ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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!

CT GAMER wrote:He had a good long run...

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

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

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Did you miss the part of the thread where I mentioned all the frank and open suggestions of how he should have been tortured, or had his head put on a spike (or a CNN aerial) or wrapped in pork and fed to hungry Jews or any other manner of barbaric commentary that has been made since the event? The general and seemingly prevalent belief cited by a substantial number of Americans that because of who or what he was, normal and civilized treatment of an enemy or criminal need not apply. THAT is the barbarism I refer to.

Mannahnin wrote:I still see no reason to believe that any significant percentage of that crude hyperbole is actually sincere or evidence of a damning barbarity among Americans in general.

Basing such a condemnatory judgment of Americans generally on such remarks, in such a context, seems inflammatory and inappropriate.

thedude wrote:

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

Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop.

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is wholly true, if applied from relatively modern Western values. But one of the basic problems with this conflict as a whole is that it concerns an ideology and value system that is markedly different to the one that established the Geneva Convention and other such measures of validity and legitimacy. A clear parallel would be the conflict between Japan and the West, and the problems surrounding "surrender". In one culture it is recognised as acceptable, and that values and ruiles apply to people who choose that route. (Even if they are often ignored.) In the opposing culture, it is shameful, wrong, and no rights are applied. When those two meet in war, there are bound to be problems. Also, the groups associated with Al Quaeda regularly attack military targets as well, and often conflate military and civilian together.

To clarify, before anyone decides I'm defending Japanese war crimes or something daft.. I'm not saying this is RIGHT, or laudable, or GOOD, I'm just saying that IT IS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Did you miss the part of the thread where I mentioned all the frank and open suggestions of how he should have been tortured, or had his head put on a spike (or a CNN aerial) or wrapped in pork and fed to hungry Jews or any other manner of barbaric commentary that has been made since the event? The general and seemingly prevalent belief cited by a substantial number of Americans that because of who or what he was, normal and civilized treatment of an enemy or criminal need not apply. THAT is the barbarism I refer to.

Because clearly, every single one of those statements was serious.

Maybe its the way I tell them, but you seem to be unclear as to where I'm seeing these statements, serious or facetious.

Such comments have appeared in this thread. They have also appeared in a large number of places outside of this thread. There is a substantial quantity of such comments across a variety of mediums and all manner of forums and suchlike. Facebook threads, TV news articles, all over the place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I still see no reason to believe that any significant percentage of that crude hyperbole is actually sincere or evidence of a damning barbarity among Americans in general.

Basing such a condemnatory judgment of Americans generally on such remarks, in such a context, seems inflammatory and inappropriate.

Exactly.

I don't think most Americans would suggest we condemn the peoples of Middle Eastern countries when they burn effigies of our Presidents as "barbarians" and "terrorist sympathizers".

The majority of such remarks are originating from American sources. Not ALL, and it is equally unpalatable coming from the people in my street or on the other side of the world. But nevertheless, the sentiment that civilized rules can be laid aside on a case by case basis is coming predominantly from American citizens. It is also a heart-warming thing when I see other Americans express the opposing belief, which I have..but so far they have been in the minority. I don't know how many times this needs to be clarified. I find it unsettling when so many people express such an opinion. That opinion has so far been expressed predominantly by Americans. Its what I have been saying since post one.

Kanluwen wrote:Because clearly, every single one of those statements was serious.

The Taliban tried to sell us a line of BS to buy time for him to get away. We tried buying their cooperation and getting them to hand him over first. They refused, and he did get away.

thedude wrote:

The Taliban tried to sell us a line of BS to buy time for him to get away. We tried buying their cooperation and getting them to hand him over first. They refused, and he did get away.

Can you explain this? From what I gathered our unconditional terms where that they deliver Bin laden to us post haste no questions asked if you will.

Crablezworth wrote:Remember this?

I'll belive he's dead when I see a pic like that, or better yet video. This whole burial at sea bs seems fishy as hell.

thedude wrote:

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

Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop. Here is an article from Oct 01

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

Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".

"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.

CT GAMER wrote:He had a good long run...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".

"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.

Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.

biccat wrote:

thedude wrote:

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

Biccat, you are mistaking. The Taliban offered to turn bin laden over to a third party country for trial after the bombings to Afganistan began in response to 9/11. in an effort to get the bombings to stop. Here is an article from Oct 01

I was assuming you were talking about when the Sudan had Osama and offered him to Clinton.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".

"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.

Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.

Monster Rain wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the second we post those images to the media, we get bombarded with yet more crap about "Americans are the real terrorists!" or "How DARE YOU disrespect our Islamic traditions!".

"Burial at sea" is the best idea in this situation. It prevents both desecration and veneration of the body. It's also convenient in the sense that it's a big "We can not only kill you, but we can make it so that you will never be found to be venerated by those who've followed your pathetic excuse of 'teachings'.' statement.

Calling them a "pathetic excuse of teachings" would probably be taken as a sign of disrespect for Islamic traditions as well.

I think most Muslims tend to distance themselves from OBL's methods, don't they?

dienekes96 wrote:Yeah, you couldn't fake a death picture.

I'm sure they planned the DNA and funeral as tightly as they did the operation.

If they were going to lie about it, wouldn't there be a more politically fortuitous moment than May Day?