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.

I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.

He was not the financier, that is simply wrong. What it appears we know about Al-Queda, that is all evidence shows they raise funds through donations, be it through sympathisers or unknowing mosque attendees. Anyway, I dont suggest it is not possible he was responsible, only that it is possible he was not. Or at the very least we did not follow our own due process which is our stated reason for occupying so many regions in the middle east, that is to 'spread democracy'. I dont dispute that he got what he deserved, but I question a culture who blindly accepts in practice where the ends justify the means even when it runs contrary to that same cultures stated ideals.

Edit: for less confrontational language.

Mannahnin wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.

This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.

The policy regarding the authority to kill or capture this kind of terrorist personnel has been established and consistent for several years. Many of us do have objections of principle to it. Many of us (Americans and other) have raised objections and communicated to our representatives in government that we would prefer these people to be captured and tried whenever feasible.

That being said, it seems very odd for you to raise this objection regarding Bin Laden, of all people, who has repeatedly and publicly taken responsiblity for multiple heinous acts of murder against civilians. If there were ever a person whose extrajudicial killing was justified, it's probably a mass-murderer who repeatedly proclaims his guilt to the world and vows to keep doing it.

However it does seem likely that we would have tried to grab him if we could. The moral authority we would have displayed/gained by granting this monster due process would have been a breathtaking display of the power of our convictions and our believe in the Rule of Law. All that said, however, if it came down to a choice between shooting him or risking his escape, shooting him is certainly the better and more moral option.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.

As noted, you are making a rather insulting leap of logic in concluding that Americans or anyone else would necessarily, in general, abandon our convictions or commit heinous acts in real life just because a bunch of people post tough-guy crap on the internet.

Well, if you consider other cases of American action in this ilk on topic, then we should totally bring them up. (This ilk being "America ignoring the rules it sets for others/committing dubious acts/war crimes etc.) I rather assumed that they would be considered a little off-topic, much like the earlier discussion about Hitler and Japan which was only mildly related. Also, "sound the alarm"? This isn't the first, last or only time I've brought this manner of thing up...just not yet on Dakka is all.

The fact that its Bin Laden of all people makes it even more high-profile that America should have taken the path of moral authority, not "the dark side." Rushing out of the night and blatting the guy was not the correct path. Capture and trial was. As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture. Resistance or lack of it is irrelevant to those orders. Or your own Military is retroactively making up missions and printing rubbish..and if we go down that line, we end up in the "how do we know its even him?" conspiracy.

I already pointed out that just because some of it appears on a forum, does not render it wholly "net tough guy talk". I only cited the examples appearing in this thread. Its been turning up in all manner of media since it went down, and many times such sentiments have been offered beforehand. (Not just from America either. There are more than a few here who fly the same path.) Also, I don't necessarily consider that many of these people are actually capable of such acts. Most of them would vomit and cry before they got near to being able to torture someone... its the suggestion that such acts are acceptable in circumstances of the United States choosing, and the agreement with that suggestion that is unpalatable and barbaric. And lets be honest, there ARE members of the US regime who can and will gladly engage in the acts described, and there always have been.

Not to mention, a capture and trial (even a show trial) would have allowed the US to demonstrate conclusively that they had indeed taken him. The actions they have taken today will just mean that in a week, Osama will be seen in a chip-shop in Retford. (Akin to the cult around Hitlers 'survival', or Elvis actually living in a retirement home or whatever.)

thedude wrote:I am glad we finally put a stop to a monster of our own creation and all but the timing is odd and does nothing to instill faith in the system for me.

Here we go again...

For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.

To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

You will notice there is no mention of Sept 11 on the FBI charges.

Yes, because it was a giant conspiracy, but somebody forgot to put it on his FBI page...

::FACEPALM::

Well, if you consider other cases of American action in this ilk on topic, then we should totally bring them up. (This ilk being "America ignoring the rules it sets for others/committing dubious acts/war crimes etc.) I rather assumed that they would be considered a little off-topic, much like the earlier discussion about Hitler and Japan which was only mildly related. Also, "sound the alarm"? This isn't the first, last or only time I've brought this manner of thing up...just not yet on Dakka is all.

The conversation has been had here a dozen times. Start a topic on it and avoid being intentionally antagonistic and insulting if you want an actual discussion about it.

The fact that its Bin Laden of all people makes it even more high-profile that America should have taken the path of moral authority, not "the dark side." Rushing out of the night and blatting the guy was not the correct path. Capture and trial was. As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture. Resistance or lack of it is irrelevant to those orders. Or your own Military is retroactively making up missions and printing rubbish..and if we go down that line, we end up in the "how do we know its even him?" conspiracy.

This has been "confirmed" by one unnamed state department official who likely had nothing to do with the operation (now I know why you didn't source it). I'll wait for the actual government release before hedging my bet on that.

I already pointed out that just because some of it appears on a forum, does not render it wholly "net tough guy talk". I only cited the examples appearing in this thread. Its been turning up in all manner of media since it went down, and many times such sentiments have been offered beforehand. (Not just from America either. There are more than a few here who fly the same path.) Also, I don't necessarily consider that many of these people are actually capable of such acts. Most of them would vomit and cry before they got near to being able to torture someone... its the suggestion that such acts are acceptable in circumstances of the United States choosing, and the agreement with that suggestion that is unpalatable and barbaric. And lets be honest, there ARE members of the US regime who can and will gladly engage in the acts described, and there always have been.

And there always will be.

Not to mention, a capture and trial (even a show trial) would have allowed the US to demonstrate conclusively that they had indeed taken him. The actions they have taken today will just mean that in a week, Osama will be seen in a chip-shop in Retford. (Akin to the cult around Hitlers 'survival', or Elvis actually living in a retirement home or whatever.)

Utterly irrelevant.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6570519-seen-on-sixth-avenue-in-new-york

This thread is just awful. Someone should shoot it whilst it's resisting capture....

As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture.

Where are you getting this? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm asking because the live interview I heard this morning with Whitehouse staff stated they attempted to capture him.

Graveyman wrote:

As mentioned, the mission parameters were always "Kill", not capture.

Where are you getting this? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm asking because the live interview I heard this morning with Whitehouse staff stated they attempted to capture him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-kill-idUSTRE7413H220110502

A single "unnamed" state department official.

micahaphone wrote:

thedude wrote:For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.

To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.

Just gloating and claiming responsibility for a crime does not in itself prove that you engaged in that crime. Its a common occurrence for a terrorist organisation to claim acts that do not belong to it. And in order to charge him, one would have to capture him, and place him on trial, which wasn't done.

Just to clarify: I am not saying now, nor have I EVER claimed that Bin Laden did not commit or cause to commit terror attacks, or get up to all manner of ill behaviour. Seems that people are happy to equate wanting to see justice done properly with thinking he was somehow innocent. I do hope that is crystal clear, because there IS a distinction. Wanting a murderer or paedophile to stand trial for their crimes does not mean a person supports murder or paedophilia.

Their established command chain isn't really much of one. It's decentralized to ensure that it can continue causing damage even if one part is cut off.

thedude wrote:

I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.

He was not the financier, that is simply wrong. What it appears we know about Al-Queda, that is all evidence shows they raise funds through donations, be it through sympathisers or unknowing mosque attendees. Anyway, I dont suggest it is not possible he was responsible, only that it is possible he was not. Or at the very least we did not follow our own due process which is our stated reason for occupying so many regions in the middle east, that is to 'spread democracy'. I dont dispute that he got what he deserved, but I question a culture who blindly accepts in practice where the ends justify the means even when it runs contrary to that same cultures stated ideals.

Edit: for less confrontational language.

Bin Laden inherited anywhere from $10 million to $100 million from his father, mostly by cutting his siblings out of the deal. He started Al Quaida with this money, and took part in many of its actions, such as the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, but the actual person who had the title of "leader" for the 9/11 mission was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . While it's entirely possible, and quite likely that he had Osama whispering in his ear, Khalid was the man behind the attacks.

We have been spreading democracy and helping equality in Western Asia. Remember Osama's pal, Saddam Hussein?

Yes, because it was a giant conspiracy, but somebody forgot to put it on his FBI page...

::FACEPALM

Please at least attempt to express and intelligent thought if you are going to comment on a post instead of furthering another negative America stereo type. Anyway, I am stating fact, that is to my knowledge he was not charged with any crimes relating to 9/11. If you have information with evidence to the contrary please share.

He may not have been charged with 9/11, but he had made numerous other attacks against the US before 2001.

thedude wrote:Please at least attempt to express and intelligent thought if you are going to comment on a post instead of furthering another negative America stereo type. Anyway, I am stating fact, that is to my knowledge he was not charged with any crimes relating to 9/11. If you have information with evidence to the contrary please share.

Does it matter if he was charged in the 9/11 attacks? He was charged with the '98 embassy bombings, which should be enough for arrest.

micahaphone wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Our reason for this was to gain freedom from a government that was not accurately representing us. Bin Laden's motives were to eradicate the USA and all its inhabitants.

Also, if we're "barbaric and bloodthirsty", how come we gave OBL a proper burial, as dictated by his religion?

Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.

I'm grimly amused how my comments have transmogrified from being appalled that some people (predominantly Americans at this time) were openly supporting the use of barbaric and criminal acts against another person, into "All Americans are barbaric and bloodthirsty."

I'm glad he's gone. It's possible that the US intel services might have gotten some useful information out of him if he'd been taken alive, but overall I think what happened was probably for the best - particularly the burial at sea (last thing anyone needs is a grave that becomes a shrine to his would-be followers; let him be consigned to the dustbin of history and forgotten).

It's hard to say what this will mean in the short or long-term. My understanding was that he was sick enough already that he was somewhat removed from the organization (though I could be wrong on that). So it's hard to say what practical effect this will have other than cementing his number two as the new head of the organization. The other effect is on the morale. Short term I suspect that some will be "inspired" to try and join the terrorists, but I suspect most of those who do so would have done so anyway. Long term I suspect it will dampen enthusiasm ever so slightly.

It's also been noted elsewhere that the timing on this is rather interesting (in a non-conspiratorial fashion). OBL's death occurred at the same time that the Middle East is in the midst of a number of popular uprisings, which distracts immediate attention somewhat away from his death. If you live in, say, Syria, you're likely to find the news of interest. But you'll probably be much more concerned about avoiding the tanks from the 4th Division rolling down your city streets...



Edit -

The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

Personally, I would prefer "One man's freedom fighter is another man's rebel." I've always kepts a fairly large mental seperation between rebels and terrorists.

But that's a debate for another thread.

Does it matter if he was charged in the 9/11 attacks? He was charged with the '98 embassy bombings, which should be enough for arrest.

I'm not disputing that in the least. He deserved the death penalty to be expedisiously carried out as far as I am concerned. I was originaly stating with all the 9/11 talk and everyone congratulating themselves for a job well done, it was worth noting two things, America had the chance to bring him to trial in '01 which we refused and that we never charged him for a crime related to 9/11. That is all.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.

Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.

I'm grimly amused how my comments have transmogrified from being appalled that some people (predominantly Americans at this time) were openly supporting the use of barbaric and criminal acts against another person, into "All Americans are barbaric and bloodthirsty."

A pair of, supposedly, shots to the head during a firefight is a "barbaric and criminal act"?

Well. Better not tell SWAT teams that have to take down hostage takers with headshots. They're violating the hostage taker's rights!

ShumaGorath wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?

Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.

Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.

I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.

So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?

You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Really? Did I do that? Or did I just express distaste that many Americans have been supporting the use of torture and other similarly barbaric methods? I find that worrying. It IS worrying. And now I'm a troll because of the manner in which I choose to ridcule the accusation that I am a troll on top of that...

Where the heck has anyone said anything serious about supporting torture?

The closest I can think of was things like stringing his body up to get punched/kicked/spit on or impaling him on the Empire State Building. And let's face it--that's hyperbolic and not going to happen.

thedude wrote:I was originaly stating with all the 9/11 talk and everyone congratulating themselves for a job well done, it was worth noting two things, America had the chance to bring him to trial which we refused and that we never charged him for a crime related to 9/11. That is all.

Well, he was the titular head of the organization that committed 9/11, so he could have been charged with conspiracy if nothing else.

Also, the refusal of the US to accept Bin Laden was before 9/11, so I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion regarding 9/11.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

That's not necessarily true. Terrorists target civilians while "freedom fighters" target the military.

The military force of a country is always a valid target. Civilians are never a valid target.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.

You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.

If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.

But they didn't and you don't.

Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.

You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?

Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.

Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.

I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.

So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?

You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.

Really? Did I do that? Or did I just express distaste that many Americans have been supporting the use of torture and other similarly barbaric methods? I find that worrying. It IS worrying. And now I'm a troll because of the manner in which I choose to ridcule the accusation that I am a troll on top of that...

I think the problem is that you are speaking as if you know with 100% certainty that he was executed in cold blood, or not given a chance to surender, when in fact you have no way of knowing this...

As for internet toughguys applauding the result, well it is the internet and it is Dakka: And you are shocked by this why?

Maybe get back to watching the royal wedding on Tivo and settle down a bit huh?

the American rebels were fighting for the right to govern themselves. Al Quaida is fighting for an extremist religious belief that calls for the death of millions of people.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.

You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.

If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.

But they didn't and you don't.

Only targeted civilians? And the soldiers in Afghanistan just fall over dead of their own accord do they? Or are those responsible for terror attacks against western troops in Afghanistan not connected to "The Axis of Evil" and Al Quaeda any more? The impression given is certainly that Al Quaeda et al are one huge homogenous terrorist body with tendrils in every organisation, whether they be Afgan "freedom fighters" or Libyan Anti-Gaddafi rebels.

Sorry, but you must have missed "really only targeted civilians".

Previous to the Western troops coming into Afghanistan, Al Qaeda pretty much only struck civilian targets in the West.
Or do you not remember who was responsible for the 1994 WTC bombing?

You're looking too much into the details of the example and not enough on the general point.. that once upon a time the USA was an un-recognised and illegitimate force engaged in combat of one form or another with the legitimate government of the area. The manner of that combat is not really relevant, simply the status of the combatants.

Then stop giving a really crappy general point. Comparing the American Revolution to Al Qaeda's behavior is ridiculous.

A better example would have been the Bolshevik Revolution or *gasp* the behavior of the Nazi Party prior to them getting power.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

OrangePine wrote:@ArbeitsSchu

Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.

As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.

He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.

The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.

I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.

Proof? I mean, I know you haven't been speaking in specifics this entire time. It's why people are calling you a troll. But you're citing an event that you weren't personally there for so you must have a source for this information.

Because I don't wish to fill a page with unsolicited links, I must be a troll? The information I have access to is freely available in exactly the same place anyone else could get it from. My first encounter with the statement was a BBC tv news segment earlier this afternoon. It has since been similarly stated on other UK news outlets, and I imagine by tomorrow morning it will be in all the major news papers as well. If I flick over to Sky News or CNN I catch the same reports at random.

This: http://www.examiner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/new-facts-navy-seal-team-6-on-a-mission-to-kill-not-capture-osama-bin-laden is the first link I found on it in google. It was 37 minutes old when I first mentioned it in this thread. I don't doubt that by posting that, I will receive a barrage of comments about how accurate that source may or may not be. Not being an American, I couldn't care less, because there are plenty more sources to find. Some 3 million plus on that google alone, as it happens.

Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.

That statement is not helping your case. I for one see your point, but even with a brief glance at a non US history book of US history one can make the statement that 'on its darkest day the America revolution was purely motivated by greed'. There were many contributing factors of course but chief among them was the founding fathers perception of failure in the king to provide economic stability in tough economic times. It is true we did not have fanatical religious worship as most of our founding fathers rebeled against what they considered a corrupt English church and our the colonist did not wish to exist simply to comitt murder.

But to be fair, the Al Queda are religious fanatics to be sure, they believe that anything that is not Shengri law is evil and from the devil so it must not be tolarated...but to claim that they cause terrorist attacks because they are jealous of American freedom or because they revel in murder is a dangerously naive thing to accept.

Lusall wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Your statement here shows a vast amount of ignorance in regards to why the colonies rebelled against the British Empire, as well as the manner in which the revolution was fought.

No. They actually show my desire to summarize very shortly a conflict without getting bogged down in irrelevant details of specific actions. The War of Independence is complicated, like all conflicts are..but the two combatants CAN be summarised as "Imperials/Rebels" or "Regime/Freedom Fighters" or even "Legitimate Government/Terrorists" depending on which point of view you care to take. Which was entirely my point.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Your "reason and motives" for attempting to become a separate state are not at issue. Consider it from the opposite aspect. The traitors to the crown who called themselves Americans? Its a well known truism that ones mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Clearly the enemies of the US consider their goals legitimate, whether they obey international or military law or not.

Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.

Let's be honest, they were trying to get out of paying taxes.

The UK was at the time one of the most liberal countries in the world. The king had a lot of prestige power, but limited real power. The basic problem was the lack of representation in Parliament.

Plenty of colonists were up for sticking with the UK but they wanted representation. That was a totally fair idea, and the British government were very stupid not to have gone with it.

I feel we are dragging the thread somewhat off topic.

thedude wrote:

Except even on its darkest day, the American revolution was purely motivated by a cause of freedom. They weren't paying lip service to a religious ideal or a cause to justify murder.

That statement is not helping your case. I for one see your point, but even with a brief glance at a non US history book of US history one can make the statement that 'on its darkest day the America revolution was purely motivated by greed'. There were many contributing factors of course but chief among them was the founding fathers perception of failure in the king to provide economic stability in tough economic times. It is true we did not have fanatical religious worship as most of our founding fathers rebeled against what they considered a corrupt English church and our the colonist did not wish to exist simply to comitt murder.

But it still doesn't change that even the guerillas and woodsmen that were so decried by the British were nowhere near the level of the atrocities committed by Al'Qaeda.

But to be fair, the Al Queda are religious fanatics to be sure, they believe that anything that is not Shengri law is evil and from the devil so it must not be tolarated...but to claim that they cause terrorist attacks because they are jealous of American freedom or because they revel in murder is a dangerously naive thing to accept.

It is oversimplifying it, yeah. I could have clarified it better. I'm not saying that "They're Muslims/religious people and this makes them want to murder everyone!".

Al'Qaeda at heart has always been kind of an organization to 'stick it' to the West and claiming that it's because of religion. The whole reason it was founded was because Bin Laden heard an interpretation of Islamic Law that appealed to him.

I just find it offensive to equate the American Revolution to the behaviors of this group.