Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
The man was a wanted criminal and admitted to the 9/11 attacks in a video he released shortly after. If a video of Osama saying that he did it isn't enough proof then I wouldn't have any faith in that law system.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
No.
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
He mourned the dead, and most of the conservatives are giving him kudos for making the call.
Overall, its knowing that we finally got him after ten years that's making people chant USA. We'll most likely mourn the dead as a nation at some point in time after the 'era of good feelings' comes to an end.
I have no qualms whatsoever about rejoicing over his death. He’s responsible for the death of thousands and he would have gladly killed thousands more if he could have. I see it as rejoicing that no more lives will be lost because of him.
I thought Obama's speech was rather funny, “I worked to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority… I was briefed on a possible lead… I met repeatedly with my national security team… I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action” Like no one else had bothered looking for him before he came along. I was almost expecting to hear something like "I deemed this mission to be so important that I decided to lead the assault myself."
Oh and someone mentioned that they should have tried to capture him instead of just killing him. I just heard some audio on the radio from a security advisor (I think) stating that they tried to get him to surrender but he wouldn't/
What, Obama being calm and reasonable while everyone else is being overactive? PERISH THE THOUGHT!
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
No.
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.
Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.
On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.
So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution? Murderers, rapists and paedophiles all get a trial. Nazis and Japanese get trials. Saddam got a trial. In all these cases at least an appearance of civilized justice is preserved, however biased the justice might be.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution?
For one specific individual who lived until yesterday and a few other unique individuals currently alive and in hiding, I do hold that view.
For the collateral damage we inflict upon other nations and people, that is a heavy bueden regardless of the end result.
Graveyman wrote:I have no qualms whatsoever about rejoicing over his death. He’s responsible for the death of thousands and he would have gladly killed thousands more if he could have. I see it as rejoicing that no more lives will be lost because of him.
I thought Obama's speech was rather funny, “I worked to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority… I was briefed on a possible lead… I met repeatedly with my national security team… I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action” Like no one else had bothered looking for him before he came along. I was almost expecting to hear something like "I deemed this mission to be so important that I decided to lead the assault myself."
Oh and someone mentioned that they should have tried to capture him instead of just killing him. I just heard some audio on the radio from a security advisor (I think) stating that they tried to get him to surrender but he wouldn't/
Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
etc. ,etc.
Seriously, perhaps stop the anti-Obama retoric for maybe five minutes or so and enjoy the fact that this piece of S**t is dead...
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
He's got a pretty well known face, he's the most wanted man in American history. Given that we're using robots in the sky controlled from the other side of the planet to shoot people one would think you would drop the gak and appreciate the fact that he was killed in a shootout because Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to be taken alive whether that was our intention or not (it likely was the priority objective to take him alive given that we dislike martyring figurehead leaders).
But then you're not arguing from a basis of logic.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
Actually there are set guidelines as to who is considered a guerrilla fighter, terrorist, etc.
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
They have to have matching uniforms or markings(such as armbands, etc) to be considered a guerrilla force. No check.
They have to show clear preparation of attacks, including the collection of arms and a battleplan(instead of going out and killing random targets, ie; Civilians with suicide bombers). Not really a check.
They lack a clear uniform(as they sometimes hide in women's clothing and wear nothing to mark themselves as fighters) so they don't fall into the Geneva Convention's definition of a guerrilla fighter.
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
I don't know if Al Qaeda is organized to the degree necessary to fulfill the requirement.
The Geneva Convention really only concerned itself with the nature of conflicts between nation states and within them. The current war on terror was not a kind of conflict foreseen by it and doesn't fit into the mold very well.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
ArbeitsSchu wrote:When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
Ah, there's your confusion.
Human beings aren't civilized.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
So you're equating the barbarism of mass murdering terrorists to the barbarism of internet tough guy boasting. Good to know you're a troll.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
I guess I missed the memo were saying nasty things about someone on the internet = actually wanting to do them. Far as I can tell, no one's done any of those 'barbaric' things to Osama.
Besides:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/02 19:59:46
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
Wow, have ever looked at your country's history? Just asking.
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.
Osama was declared an enemy combatant a decade ago, international law doesn't really have statutes for how to handle combative international terrorists but most interpretations don't put such people as either civilians or enemy heads of state making the argument via assassination difficult unless you're trying to be hyperbolic about it.
Basically, international law is unclear if someone is a civilian, a soldier, a terrorist, guerrilla, freedom fighter, irregular or whatever, so just shoot him because its all academic when he's got no face.
He's got a pretty well known face, he's the most wanted man in American history. Given that we're using robots in the sky controlled from the other side of the planet to shoot people one would think you would drop the gak and appreciate the fact that he was killed in a shootout because Osama Bin Laden wasn't going to be taken alive whether that was our intention or not (it likely was the priority objective to take him alive given that we dislike martyring figurehead leaders).
But then you're not arguing from a basis of logic.
Ah yes, it was clearly a priority objective to catch him alive, despite the fact that the US government has declared today that it was in fact a kill-mission, and that Team 6 were definitely there to KILL, not CAPTURE. Thus the mission was conceived as an execution, regardless of what Bin Laden happened to do.... He could have been sat taking a dump, or quietly asleep (and all that footage of bloodied bedrooms rather suggests someone was in bed at the time.) They were there, as has been openly admitted TO KILL HIM. Perhaps you should appreciate THAT fact before you say I'm talking gak?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
Wow, have ever looked at your country's history? Just asking.
And that is monumentally irrelevant. The behaviour of my nation, or any other nation on Earth at any time, does not make such behaviour as suggested above any LESS barbaric or uncivilized, or more acceptable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/05/02 20:05:27
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
halonachos wrote:
Actually there are set guidelines as to who is considered a guerrilla fighter, terrorist, etc.
No, that's wrong. There are set laws regarding who is considered a lawful, or unlawful combatant.
halonachos wrote:
One being the fact that they have to have an established command chain, check.
They merely need to have a commander, so long as the group is not a simple mob, they qualify.
halonachos wrote:
They have to show clear preparation of attacks, including the collection of arms and a battleplan(instead of going out and killing random targets, ie; Civilians with suicide bombers). Not really a check.
This is incorrect as well. Francs-tireurs merely need to carry arms openly, while recognizing the rules of war. They don't need to show clear preparation, or even consistency with respect to target selection.
halonachos wrote:
They lack a clear uniform(as they sometimes hide in women's clothing and wear nothing to mark themselves as fighters) so they don't fall into the Geneva Convention's definition of a guerrilla fighter.
No, they don't fall under the Geneva Convetions' definition of lawful combatant. Its possible to have a guerrilla force composed on unlawful combatants.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
halonachos wrote:Saddam= Political leader who surrendered when he was found.
Osama= Terrorist(no true political affiliation to a recognized government) who hid behind a woman when forces came after him.
Pedophiles also get shot if they try to fight back when they're arrested you know.
If you want to bring up barbarism, I got some news for you...
I've got your barbarism right here, Earlier in the thread it was suggested that SpecOps should (or may indeed have strapped his corpse to the back of a Humvee and bounced roughly over some hills (a modern variant of dragging the defeated behind one's chariot.) Another poster suggested torture (for a chocolate bar no less) would be appropriate, despite torture being provably noneffective as an information gathering tool and it being done for fun , And that's just on this forum. There are suggestions floating around that can't be written on this forum. This isn't a game of tit for tat. When you fall to the same level, you become no better than the monster you all curse, and make a mockery of claims of being civilized. Its quite straightforward.
So you're equating the barbarism of mass murdering terrorists to the barbarism of internet tough guy boasting. Good to know you're a troll.
Internet tough guy boasting? Ah, because clearly such sentiment only exists on the internet and nowhere else...
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
Right...
Are you disagreeing that Rush Limbaugh or tea party members have not blamed Obama for every death in Afghanistan? Any evidence?
Are you disagreeing that some in the American Left blamed Bush for every death in Iraq? Would you like to know more?
CT GAMER wrote:Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:
"He got those soldiers killed"
"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"
Probably not, due to the lack of comments like this for the past two years from either Rush Limbaugh or "the tea baggers". Seriously, the right doesn't blame Obama for every death in Afghanistan. That was the exclusive purvue of the American left.
Right...
Are you disagreeing that Rush Limbaugh or tea party members have not blamed Obama for every death in Afghanistan? Any evidence?
Are you disagreeing that some in the American Left blamed Bush for every death in Iraq? Would you like to know more?
i don't believe I mentioned Afghanistan.
I stated that if this mission to get Osama had gone tragically wrong that plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the "he" statements ...
I understand what you are blathering on about, it just isn't what I said nor do I care...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/05/02 20:16:32
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
