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.

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.

[/devil's advocate]

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:

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.).

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?

Do you have a link to a source for that, ArbeitsSchu?

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

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.).

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.

Here's a Time article on the subject:

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.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

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.

Thanks, I might pop out and get a copy.

htj wrote:Thanks, I might pop out and get a copy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bin-ladens-terror-files-2278575.html

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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:

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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:

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

Or in the words of the immortal bard:

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

Fixed it for you.

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).

Ratius wrote:This thread was only ever going to end one way but can a modicum of politeness at least be faked?

You can have my civility when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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?