grossly unfair. Bin Laden 'hid in plain sight', which is not a bad tactic really, and while some local persons probably knew he was there it does not of itself mean government collusion. After all the Pakistanis didn't know he was there for five-six years and this is understadable as after all the US government didnt know either, or this would have happened back then.
No Obama didn't go in with the Pakistanis because he didn't want to share a result. The data recovered from the compound is rightfully Pakistani police security services evidence, I doubt they or anyone else will see raw data. What Obama did there is the sort of stuff you only do if the state you are operating in is itself hostile.
Pakistan is not a hostile state, sure there are hostiles there, and the fact than the Pakistani government has done what it can to help defeat Al Quaeda and the Taliban at great cost to itself should not go un-noticed, let alone completely pissed on. Obama did all this purely because he wanted his mid term poll boost.
As far as the 'illegal killing' part I think the operation was more fethed up than the US is willing to admit. Trying Obama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows, not just what his hard disk does. It also denies him a martryrs death. The official let alone unofficial story has changed, with White House officials saying he was 'killed in action', trying to shoot, cowering behind his wife and now shot while unarmed. Did a Seal panic? If he was offered surrender and refused to do so and was unarmed, isn't that when rifle butts come in handy? Why bother asking for his surrender.
The story is changing because of public perceptions of it, the last thing the US wants to for Bin Laden to become a martyr, which they could have very neatly avoided by capturing him alive. Making him out to be a coward was one approach, but that appears not to have washed beyond one day when the eye witnesses in Pakistani custody started to speak.
With the operation being as tightly controlled as it was, visibly hands on and top heavy, why cant the White House gets its story right first time?
I don't smell conspiracy but I do smell a botched spin job. At first it was OBL dying with his boots on gun in hand, when that didnt give the right message he was cowering behind his wife, when that was proven untrue he was found and asked to surrender then shot twice when he did not. I don't give a feth about his rights for a trial, it was a war situation, he only gets those rights once captured, but more care should have been exercised to get him alive. Its not like the American horde didnt have enough troops in the area to do that.
Kanluwen wrote:Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
Cite? Or are you just engaging in random bashing of Fox?
How does one cite speculation? Or are you talking about the fact that they were ecstatic about his death in the hours after it was announced?
Speculation? What speculation? The poster made an affirmative statement, "Fox is already calling it an 'illegal killing.'" I am simply asking for validation of that statement.
The only comment I have seen on Fox is Shep Smith asking if the legality of the issue has been addressed by the administration, since some have already called this illegal (e.g. Human Rights watch, cited above). Napolitano appeared to give an analysis of the issue according to international law. But that wasn't on Fox.
sexiest_hero wrote:Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
Der Spiegal made the same argument. In fact, a lot of people in the international law area tend to think that there might have been problems with the operation.
I wipe my ass with their opinions. Give them a gun, drop them from a helicopter into Osama's compound and see what their opinion is. If I am in any way unclear - them and the horses they rode in on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:My main problem is not the operation, but the milking of it by Obama.
I am getting the impression that Obama wants us to think War on Terror was his idea.
CIA put the hours in, Seals train for and do the job, Obama stands there and says, 'look what I did'.
Kanluwen wrote:On the contrary, he was far from milking it.
He's made it clear that it was his decision to break conventional protocol and keep the Pakistanis out of the loop.
He's basically taking all the blame onto his head.
Fox is already calling it an "illegal killing" now that he's taking responsibility for it, when if Bush had done it they would have been claiming it was the most righteous kill in the world. Hell, Sunday night they were ecstatic about it.
We are reading the same data different ways.
I am pretty sure Obama is milking it, declaring the news personally rather than through a military spokesman or state official. Making the point that 'he' gave the capture of Bin Laden as the highest priority, excuse me if i thought that Bush did that and Obama inherited. Showing all those photos of him in the White House ops room.
Why wouldn't he declare the news personally?
You're really reading far too much into his point about "the capture of Bin Laden was the highest priority".
But I'll play that game if you want to. The context of the speech made it clear that it wasn't his administration's entire goal. It was the goal of this operation. Bin Laden wasn't captured, but he also didn't get away.
Sorry, how many "photos of him in the White House ops room" are there? I've only seen the one making the rounds.
However the fact that he pissed off a foreign government unnecessarily and opened himself up to questions of heavy handedness, isn't that also typical Obama.
Yes, because he's done that so oft...wait a second.
At a minimum he should have phoned the Pakistani government and advised them of the operation while it was ongoing, not doing so is a veiled accusation of collusion, which is grossly unfair.
It may be, but the fact of the matter is that the Pakistani government leaks like a submarine with a screen door. Add to it that this seems to have been finessed from intelligence that pointed at vagueries and a 'chance' that it would happen, then it's likely that this was confirmed at the last second and ST6 trained for the eventuality. The compound had already been earmarked as suspicious. It was raided back in 2005-2006 in fact.
Bin Laden 'hid in plain sight', which is not a bad tactic really, and while some local persons probably knew he was there it does not of itself mean government collusion. After all the Pakistanis didn't know he was there for five-six years and this is understadable as after all the US government didn't know either, or this would have happened back then.
You're right, the Pakistani government as a whole likely did not know OBL was there. But that's not to say that individuals within the government did not.
No Obama didn't go in with the Pakistanis because he didn't want to share a result. The data recovered from the compound is rightfully Pakistani police security services evidence, I doubt they or anyone else will see raw data. What Obama did there is the sort of stuff you only do if the state you are operating in is itself hostile.
No, it's what you see done when the state you're operating in is notoriously fractured and full of potential security leaks.
Pakistan is not a hostile state, sure there are hostiles there, and the fact than the Pakistani government has done what it can to help defeat Al Quaeda and the Taliban at great cost to itself should not go un-noticed, let alone completely pissed on. Obama did all this purely because he wanted his mid term poll boost.
And yet, it didn't do anything to really boost him in the polls. It boosted the perception of him in the idea of his stance on terrorism and sure pissed off a lot of the "he hates America!" people. By and large though, the majority of people who didn't like him--still don't.
As far as the 'illegal killing' part I think the operation was more fethed up than the US is willing to admit. Trying Osama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows, not just what his hard disk does. It also denies him a martryrs death.
Yeah...no. We've already talked about this in detail.
1)Any trial would have been horribly biased. No matter what, the chances of finding an impartial jury or judge would be impossible--unless you were to have an all-Arabic jury/judge involved...which would still be a horribly impartial way to do it, just in the opposite direction.
2)The trial would have been a fething circus. Remember Saddam's trial? Or his resultant execution?
3) He's going to be considered a martyr, no matter what. He could have been tried in Amazingland by a unicorn, the Easter Bunny, and Mohammed and the people who would declare him a martyr still would consider him a martyr.
4) It wasn't just one hard disk. It was something like 10 laptops, hundreds of CDs, buckets full of thumbdrives, and cell phones loaded with numbers. That alone is going to take months to comb through.
The official let alone unofficial story has changed, with White House officials saying he was 'killed in action', trying to shoot, cowering behind his wife and now shot while unarmed. Did a Seal panic? If he was offered surrender and refused to do so and was unarmed, isn't that when rifle butts come in handy? Why bother asking for his surrender.
The story is changing because of public perceptions of it
The story is changing because of the White House getting full, complete briefings. To say it's because of public perceptions is ludicrous, especially when the first story made it appeal to everyone in the West.
the last thing the US wants to for Bin Laden to become a martyr, which they could have very neatly avoided by capturing him alive.
Yeah...see above.
Making him out to be a coward was one approach, but that appears not to have washed beyond one day when the eye witnesses in Pakistani custody started to speak.
With the operation being as tightly controlled as it was, visibly hands on and top heavy, why cant the White House gets its story right first time?
Because you're expecting something far more than is possible. The first reports came, at best, half an hour after the operation was over and they'd returned to Bagram Air Base.
I don't smell conspiracy but I do smell a botched spin job. At first it was OBL dying with his boots on gun in hand, when that didnt give the right message he was cowering behind his wife, when that was proven untrue he was found and asked to surrender then shot twice when he did not.
How was that "proven untrue"? I don't see any footage detailing it. The only "proof" of it being untrue is coming from the SEALs and their afteraction report.
I don't give a feth about his rights for a trial, it was a war situation, he only gets those rights once captured, but more care should have been exercised to get him alive. Its not like the American horde didnt have enough troops in the area to do that.
24 guys storming a compound with 18 people inside, not including children.
biccat wrote:
Speculation? What speculation? The poster made an affirmative statement, "Fox is already calling it an 'illegal killing.'" I am simply asking for validation of that statement.
I assumed you were questioning the "If Bush had been in office..." part of the comment.
biccat wrote:
The only comment I have seen on Fox is Shep Smith asking if the legality of the issue has been addressed by the administration, since some have already called this illegal (e.g. Human Rights watch, cited above). Napolitano appeared to give an analysis of the issue according to international law. But that wasn't on Fox.
Unless that is some other Network tag in the bottom left of the video. He explicitly calls the killings unlawful, and states that Obama violated the rule of law.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The various constituent parts, varied and disparate, of the entity that the West has chosen to label "Al Quaeda." Members of that "organisation" come from a variety pf places and backgrounds, and have a varied history. Even larger groups like "The Taliban" are not as straightforward to categorize as people choose to believe. That is the way of Afghan politics though. In the west there is a tendency to oversimplify such things. Clearly my attempt to simplify matters instead of saying:
Al'Qaeda chose the name themselves. They also had nothing to do with "Afghan politics" at their formation.
"What did they call the loose affiliate of tribesmen who were titled Mujahideen who then went on in some parts to be Taliban but are mostly just, but not all Pashtun tribesmen, some of whom support or are members of some of the groups that make up the entity commonly known in the west as Al Quaeda...when the CIA were helping to train and supply them to fight against the Soviets...?" failed, so now I've had to make an even longer post explaining that as well.
And your explanation is still wrong.
And France and Spain? Because clearly the recognition and subsequent interference of two of the British Empires greatest opponents is going to make the Crown feel that the colonials are legit.
Which is still irrelevant to the main point that you completely failed to grasp.
The Continental Congress and Army followed all the 'rules of war' that were laid down at that time. The only exception was that there were militias that fought alongside them, but weren't necessarily sponsored or actively recruited.
Was the Taliban regime any more or less legitimate because it was recognised by only a handful of Arab states? Is Myanmar Burma or Myanmar because the UK will not recognise the sovereignty of its new regime?
Now you're splitting hairs, but the Taliban regime was recognized by more than "a handful of Arab states".
But really. You're clogging up the thread with garbage. Stop.
I would love to see where you are getting your history from, because its markedly different to anything I've ever seen/learned/googled. Though the American school system does tend to teach matters differently than in other places. And I know that to be fact. Students from the UK who I know personally have gone to the US, and been taught a "different" history, in much the same way as its different in India, or China, or wherever.
But of course, none of the members of Al Quaeda are Afghans, or ex-Mujahadeen. And you know this because... ?
Orlanth wrote:
That was how Saddam's capture was announced. US forces in Iraq found him, it was announced by a press conference by US officials in Iraq:
Bush profited in the polls for this, but he didn't make any initial announcement himself. Obama is grandstanding on others hard work.
So which JSOC or CIA official would you have preferred to see announce this?
I mean, forget the fact that both organizations lack any sort of public relations department, because they don't have public relations, and just consider that they both report directly to either the President, or his Cabinet.
This wasn't a military operation conducted via vague guidance from the President's office, this was an operation which he ordered directly, and which circumvents any sort of military chain of command.
dogma wrote:Unless that is some other Network tag in the bottom left of the video. He explicitly calls the killings unlawful, and states that Obama violated the rule of law.
The quote I saw was from his radio show. But like I said, he was providing a legal analysis (whether it's a good analysis or not is up for debate), not just throwing out an unsubstantiated allegation. If you want to attack his conclusion, you should attack his rationale.
Also, Napolitano has been consistent against "targetted killings" (drone strikes) and (IIRC) against the Iraq war as a whole. So I don't see this as a substantial change in his position.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
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.
Which side is 'right' is not just some arbitrary argument here as its pretty well defined. Al Qaeda and the Taliban targeted innocent civilians(don't try to argue the terms of their innocence, they were just plain innocent) and we haven't directly targeted innocent civilians on purpose. We've had some isolated mistakes and we've also had collateral damage, but note we have never targeted exclusively civilians on purpose or had the death of civilians as a goal. If killing the innocent is wrong to you, and one side targets the innocent then I would have to say that the side targeting civilians is wrong.
Those cheering on the 9/11 bombers are cheering on the death of the innocent and are in the wrong. Those who get mad that their relatives are killed by collateral is incredibly understandable,but as soon as they decide to take up arms and target the innocent with their terrorist friends they are in the wrong. Besides, its kind of hard to murder someone on the other side in a fire fight.
Osama was not innocent, we know he wasn't innocent so anything he gets he deserves. He deserves to be dragged through the streets, but last I recall we gave him a burial at sea following islamic customs. If killing a man who is a self professed murderer without trial counts as murder, then I guess we murdered the hell out of him and we don't regret it.
So come off of your 'justice' high horse, your idealistic theory of what justice should be isn't the truth of the world and will never be the truth of the world. Everybody is inherently evil, its just that some are less evil.
As far as everything else goes Arbeits, we gave the Mujahadin stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet Hinds that were emasculating the Mujahadin fighters. Hadn't we done that the Soviets probably would've won seeing as though they don't believe in giving murderers the same rights we do.
Kind of like how the English government gave arms to the South during our Civil War, you know the side that supported slavery?
I'm perfectly aware of why America supported the Mujahadeen. I'm also aware that its irrelevant to the point I was making. So is us siding with the South.
Innocent is relative to what the accuser believes you have done. Clearly the "enemy2 do not and have never perceived the American population as "innocent" in American foreign activities. That isn't my opinion, its just the way of things. Its a very large part of the reason why there is a conflict to begin with.
Its all really very simple. Murdering murderers lowers you to their level. Its the reason why lynch mobs are illegal, and why only the courts have the right to dispense justice. It might not fit your world view, but by the standards of your world view, it seems that only people you decide deserve justice are worthy of it.
sexiest_hero wrote:Well Given His track record. When Obama says he is going to kill someone they are dead. Fox news has started calling this. Th Illegal killing of Bil Laden.
Der Spiegal made the same argument. In fact, a lot of people in the international law area tend to think that there might have been problems with the operation.
I wipe my ass with their opinions. Give them a gun, drop them from a helicopter into Osama's compound and see what their opinion is. If I am in any way unclear - them and the horses they rode in on.
True.
With such a visibly 'hands on' Commander-In-Chief it is harder for the guy on the ground to get the job done. I wonder if Obama understands what his military role is, being the point of loyalty for the military machine, no more no less. He is a lawyer not a general.
I am not suprised 30+ armed men with complete suprise failed to bring in Bin Laden, too much interference.
Case study on misunderstanding the presidents role in military operations:
[dogma]
This wasn't a military operation conducted via vague guidance from the President's office, this was an operation which he ordered directly, and which circumvents any sort of military chain of command.[/dogma]
I am no fan of the Israelis but I think Obama needsd to copy thier example here, a politican needs to have the balls to launch an operation, ok Obama had that, but to getting OBL has a lot of levity included so its no great feat of political courage to call that one. Once the decision by the (Israeli) politicians is made they sit back and let their military do the job. This sound advice is millenia old:
"He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign." - Sun Tzu
So what has General Obama achieved.
1. Killed OBL - that was easy. The guy was holed up like a rat they had number and suprise. The master work part of that was finding the git.
2. Totally pissed off and humiliated their Pakistani allies. Thats 100% Obama. If Bin Ladens compound was in Iran or Libya or Afghanistan going in solo with no word to anyone would be the correct thing to do. But in allied territory
3. Grossly flounted international law. Not by abusing Bin ladens rights, feth him, thasts a technicality, but by treading all over Pakistani sovereignty. Noone would have gainsayed US forces being the arresting/assaulting force, but this was clearly Pakistani jurisdiction, and even if Bin Ladens 'ass' belongs to the USA all captured materiel should be shared with the national government and they should have been brought in at a late stage. On that note Obama could learn from the Israelis again, who habitually inform foreign governments of what they are doing, when it is too late for them to effect the outcome but with enough time to claim cooperation afterwards.
Pakistan pulled it weight for the US in the past, and present, and it costs them to do so. It isn't a distant problem to them, but a very much local one, they have lost senior politicans to assassination amd threat of assassination because they backed the US. Obama's self serving theatrics likely cost a valued ally. The previous US administration trusted Pakistan to arrest active and senior Al Quaeda members before and hand them over Rashid Rauf comes to mind here, and unlike Bin Laden he was a Pakistani national. And at the time of his arrest Rauf was the mastermind behind the most dangerous known Al Quaeda operation since 9/11, the 2006 liquid bomb plot, which if actioned would have brought down seven air liners over the Atlantic in a single coordinated attack.
Now the Pakistani government is in gak that wont wash off, and some are outwardly accusing them of collaboration with Al Quaeda.
Yes, Orlanth, and if you read the rest of the thread, and saw the earlier photo, it's clear that Obama gave the go order, then let the military personnel do their job while he watched. That shot shows his chair even pushed back from the table.
The way i see it, it hard to dance wuith qa monkey on your back. With such a visibly 'hands on' Commander-In-Chief it is harder for the guy on the ground to get the job done. I wonder if Obama understands what his military role is, being the point of loyalty for the military machine, no more no less. He is a lawyer not a general.
I am no fan of the Israelis but I think Obama needs to copy their example here, a politican needs to have the balls to launch an operation, ok Obama had that, but to getting OBL has a lot of levity included so its no great feat of political courage to call that one. Once the decision by the (Israeli) politicians is made they sit back and let their military do the job. This sound advice is millenia old:
"He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign." - Sun Tzu
You realize that's basically exactly what Obama's been doing, right?
Obama was watching the operation. There's nothing wrong with that. He wasn't calling the shots on the operation when it was actually going on.
Orlanth wrote:
Making the point that 'he' gave the capture of Bin Laden as the highest priority, excuse me if i thought that Bush did that asnd Obama inherited.
Intelligence policy isn't the same as military policy. Presidents can't end wars at the drop of a hat, but if they don't want to chase one guy around the globe its just about as simple as saying so because the infrastructural inertia isn't there. Obama could very easily have ended the search for bin Laden, instead he chose to continue it, you can call that inheritance if you want, but doing so is just foolish rhetoric that aims at minimizing the agency of the person who has been in charge for the last 2 years.
Orlanth wrote:
At a minimum he should have phoned the Pakistani government and advised them of the operation while it was ongoing, not doing so is a veiled accusation of collusion, which is grossly unfair.
That's nonsense. Its a comment on the unreliable information security that the Pakistani state is infamous for.
Seriously, the only way you could begin to think that the decision to refrain from contact was unfair is if you know absolutely nothing about the Pakistani government, and the role which the military and ISI play in undermining its authority.
Orlanth wrote:
What Obama did there is the sort of stuff you only do if the state you are operating in is itself hostile.
Large chunks of the Pakistani government, and even larger chunks of its military and intelligence services are hostile
Orlanth wrote:
As far as the 'illegal killing' part I think the operation was more fethed up than the US is willing to admit. Trying Obama would have been a far better prize, for a start you get to find out what he knows, not just what his hard disk does. It also denies him a martryrs death.
Do you have any idea what a media circus his trial would have been? Do you have any idea how much controversy it would have created? Far more than bin Laden's death has, or will.
On the bold bit: the b isn't very close to the s.
Orlanth wrote:
I don't smell conspiracy but I do smell a botched spin job. At first it was OBL dying with his boots on gun in hand, when that didnt give the right message he was cowering behind his wife, when that was proven untrue he was found and asked to surrender then shot twice when he did not.
I've only seen one official version of the story, the last one, all the others have been "as reported by" which is basically meaningless given that reporters will often take liberties in order to break stories.
As an aside, I'm starting to wonder if the Pakistanis aren't misinterpreting Panetti's statement and them being cut out of the loop.
It may be less of a case of "we don't trust the Pakistanis" and more of a case of "We don't want the target to start getting suspicious as to why the Pakistani military are watching the compound".
Orlanth wrote: With such a visibly 'hands on' Commander-In-Chief it is harder for the guy on the ground to get the job done. I wonder if Obama understands what his military role is, being the point of loyalty for the military machine, no more no less. He is a lawyer not a general.
And at this point its clear you have no idea what you're talking about, which is basically par for the course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:As an aside, I'm starting to wonder if the Pakistanis aren't misinterpreting Panetti's statement and them being cut out of the loop.
It may be less of a case of "we don't trust the Pakistanis" and more of a case of "We don't want the target to start getting suspicious as to why the Pakistani military are watching the compound".
I can almost guarantee that its the former, and its perfectly reasonable given the state of the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus.
halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
biccat wrote:
The quote I saw was from his radio show. But like I said, he was providing a legal analysis (whether it's a good analysis or not is up for debate), not just throwing out an unsubstantiated allegation. If you want to attack his conclusion, you should attack his rationale.
I don't think it was meant as an attack on his conclusion, but an attack based on speculation as to how he would have behaved had a Republican been in office.
biccat wrote:
Also, Napolitano has been consistent against "targetted killings" (drone strikes) and (IIRC) against the Iraq war as a whole. So I don't see this as a substantial change in his position.
I don't watch his show, or really pay him any attention, was he of that mind when Bush was President?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:"Innocent is relative to what the accuser believes you have done. "
Mmmm...no.
Uh, yes. If you accuse someone of killing person X, and they in fact killed person Y, then that person is innocent of the crime you accused them of.
It's amusing the flak that the usual suspects are giving Orlanth for suggesting that Obama is making political hay from this.
Of course Obama is using the death of Bin Laden for political reasons, he's a politician first and foremost. He is getting political benefit from it, and he is right to get political benefit from it. The operation occurred during his term, so using it to pad his resume isn't a bad idea. He is getting plenty of blame for high gas prices and a bad economy, which are largely out of his control as well.
Whether Obama deserves credit for the action (according to Panetta, the intel that led to this was obtained during the Bush years) is another question entirely. I don't think he deserves credit any more than he does for the Somali pirate situation, but he's going to get it, and it's not totally inappropriate.
Although Orlath does raise some points about how the administration botched the spin job on this. They should have had all of the important decisions down before going to the press: what to do with the body, whether to release photographs, what the order was [kill/capture] and how to frame the actual assault and killing.
But it has been amateur hour at the Obama White House since Day 1, and given some of the other missteps by this administration, this one isn't too bad.
Mannahnin wrote:
Much of it is factually inaccurate, and the rest is largely taking the worst possible spin on things.
Care to elaborate?
Mannahnin wrote:
If you can actually watch Obama's speech and then type that stuff....
I'm almost speechless.
Yes, combined with what he actually did. Most notably removed Pakistan entirely from the loop regarding an operation on their soil.
Kanluwen wrote:
It may be, but the fact of the matter is that the Pakistani government leaks like a submarine with a screen door.
Case in point. Do you have any reason to denounce the entire fething Pakistani government in this manner?
Obama like other world leaders has top level access, the information exchange would occur well above the level of local officials with questionable loyalty. Yes all nations operate for themselves so traditionally a government is brought in very late into discussions of this kind. It would have done Pakistan no favours for the literally two or three people who would be in on it to betray Obama. The US would choose which Pakistani observers came on the job, and they would not know what the job was themselves until the last minute, with the target being who he was that would not be an unusual step.
After all most operations of this kind with an allied government follow on broadly similar terms.
People get all 'sad' because I see through the happy time with Obama, and yet this is a diplomatic crudstorm that has been opened and it could have been avoided if a little less grandstanding was involved.
biccat wrote:It's amusing the flak that the usual suspects are giving Orlanth for suggesting that Obama is making political hay from this.
Of course Obama is using the death of Bin Laden for political reasons, he's a politician first and foremost. He is getting political benefit from it, and he is right to get political benefit from it.
Obviously, I never meant to suggest that he wasn't. I meant only to suggest that it is a strange thing to be annoyed that a politician is taking advantage of a successful military operation in order raise his approval numbers.
Kanluwen wrote:
It may be, but the fact of the matter is that the Pakistani government leaks like a submarine with a screen door.
Case in point. Do you have any reason to denounce the entire fething Pakistani government in this manner?
I'm not denouncing "the entire fething Pakistani government".
I'm simply stating a well-known, and repeatedly reiterated fact that has been around since the Bush administration. There are factions within the Pakistani government that had sympathies towards Islamic extremism. There are also factions within the Pakistani government that are very much in our corner--but also believe in fairness and share that information with the faction that has no problems warning people who we'd be after.
Orlanth wrote:
Case in point. Do you have any reason to denounce the entire fething Pakistani government in this manner?
Evidently the US government does. I know you'll leap to a conclusion based on state incompetence, but that is unwarranted. It may be that the Administration did not fully appreciate the diplomatic gravity of the situation, or it may be that they had legitimate reason to suspect that notifying the Pakistani state was ill-advised. One could make an argument for either.
Orlanth wrote:
Obama like other world leaders has top level access, the information exchange would occur well above the level of local officials with questionable loyalty.
You're speaking as though it would be impossible for leaks to exist in the upper echelons of the state.
Orlanth wrote:
It would have done Pakistan no favours for the literally two or three people who would be in on it to betray Obama. The US would choose which Pakistani observers came on the job, and they would not know what the job was themselves until the last minute, with the target being who he was that would not be an unusual step.
If you're talking about observers, then you're immediately including more than two or three people, given that its unlikey that Zardari would be going on the raid, or directly communicating with the chosen few.
Orlanth wrote:
People get all 'sad' because I see through the happy time with Obama, and yet this is a diplomatic crudstorm that has been opened and it could have been avoided if a little less grandstanding was involved.
Actually, people get annoyed because you attempt to deflect criticism of your position by stating that people are blinded by the "happy time with Obama". It makes your position feel more like a conspiracy rant than analysis.
I'm also slightly confused as to why you're blaming any grandstanding for this, as all that happened well after the deed was done. Adding a line like "And thank you to the nation of Pakistan" was hardly going to have a material effect on the political result of this.
In any case, as has been discussed by several US officials, the CIA had advised the Administration that cooperating with Pakistan presented a risk to the mission. Pretending that this was about sharing credit, or at least only about sharing credit is myopic.
dogma wrote:
That's nonsense. Its a comment on the unreliable information security that the Pakistani state is infamous for.
Ho hum, English comprehension is not your strong point.
Most governments don't exactly trust each other, but cooperation exists, if you want cooperation to work you break the news late and at a very high level and make sure that only a very small shortlist of people get in on the info.
dogma wrote:
Seriously, the only way you could begin to think that the decision to refrain from contact was unfair is if you know absolutely nothing about the Pakistani government, and the role which the military and ISI play in undermining its authority......Large chunks of the Pakistani government, and even larger chunks of its military and intelligence services are hostile
Rashid Rauf, look up his case.
Very prominent and unlike Bin laden active terrorist at the time of his arrest (Bin Laden is important but as a figurehead Rauf was actively controlling operations). the US requested an arrest, Pakistan did as requested. You honestly think there is noone Obama could approach in Pakistan, or think its a good idea to give that impression to the entire fething planet?
dogma wrote:
I've only seen one official version of the story, the last one, all the others have been "as reported by" which is basically meaningless given that reporters will often take liberties in order to break stories.
Which one is that?
- The comments that Bin Laden went down shooting came from an 'unnamed Pentagon official'.
- The one from John Brennan where he was cowering behind his wife.
- Jay Carney said his wife rushed the soldiers and Bin Laden was unarmed.
There has been a lot of 'clarification' of the story about how Bin laden was resisting, initially it was strongly implied he was armed, Jay Carney indicated that he was merely non-cooperative. Jay Carney also 'clarified' John Brennans comments about Bin laden cowering behind his wife, however why make such comments to begin with. its not unreaonable to suggest that the spin was mishandled, and we should not discount the manner of Bin ladens death, how he is buried and how that is reported to its propoganda value. I don't blame Obama directly for mishandling the subsequent press releases, but the varied press contradictory conferences, though as the give the initial press conference he has added himself to the list of faces that together do not add up to a single consistent story.
One of the poorer results regarding Bin Ladens legacy with jihadists is if he can be considered a martyr, yet slurred by his opponents; which look like the case here. While disrespecting Bin Ladens memory may be far from most citizens priorities it is considered important enough that the funeral arrangements were carried out according to a preset policy on the Carl Vinson.
-The comments that Bin Laden "went down shooting" came from an unnamed Pentagon official. They also were made a mere hour after the raid.
-The one from John Brennan where he "was cowering behind his wife" has further been clarified to point out that it WASN'T OBL that did it, but one of his couriers who did it.
There's not "varied press contradictory conferences". He made it very clear in the first speech that the statements would change as those involved were debriefed.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era) but there's not as many Real IRA fellows around now are there? Besides, you use a country as a slave force for so long and they're bound to retaliate.
Orlanth wrote: Once the decision by the (Israeli) politicians is made they sit back and let their military do the job.
Yes, and that's what happened in this case. He didn't plan the operation, at most he issued a kill order with respect to bin Laden, and if he did there is no proof to substantiate that fact.
Orlanth wrote:
2. Totally pissed off and humiliated their Pakistani allies. Thats 100% Obama. If Bin Ladens compound was in Iran or Libya or Afghanistan going in solo with no word to anyone would be the correct thing to do. But in allied territory
Given the degree of distrust within the US regarding Pakistan's intelligence offices, and really just the government in general, this isn't surprising. Pakistan is an ally some of the time, and not others. Presuming that their relationship with the United States is at all secure is not reflected in the history of relations between the two states.
Orlanth wrote:
3. Grossly flounted international law. Not by abusing Bin ladens rights, feth him, thasts a technicality, but by treading all over Pakistani sovereignty. Noone would have gainsayed US forces being the arresting/assaulting force, but this was clearly Pakistani jurisdiction, and even if Bin Ladens 'ass' belongs to the USA all captured materiel should be shared with the national government and they should have been brought in at a late stage.
Yes, but the argument here is that the traditional understanding of sovereignty is not reflective of the contemporary realities in many parts of the world.
Orlanth wrote:
Pakistan pulled it weight for the US in the past, and present, and it costs them to do so. It isn't a distant problem to them, but a very much local one, they have lost senior politicans to assassination amd threat of assassination because they backed the US. Obama's self serving theatrics likely cost a valued ally. The previous US administration trusted Pakistan to arrest active and senior Al Quaeda members before and hand them over Rashid Rauf comes to mind here, and unlike Bin Laden he was a Pakistani national. And at the time of his arrest Rauf was the mastermind behind the most dangerous known Al Quaeda operation since 9/11, the 2006 liquid bomb plot, which if actioned would have brought down seven air liners over the Atlantic in a single coordinated attack.
Pakistan claimed that the Rauf strike infringed on its sovereignty as well.
Sherry Rehman, the Pakistani information minister, told The Sunday Telegraph: “Sources have confirmed to us that Rashid Rauf and al-Masri were the targets and they have been killed. However, it would have been better if Pakistani authorities had been alerted for local action. Drone incursions create a strong backlash.”
dogma wrote:
If you're talking about observers, then you're immediately including more than two or three people, given that its unlikey that Zardari would be going on the raid, or directly communicating with the chosen few.
Obama talks to Zardani in person on hotline: gist of conversation we think we have found Bin laden, we request your 'help'.
Official from US embassy or brought in talks to Zardani with a limited brief, no direct information. One or two agreed very senior generals/politicians are brought in on the broader secret.
One the day of the attack the information is actioned and the senior general has prepped two or three military personnel from an agreed shortlist who observe the operation in some capacity. They dont know what they are doing until they are in a helicopter or otherwise surrounded by US military officials, and are thus not counted amongst the two or three persons in the Pakistani government who are 'in on it'. All they know is that they were given a direct order from the very senior general who is.
that is enough to keep Pakistan in the loop officially.
If you want a real life example of how that works in actuality, the Uk released information on the 2006 liquid bomb plot this year and the cross Atlantic cooperation involved. Even though the US and Uk are more matched on the War on Terror than the US-Pakistani cooperation is likely to be because it was a Uk operation only a very small list of person in the US were on the need to know.
From the interviews of US and Uk officials involved who seemingly contradictory details emerge, the Uk drafted in over 200 extra police with surveillance experience to work on monitoring the terrorist plotters, yet when the US Secretary of State informed President Bush he prepared the Powerpoint presentation himself and normally very senior officials ran the slide projector because they has no authority to bring staff into the loop. Thus an operation iknown to several hundred people in the Uk, many of them not senior and only a very slender handful in the US.
This was because it was a UK operation (and I must add on UK soil), I have heard nothing to indicate this was unique, merely a good example of the truism that a grass roots operation from one country might be cleared for access at only the very highest level in another.
Now there are differences, the US was informed because US flights were targeted, wheras this operation was to be carried out in foreign soil. Normally this might entail a higher degree of cooperation, but as security concerns are raised I can see Obama deciding to include Pakistani authorities only at a select level.
To have excluded Zardani himself is an insult, a strong personal implication that he cannot be trusted, or that he is inseperable from persons who cannot be trusted. And from clear example it is possible to have officially included Pakistan in the loop while only informing a very small number of people, who need not know everything or long in advance, or in the case of those junior officials ordered to assist by the Pakistani government know anything at all.
dogma wrote:
Yes, but the argument here is that the traditional understanding of sovereignty is not reflective of the contemporary realities in many parts of the world.
In other words, they are only Pakistanis, feth their sovereign rights.
Might there be a connection between that attitude and a lack of support/trust/cooperation.
Orlanth wrote:
Ho hum, English comprehension is not your strong point.
Most governments don't exactly trust each other, but cooperation exists, if you want cooperation to work you break the news late and at a very high level and make sure that only a very small shortlist of people get in on the info.
That has nothing at all to do with the comment you quoted. You said that the refusal to share information with Pakistan represented a tacit accusation regarding their collusion with Al-Qaeda. I said that, no, it merely implies that they have poor information security within their intelligence arm (many former members of which are high-ranking government officials). I understood your point perfectly, its simply that it was nonsense, as I said.
As to sharing information with high level officials: the point that I, and several other posters here, (and the Leon Panetta) have been making is that, apparently, the US government does not feel it can trust Pakistan, even at the highest echelons. If they did, it islikely that they would have shared the information.
You're taking what may have been a calculated choice and chalking it up to incompetence, which is incredibly foolish given that the US has a long, and recently unintentionally public, history of distrust with respect to Pakistan.
Orlanth wrote:
Rashid Rauf, look up his case.
Very prominent and unlike Bin laden active terrorist at the time of his arrest (Bin Laden is important but as a figurehead Rauf was actively controlling operations). the US requested an arrest, Pakistan did as requested.
Yes, then they lost custody of him, and the CIA killed him with a hellfire missile.
Orlanth wrote:
You honestly think there is noone Obama could approach in Pakistan, or think its a good idea to give that impression to the entire fething planet?
No, I'm merely stating that its possible given that such was the conclusion of the administration, at least with respect to the first bit. The issue of giving a certain an impression to other nations is collateral to the initial decision regarding trustworthiness.
I mean think about this, if the Administration approached Zardari and stated that this attack was going to occur, then he is left with two choices: bring in other Pakistani officials in order to cover himself, or let it remain secret, in which case he still has to contend with past allegations that the US violates Pakistani sovereignty. And, of course, that's assuming he ascents at all.
Orlanth wrote:
- The comments that Bin Laden went down shooting came from an 'unnamed Pentagon official'.
And? That certainly wasn't said during a press conference. Simply because an official says something it does not follow that it is an official statement.
Orlanth wrote:
- The one from John Brennan where he was cowering behind his wife.
“From a visual perspective, here is bin Laden ... living in this million dollar-plus compound ... hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years,"
That's what Brennan actually said. In that context it relates to the fact that he was living with his wives, not that he cowered behind them during the attack.
Orlanth wrote:
- Jay Carney said his wife rushed the soldiers and Bin Laden was unarmed.
Yes, that is the official account I was talking about.
Orlanth wrote:
its not unreaonable to suggest that the spin was mishandled, and we should not discount the manner of Bin ladens death, how he is buried and how that is reported to its propoganda value. I don't blame Obama directly for mishandling the subsequent press releases, but the varied press contradictory conferences, though as the give the initial press conference he has added himself to the list of faces that together do not add up to a single consistent story.
I don't see how this particular bit of spin was especially bad. A senior official said outside of press conference that bin Laden went down shooting, given that his body guard did, apparently, open fire I see no problem with this. It is not uncommon to refer to the entourage of an HVT by the HVT's name, just as Presidential Administrations are often called by the name of the President. Brennan made a normative statement which he probably shouldn't have, though I suspect he was emotionally invested in this particular operation, so that can be forgiven; especially seeing as it could be interpreted very loosely. Carney's story is perfectly fine, and doesn't contradict any of the others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Obama talks to Zardani in person on hotline: gist of conversation we think we have found Bin laden, we request your 'help'.
Official from US embassy or brought in talks to Zardani with a limited brief, no direct information. One or two agreed very senior generals/politicians are brought in on the broader secret.
One the day of the attack the information is actioned and the senior general has prepped two or three military personnel from an agreed shortlist who observe the operation in some capacity. They dont know what they are doing until they are in a helicopter or otherwise surrounded by US military officials, and are thus not counted amongst the two or three persons in the Pakistani government who are 'in on it'. All they know is that they were given a direct order from the very senior general who is.
that is enough to keep Pakistan in the loop officially.
Its also likely too much to keep the action classified. You severely underestimate how little the US thinks of the Pakistani government, and how much evidence they have to support their position. Seriously, just sorting through the diplomatic cables that Wikileaks brought to light paints a very negative image of that state.
Orlanth wrote:
And from clear example it is possible to have officially included Pakistan in the loop while only informing a very small number of people, who need not know everything or long in advance, or in the case of those junior officials ordered to assist by the Pakistani government know anything at all.
Comparing the exchange of intelligence between the UK and the US is not comparable to the exchange of intelligence between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan has a demonstrated history of failing, due to inability or unwillingness, to maintain either information security, or custody of suspected terrorists.
Note, I'm not disputing that its possible to share information with only a small group of people. I'm explaining to you that it isn't possible, or even desirable, in all cases, particularly if you only trust a very small set of people; as opposed to the majority of them, with secrecy preferred simply for reasons of security, rather than the absence of trust.
Orlanth wrote:
In other words, they are only Pakistanis, feth their sovereign rights.
Might there be a connection between that attitude and a lack of support/trust/cooperation.
No, in other words sovereignty, in general, isn't what it used to be. And, arguably, never was what many people thought it was.
As to cooperation, I've already illustrated how this was the result of many past breakdowns in US/Pakistani relations. It wasn't out the blue, like you seem to be implying.
If all Obama did was authorize not telling the Pakistan government, then he did plenty to help the operation to succeed. As for announcing it, that is his job. He is the Commander-in-Chief. If the mission had failed with loss of US life, he would have had a press conference to announce that.
As for most of the remainder of the discussion...pass.
I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.
dogma wrote:
That has nothing at all to do with the comment you quoted. You said that the refusal to share information with Pakistan represented a tacit accusation regarding their collusion with Al-Qaeda. I said that, no, it merely implies that they have poor information security within their intelligence arm (many former members of which are high-ranking government officials). I understood your point perfectly, its simply that it was nonsense, as I said.
You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understtod but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regardingcollusing with al Quaeda is the result Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.
As to sharing information with high level officials: the point that I, and several other posters here, (and the Leon Panetta) have been making is that, apparently, the US government does not feel it can trust Pakistan, even at the highest echelons. If they did, it is likely that they would have shared the information.
dogma wrote:
You're taking what may have been a calculated choice and chalking it up to incompetence, which is incredibly foolish given that the US has a long, and recently unintentionally public, history of distrust with respect to Pakistan.
How does this mistrust occur? Trust is gained by trust.
As for chalking things up to incompetence, that is how I see a barracks town with a military academy very close to Bin Laden's lair not knowing he is there, not collusion. I really doubt Pakistan would have been able to keep that information secret from the US, leaks go both ways. However allowing for the location plus the failure to engage the Pakistani authorities in mission planning at any level raises huge questions that will haunt Pakistan unfairly.
dogma wrote:
Yes, then they lost custody of him, and the CIA killed him with a hellfire missile.
The relevant point is that Rauf was arrested on request held and access to his interrogation was given to the US. Proof that practical cooperation was possible.
While an interesting read pretty much everything afterwards is conjecture, we don't know how Rauf escaped, or where he went to when/if he did or if he was actually killed by any missile strike. It has been suggested that 'escaped' meant handed over to the CIA for rendition, something that would be desired but not formally actionable as Rauf had a Pakistani passport. Both options become plausible, especially in light of the fact that no evidence has been given to support the movements of Rauf while at large, how he was tracked or if he was at the site of the missile strike.
What we do know is that a missile strike occured, in Pakistan by a US drone. Pakistan considered this a violation of sovereignty, and are obviously correct in this regards. further evidence that with regards to building trust between Pakistan and the US, it is not by any means a given that Pakistan is entirely at fault for any breakdown in relations.
dogma wrote:
I mean think about this, if the Administration approached Zardari and stated that this attack was going to occur, then he is left with two choices: bring in other Pakistani officials in order to cover himself, or let it remain secret, in which case he still has to contend with past allegations that the US violates Pakistani sovereignty. And, of course, that's assuming he ascents at all.
I dont think its any stretch to imagine that Zardani would not be in any position to get Obama to call off a snatch/kill operation against Bin Laden himself. Cooperation, and keeping the Pakistani government informed need not include giving them any real say or control regarding the matter.
dogma wrote:
I don't see how this particular bit of spin was especially bad. A senior official said outside of press conference that bin Laden went down shooting, given that his body guard did, apparently, open fire I see no problem with this. It is not uncommon to refer to the entourage of an HVT by the HVT's name, just as Presidential Administrations are often called by the name of the President. Brennan made a normative statement which he probably shouldn't have, though I suspect he was emotionally invested in this particular operation, so that can be forgiven; especially seeing as it could be interpreted very loosely. Carney's story is perfectly fine, and doesn't contradict any of the others.
I would not care about the minor discrepencies at all were this not a case where the method and circumstances of death will hold religious implications that can be exploited. There should have been one story, released at the correct time preceded with 'no comments' until the story was clear and complete and ready for public dissemination. How the press report what you say is beyond your control, but what you say to them isnt.
It is known that this was important which is why the funeral was carefully planned. However the press details regarding the funeral have been handled well. Problems with an Islamic funeral at sea being balanced against the need to avoid a shrine location. The information was given out once with no inconsistencies and all follow up information held back until the authorities concerned know exactly what to say and when.
dogma wrote:
You severely underestimate how little the US thinks of the Pakistani government, and how much evidence they have to support their position.
Allowing for the huge gaffe which was keeping the entire Pakistani government out of the loop on a US covert operation in Pakistan against a common enemy, I doubt that.
dogma wrote:
As to cooperation, I've already illustrated how this was the result of many past breakdowns in US/Pakistani relations. It wasn't out the blue, like you seem to be implying.
It certainly wasn't out of the blue, but aren't you reading trustworthiness the correct way. So far this is an example of Obama not being trustworthy. He initiated operation on foreign soil without any attempt to dialogue with the sovereign nation involved, when the nation was at some level or other an ally of the US.
Allowing for what Obama was doing and where the onus was on him to cooperate at some level or other. There are ways to control the dialogue to avoid security lapses, as indicated before cooperation need only be token and at a carefully controlled level and timing. The Israelis often work this way, and they trust noone. Zardani would be in no practical position to stop the US getting Bin Laden in Pakistani soil, and betraying US intentions to Al Quaeda would have been a colossal mistake.
dogma wrote:
No, in other words sovereignty, in general, isn't what it used to be. And, arguably, never was what many people thought it was.
Evidently, and even amongst 'real' allies. But you keep the realpolitik to the background. The US government has fethed over the UK a few times, but never blatantly and openly, to do so would irreperably damage relations. International political trust is always a carefully measured thing, which is why applying a correct measure to Pakistan is not something that should be alien to the US government. Governments apply a measure of public cooperation with foreign governments on a daily basis.
dienekes96 wrote:If all Obama did was authorize not telling the Pakistan government, then he did plenty to help the operation to succeed.
Presumably you are disagreeing with me. If so why keep proving my point: that this operation raises a grossly unfair moral question over the government of Pakistan.
dienekes96 wrote:
As for announcing it, that is his job. He is the Commander-in-Chief. If the mission had failed with loss of US life, he would have had a press conference to announce that.
As Cartar had to regarding Iran. Perhaps, though so far Obama hasn't shown himself to be the blame sharing sort. Though thats rare in modern politics so perhaps it should let that one slide.
dienekes96 wrote:
I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.
When it comes to Obama: Ivory Tower, check. Earning any wisdom within, not checked Obama has a track record of sticking the finger to foreign governments and unnecessarily damaging relations, and he isn't learning. This is business as usual for the current president.
As for parading morals and ethics unearned, who would have the right to say anything under those terms? None here, unless Dakka is populated by ex-presidents; yet the discourse moves on....
dienekes96 wrote:
I will only say the view from the Ivory Tower is always nice, and morals and ethics are easy to parade when you haven't had to challenge them, risk them, and earn the wisdom within.
When it comes to Obama: Ivory Tower, check. Earning any wisdom within, not checked Obama has a track record of sticking the finger to foreign governments and unnecessarily damaging relations, and he isn't learning. This is business as usual for the current president.
As for parading morals and ethics unearned, who would have the right to say anything under those terms? None here, unless Dakka is populated by ex-presidents; yet the discourse moves on....
Was dienekes96 talking about Obama, or all of the people debating in this thread? I think the case could be made for either.
I was speaking about the absolutism bandied about in this thread about the moralities of the operation and associated decisions. President Obama has had to examine his morals and make hard decisions. While he may be in an Ivory Tower on some issues, this isn't one of them.
And plenty of people can intelligently discuss their beliefs and how they have been challenged. But the majority of this conversation is theoretical for most of us. But the language hasn't really supported that.
halonachos wrote:Pakistan: One of the few countries that we pay who doesn't like us.
That's not really true. We, in part, pay Pakistan so that they will like us, and in part pay them so that the people there who do like us can maintain power. If you ever look at the US foreign and military aid budget, you'll see quite a few nations just like this.
Orlanth wrote:
You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understtod but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regarding collusing with al Quaeda is the result Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.
Two points:
1. That's how you see it. There is an important distinction between the conclusion that you are drawing, and the conclusion that must be drawn based on what has occurred. Since the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, we must conclude that the United States does not trust Pakistan. That means, minimally, that there are significant information control concerns regarding the Pakistani state. It does not mean that the Pakistani state is in collusion with Al-Qaeda in any official sense. Going further an assuming that this is an indictment of the Pakistani state as a body which is in collusion with Al-Qaeda is an inferential leap that you are making, not a necessary deduction according to the rules of logic; which means it isn't necessarily the way any other observer will perceive these events.
2: If the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, even in a token sense, it does not follow that they were incorrect to do so. If Pakistan, or significant parts of Pakistan, are in collusion with Al-Qaeda, then it makes no sense whatsoever to treat them as though they are not.
Orlanth wrote:
How does this mistrust occur? Trust is gained by trust.
Yes, and the US has a history of having its trust breached by Pakistan. This began under the Bush administration, and carried forward into the Obama one. It isn't that Zardari and his allies aren't willing to cooperate, its that in most instances they aren't able to do so. No amount of trust in the world is going to make the Pakistani executive's control over his armed forces and intelligence services any stronger.
Orlanth wrote:
However allowing for the location plus the failure to engage the Pakistani authorities in mission planning at any level raises huge questions that will haunt Pakistan unfairly.
You can't call a state incompetent, and then say its unfair for them to be treated as though they are incompetent. You can say its unwise to expose their incompetence, but I would argue that, with respect to Pakistan, it was hardly a secret.
Orlanth wrote:
The relevant point is that Rauf was arrested on request held and access to his interrogation was given to the US. Proof that practical cooperation was possible.
While an interesting read pretty much everything afterwards is conjecture, we don't know how Rauf escaped, or where he went to when/if he did or if he was actually killed by any missile strike. It has been suggested that 'escaped' meant handed over to the CIA for rendition, something that would be desired but not formally actionable as Rauf had a Pakistani passport. Both options become plausible, especially in light of the fact that no evidence has been given to support the movements of Rauf while at large, how he was tracked or if he was at the site of the missile strike.
There is also no evidence that Rauf was questioned by either American, or British personnel.
Orlanth wrote:
What we do know is that a missile strike occured, in Pakistan by a US drone. Pakistan considered this a violation of sovereignty, and are obviously correct in this regards. further evidence that with regards to building trust between Pakistan and the US, it is not by any means a given that Pakistan is entirely at fault for any breakdown in relations.
Of course not, but using the example of Rashid Rauf, and then claiming that there is concrete evidence to suggest that cooperation is possible, when the available information allows the opposite conclusion as well, is dicey at best.
Orlanth wrote:
I dont think its any stretch to imagine that Zardani would not be in any position to get Obama to call off a snatch/kill operation against Bin Laden himself. Cooperation, and keeping the Pakistani government informed need not include giving them any real say or control regarding the matter.
Which makes your entire argument regarding the provision of information trite. If Pakistan would not be given a say in whether or not the operation would be permitted, then they could just as easily have claimed this particular event as another in a long line of sovereignty violations.
you're making a mountain out of molehill. I suspect because you aren't fond of the current President.
Orlanth wrote:
I would not care about the minor discrepencies at all were this not a case where the method and circumstances of death will hold religious implications that can be exploited.
Any possible set of circumstances involving the death of this particular target could be exploited by means of religion.
Orlanth wrote:
It certainly wasn't out of the blue, but aren't you reading trustworthiness the correct way. So far this is an example of Obama not being trustworthy. He initiated operation on foreign soil without any attempt to dialogue with the sovereign nation involved, when the nation was at some level or other an ally of the US.
I fail to see how the fact that the Obama Administration chose not to trust a government that it has not trusted at any point in the past is in any way significant. It wasn't like he snatched the guy out of Britain without notifying David Cameron.
Orlanth wrote:
International political trust is always a carefully measured thing, which is why applying a correct measure to Pakistan is not something that should be alien to the US government.
I doubt that it is, I imagine its merely that what they consider to be the correct measure of trust is very different from what you consider it to be, and given that they possess information which neither you, nor I, do I consider it appropriate to afford them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the erosion of trust has extended beyond the auspices of one administration.
Keep in mind that certain elements of the Pakistani government are just as anti-American as AQ, if not moreso. And not all of these elements have revealed themselves.
That does not mean that ALL of the government is. Just keep in mind, it only takes on leak to create a disaster.
halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
Is it your opinion that Al Quaeda would have shut up shop if Bin Laden had been captured?
Orlanth wrote:
You are misunderstanding the point. The US has tried since to claim that it felt it couldn't bring Pakistan in on the mission for the reasons you have given, that was already understood but sadly irrelevant. because that is not how it is seen, a large question mark over Pakistani government at all levels regarding colluding with al Quaeda is the result. Token cooperation under US supervision was a viable option that avoided the political problems which haver since arisen.
1. That's how you see it. There is an important distinction between the conclusion that you are drawing, and the conclusion that must be drawn based on what has occurred.
If only that were the case. Within a day of the operation the Afghani government were directly accusing Pakistani government of colluding with Al Quaeda based on Obamas decision not to include Pakistan at any level of the operation. Karzai did not mince his words on Tuesday, and one of his generals is now spouting off.
Its a bit off for Afghanistan to accuse Pakistan of having Al quaeda members in the woodwork, but i suppose that is part of the fallout from Obamas gaffe. But I suppose he is alright with that.
dogma wrote:
Since the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, we must conclude that the United States does not trust Pakistan.
Tell thast to Afghanistan, Obamas actions speak louder than the occassional word spoken since not accusing Pakistan of collusion.
dogma wrote:
2: If the United States did not include Pakistan in the operation, even in a token sense, it does not follow that they were incorrect to do so.
Actually it does as the US is conducting illegal military operations (no permission sought) on foreign soil to the direct detrement of the country operated in. Very clearly incorrect of them.
dogma wrote:
It isn't that Zardari and his allies aren't willing to cooperate, its that in most instances they aren't able to do so. No amount of trust in the world is going to make the Pakistani executive's control over his armed forces and intelligence services any stronger.
Good reason for the level of cooperation sought to be token.
dogma wrote:
You can't call a state incompetent, and then say its unfair for them to be treated as though they are incompetent. You can say its unwise to expose their incompetence, but I would argue that, with respect to Pakistan, it was hardly a secret.
Shouldn't that also be applied to Obama's foreign policy. Incompetence in this regard is 'no secret' either.
dogma wrote:
Of course not, but using the example of Rashid Rauf, and then claiming that there is concrete evidence to suggest that cooperation is possible, when the available information allows the opposite conclusion as well, is dicey at best.
Not dicey at all, if token cooperation to be sought. All operational control would continue as normal, noone would gainsay Bin Laden/his body going straight into US custody, he wasn't a Pakistani citizen for a start, and its clearly a special case. Bin laden could not escape as Rauf allegedly did if he is dead shot on sight by US troops or chained up in the Carl Vinson one hour after the raid. Operationally, no change, no worries.
dogma wrote:
Which makes your entire argument regarding the provision of information trite. If Pakistan would not be given a say in whether or not the operation would be permitted, then they could just as easily have claimed this particular event as another in a long line of sovereignty violations.
The
dogma wrote:
you're making a mountain out of molehill. I suspect because you aren't fond of the current President.
I am not fond of Obama, but I can think beyond that. Perhaps you cant see past the concept of like or hate the person equals like or hate the policy, perhaps this may be the limit of your thinking but if so speak for yourself, it is no reflection of my own. I am actually in support of one of his policies in another simultaneous thread here.
As for making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry, its a mountain. Obamas refusal to deal with Pakistan has been used to further damage third party relations between Pakistan and other counties. An avoidable fact.
Remember this is on the back of other ugly incidents such as Raymond Davis' shooting of two Pakistanis in very suspicious circumstances. Incidents like this soiled cooperation between the US and Pakistan, but they would have soiled cooperation just about anywhere. If it happened the other way around you wouldn't be very happy about it. Pakistan is justly concerned about events within its borders.
At first Pakistan assisted with joint operations and helped target airstrikes, however they became increasingly of the opinion that airstrikes do not stop terrorism. A point of view reinforced by experiences elsewhere current and historical (Gaza, Vietnam etc) and due to influence of other armed forces doctrines which also concur with the point of view that airstrikes are largely counterproductive in policing operations (strongly held by most NATO partners outside the US, especially UK and France). Nevertheless the US conducted bombing in Pakistan unilaterally and without warning. Yes this started with Bush, but Obama has reinforced the policy, and you wonder where the trust has gone and question the reliability of the relationship.
Also Pakistan has had to carry the cost of a lot of what Al Quaeda was doing, it ought not to be forgotten that many Pakistani officials pay a heavy price for their assistance. Benazir Bhutto former premier and wife of the current premier was killed in 2007 by Al Quaeda operatives. Zardari is no friend of Al Quaeda, is a target of them and now Obama gives room to indicate that even he cannot be trusted. An unbeleivably stupid gaffe.
dogma wrote:
I fail to see how the fact that the Obama Administration chose not to trust a government that it has not trusted at any point in the past is in any way significant. It wasn't like he snatched the guy out of Britain without notifying David Cameron.
Now either information was given, in which case there is room to say Pakistan is trying to help. Or Obama was 'correct' Pakistan has not been trying to help and Clinton is now lying through her teeth to cover his back.
dogma wrote:
I doubt that it is, I imagine its merely that what they consider to be the correct measure of trust is very different from what you consider it to be, and given that they possess information which neither you, nor I, do I consider it appropriate to afford them the benefit of the doubt. Especially since the erosion of trust has extended beyond the auspices of one administration.
Why give Obama the 'benefit of the doubt'? According to the US Secretary of State there is no doubt, Pakistan has assisted the US. They at least have seen what you failed to see, Obamas decision not to involve Pakistan has severely damaged relations. It de facto accuses Zardani of lack of trustworthiness, which has been capitalised upon by opponents, and has reinforced opinions around the world that Obama cannot be trusted either. This is hardly the first time Obama has gained the reputation of having pissed on his allies, and its proabably tiring for people like Clinton to have to constantly mop up after him.
Clearly there is a case to answer, or the White house wouldnt have so much to say on this matter since Monday.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era)
Which is pretty much no-one, certainly no-one old enough to remember it. And they seem to like us just fine, at least, that's how it seemed when I was there the other week. Couldn't have been friendlier.
In short, you may have hurt feelings that other people don't see Osama's assassination as cause for joyous merry-making, but that isn't reason to go spouting off about a country, and situation, you clearly know absolutely feth all about.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
Look at how that turned out though, sure the Irish people mostly don't like you(especially those alive during the Black and Tan era) but there's not as many Real IRA fellows around now are there? Besides, you use a country as a slave force for so long and they're bound to retaliate.
You have a talent for overshooting the point in posts. Retaliation is the problem, yes..but many attacks were caused in retaliation to the nature of the retaliation for the retaliation.... That is to say that the treatment of suspects (ie not the guilty per se) by the authorities caused the militants to become more aggressive, not less so. The current peace was not brought about by executing IRA members in their homes with SpecOps. And relations with Irish people on a day to day basis are currently reasonably cordial...as much because the Republic doesn't want the lead weight of a unified but heavily protestant North stuck to it as anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?
I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.
To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.
Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.
You don't learn about the Irish Question over there? You know that one...where Irish terrorists engaged in a campaign of indiscriminate bombing and shooting of civilian and military targets in the UK and Ireland for decades, and the authorities retaliated with false imprisonments, brutal beatings and tortures, not to mention the opposing terrorist campaign, dodgy "executions" and the rest. And the whole conflict went on and on in a vicious cycle for decades, with each side blaming the other, on and on. Huge bodycount, most people directly or indirectly affected, troops stationed there endlessly...and need I mention that we too were attacked in the name of Osama? Maybe its just the fact that we have had longer and greater experience dealing with bomb-happy fanatics that we realize in the field executions don't serve to help the issues at hand? IDK.
Is it your opinion that Al Quaeda would have shut up shop if Bin Laden had been captured?
No, because that would be a gross over-simplification of the way these things work. And I don't think they will shut up shop because he's been killed either. Its possible that they have been side-lined by recent events in arab nations though, which occurred unrelated to this operation anyway. Finding and "dealing with" Osama may well have done very little on an international scale other than annoy the militants, really annoy the Pakistanis, and damage the view of the USA by outsiders in a different way.
Again its a perspective matter. This event as it has played out simply reinforces the belief that America has one rule for itself and another for everybody else, that America considers the peoples of other nations as unworthy of respect or the rule of law, and makes a mockery of statements that American forces are in various nations to create democracy. These can hardly be a positive result of the event, even if the death of Osama himself is positive for American morale.
How come it is always the US that gets frowned upon for stuff like this? I don't remember Europe making too big of a deal when people were cheering in the streets over 9/11. But of course that was awhile back and my memory isn't what is used to be. And seriously people are complaining about Osama's funeral not being correct? I don't remember him or Al Qaeda having appropriate memorial services for the people they beheaded.
I guess it is more of "we shouldn't go to their level", but it still bother me.
Europe and the USA, while close allies and all part of the western democratic world, are different cultures.
A lot of people in Europe were as shocked at the “U-S-A! U-S-A!” celebrations as a lot of Americans found it natural to go out and do it. It doesn't mean that everyone in each nation is exactly the same.
Let’s not say that either group is right or wrong about it.
I really think collectively we face great problems and we should be pulling together, not blaming each other for minor annoyances.
anymore.
