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.

filbert wrote:I don't necessarily agree with the content of ArbeitsSchu's posts but I can take the point. Essentially, what we are looking at with the killing of Bin Laden is state sponsored assassination, which is never really a good thing. However, I don't think it would have been practical to put him on trial like Saddam (not to mention it may have inflamed the terrorist situation even more).

I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it.
However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.

Personally speaking, I am glad they killed him rather than captured him for some sort of grotesque media parade. That would have made the attempts to turn him into a martyr by Islamic extremists easier, I think.
The US got it right in this case but who is to say they won't (and haven't) ordered black op assassinations on innocent people in the past? As I said, killing without recourse to a fair trial is a dangerous place to go.

There was some outcry awhile ago because there's a list of people that could theoretically be targeted for UAV strikes or justify the cost of a UAV strike upon a convoy/building that they're in. People were flipping out about it because it's "execution without a trial".

Kanluwen wrote:
I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it.
However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.

Not really sure I see the distinction. It doesn't matter where he was shot or how he was shot; he was killed on the orders of the US president. Whichever way you look at it, its state sponsored assassination. You might not like the term, but there you go...

Martin Luther King was assassinated, Bin Laden was killed.

filbert wrote:Oh I agree totally and I am in no way disputing either his guilt or his evilness. But you and I concurring that he is a baddie and guilty of horrendous crimes is still not trial by law, is it?

No, I suppose it isn't.

filbert wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I'm fine with state sponsored assassination. So long as there's a reasonable amount of evidence that the person deserves it.
However, calling this again and again and again an "execution" or "assassination" is ridiculous. It's not like he was shot while in the middle of a crowd of people or lined up against the wall and put down like that.

Not really sure I see the distinction. It doesn't matter where he was shot or how he was shot; he was killed on the orders of the US president. Whichever way you look at it, its state sponsored assassination. You might not like the term, but there you go...

He was killed. Not assassinated.

There's a distinction. "Assassination" implies that there was a sneak attack with no chance of defense.

Bin Laden's probably been dead for years. It's just a way for Obama to regain some face.

Bin Laden has been reported as dead since December 2001, as he had numerous ailments that could have cut his life short.

It's like a bad hide-and-go-seek game where they aren't very good at finding him. When they (the US) do finally find him he's locked hiding in a cupboard and all that's left is his charred remains...then they shoot the remains and claim they 'assassinated' him.

Ahtman wrote:Martin Luther King was assassinated, Bin Laden was killed.

We sent an entire flight of P-38s to specifically kill Yamamoto when we had intel of his flight. This is no different different,e xcept that Yamamoto didn't want to attack the US and chose military targets. OBL lived the dream when he killed thousands of men, women, and children who had nothing to do with a god damn thing he was ranting about for whatever justification he had.

Further, you don't put mad dogs on trial. You put them out of their misery, and to protect ourselves from them.

Ahtman wrote:Martin Luther King was assassinated, Bin Laden was killed.

I for one, agree with Ahtman on something for the first time. Bin Laden's death is already bringing more and more people together.

samrtk wrote:Bin Laden's probably been dead for years. It's just a way for Obama to regain some face.

Yes, because surely Bush wouldn't have tried this tactic, as popular as he was at the end of his term.

This is a silly thing to say. I wish people would stop.

Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?

I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.

Indeed, I'm studying in the UK, and the general opinion has been anti-American...I'm the only one actually celeberating his death, all the others are like 'oh you silly stupid Americans' (which is among one of the kinder phrases I've been on the receiving end of). What surprises me most is that the angriest comments I've been on the receiving end of have been from fellow Americans. At least one has gotten angry at me, as she took my celebration of Osama as saying that I was celebrating her worrying about her family now being under threat.

It confuses me alot.

You know what? Screw this.

Yes, the American President ordered the assassination of one man. Yes, the killing of Bin Laden was a cold-blooded assassination. And you know what? Good for him.

This wasn't a criminal who protested his innocence and was gunned down by cops to prove a point. This was a man who is not only responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women, this is a man who has proudly taken credit for it and stated over and over again his desire for his followers to kill more. What would a trial prove that he himself has not already proudly taken credit for? What would it accomplish aside from spending lots of money and giving him another chance to spew his rhetoric again?

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Martin Luther King. His philosophy of nonviolence is, I feel, one of the best ways for human beings to seek societal change. But it only works when the people involved have a stake in maintaining a positive image to outsiders. It worked in India because Great Britain had to deal with other countries asking questions about the murders of peaceful protesters. It worked in the American South because people got angry over images of dogs and hoses used to blast unarmed innocents. It won't work for Al Qaeda because appearing like murderous jerks is what they want to be.

You don't try to convince a mad dog to stop biting people through sit-ins and peaceful protests. You get a man with a gun to shoot it in the head before it hurts more people, then you bleach the ground it lays on so the sickness doesn't spread. Turning the other cheek is good, but what do you do when the other guy decides to punch you in the other cheek too, then kick you in the ribs when you're down?

Monster Rain wrote:

samrtk wrote:Bin Laden's probably been dead for years. It's just a way for Obama to regain some face.

Yes, because surely Bush wouldn't have tried this tactic, as popular as he was at the end of his term.

This is a silly thing to say. I wish people would stop.

Is it really silly? It's quite believeable. I've believed Bin Laden has been dead for three years of my life.

halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?

You mean me? Haha.

halonachos wrote:I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.

And not displaying any evidence? Oh I can believe anything my nation rulers say because they are just that. Don't simply take the food on the spoon. If Osama had REALLY been killed, there would be evidence displayed to confirm it. It's stuff like this that spawn all sorts of conspiracy theories; there is no validation. But, I don't want to get into conspiracy theories, too touchy of a zone.

But it's nice to see people united for a change, no matter how mislead they are.

fox wrote:WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

In the portion of the tape that was broadcast, the Al Qaeda (search) leader refrained from directly warning of new attacks, although he said "there are still reasons to repeat what happened."

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.

I believe that the new threats against america are proof enough that we did something to make them very mad, something like kill their figurehead.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

I don't really think this analogy works in any, shape or form. The events on 9/11 were terrible but I don't this comparison works at all. I can appreciate that you're trying to express the affects the attack had but you're well wide of the mark here. On numerous levels. It'd be better if you chalked this one up to experience and moved on. Much obliged.

he had numerous ailments that could have cut his life short.

No, he didn't. He had some minor renal issues, but they were never life threatening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-10-myths-cia-arsenal

themocaw wrote:You know what? Screw this.

Yes, the American President ordered the assassination of one man. Yes, the killing of Bin Laden was a cold-blooded assassination. And you know what? Good for him.

This wasn't a criminal who protested his innocence and was gunned down by cops to prove a point. This was a man who is not only responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men and women, this is a man who has proudly taken credit for it and stated over and over again his desire for his followers to kill more. What would a trial prove that he himself has not already proudly taken credit for? What would it accomplish aside from spending lots of money and giving him another chance to spew his rhetoric again?

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Martin Luther King. His philosophy of nonviolence is, I feel, one of the best ways for human beings to seek societal change. But it only works when the people involved have a stake in maintaining a positive image to outsiders. It worked in India because Great Britain had to deal with other countries asking questions about the murders of peaceful protesters. It worked in the American South because people got angry over images of dogs and hoses used to blast unarmed innocents. It won't work for Al Qaeda because appearing like murderous jerks is what they want to be.

You don't try to convince a mad dog to stop biting people through sit-ins and peaceful protests. You get a man with a gun to shoot it in the head before it hurts more people, then you bleach the ground it lays on so the sickness doesn't spread. Turning the other cheek is good, but what do you do when the other guy decides to punch you in the other cheek too, then kick you in the ribs when you're down?

Thank you Exactly. Agreeing with melissia when she was talking about feeling sympathy for conservatives, too.

Edited for rudeness. Was in a hurry talking to someone on the same issue

Samus_aran115 wrote:Thank you Exactly. Agreeing with melissia when she was talking about feeling sympathy for conservatives, too.

Why are the american people so stupid that they actually believe that you can win wars without expending human life? It makes me laugh to hear all these people hollering about how we killed some 'poor civilian woman', and how we shouldn't have done that, bawww.

It's similar to the kinship I feel with liberals whenever I see a Toby Keith video.

reds8n wrote: I don't really think this analogy works in any, shape or form. The events on 9/11 were terrible but I don't this comparison works at all. I can appreciate that you're trying to express the affects the attack had but you're well wide of the mark here. On numerous levels. It'd be better if you chalked this one up to experience and moved on. Much obliged.

I don't know the equivalent city and structure for England, my bad.

Indeed, see a landmark or something would have been a much better comparison than the Monarch and family.
Perhaps even something like Buckingham Palace for example, rather than the actual people who, asside from being living , breathing people also fuflfill certain const. roles that the WTC et al didn't.

No worries though, no har done here.

To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.

reds8n wrote: To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

Or a Hattery, or an Ornamental Lamp store, or a pocketwatch repair shop.

Do british people care about these things?

samrtk wrote:

reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.

If they mess with the start of the new series of "The Apprentice" next week then there will be blood.

Realistically I think the only thing that Terrorists could do to really annoy us would be to destroy Stephen Fry, during the F.A. Cup final, if it was held on a bank holiday and this also meant that whatever Bond film was showing on the other side was cancelled as well.

Then you'll see angry.

samrtk wrote:

reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.

Emirates stadium when Arsenal was playing Manchester?

See, that would just result in huge cheers from many parts of the country.

Especially in Manchester.

samrtk wrote:

Is it really silly? It's quite believeable. I've believed Bin Laden has been dead for three years of my life.

Yes it is silly, why? Because multiple reasons.

1) If Osama died when Bush was still in office, why didn't Bush throw it out there to save his ratings? He could have milked the killing for a bunch of political capital.
2) If Osama died when Bush was in office, and then Obama replaced him, why didn't OBAMA do the same thing to discredit the Republicans and earn himself political capital?
3) If Osama has been dead for years, and Obama is only releasing that info now for political reasons, why do it in the late spirng of 2011? Why not release it in summer 2012 so that it would actually help his reelection campaign?

Remeber Hanlon's Razor as quoted in my sig, never accuse malice when stupidity will suffice. I mean all the people making a big deal about contradictory details, have they never been in a situation where crap tons of information is coming in, and processing just hasn't been able to keep up? Seriously.

The burden on proof is on the conspiracy theorists to provide PROOF of the conspiracy, not simply ask questions, and then when answers aren't satisfactory declare that they're right.

halonachos wrote:Has anyone else noticed that its been a lot of people from outside the US making negative statements about this?

I know not everyone from outside the US is saying things in argument against Osama's death, but the majority of the argument is coming from non-americans.

To some of those people; imagine if a suicide bomber attack struck and killed the Queen, the princes, and their wives not only that but 2,000 other citizens died in the attack. Imagine some guy in the middle east saying that he did it and saying that the men who killed them are holy martyrs. Then imagine those men are being harbored by an oppressive government so your government decides to invade. Then imagine your forces taking the majority of the fighting and casualties for ten years.

Now imagine having your government finding the guy who came up with the idea.

That why they're called dern ferreners? Maybe their Al Qaeda, infiltrating us as we speak. Sounds like a job for Real American Hero

Frazzled wrote:That why they're called dern ferreners? Maybe their Al Qaeda, infiltrating us as we speak. Sounds like a job for Real American Hero

You appear to have confused the Greatest American Hero with a Real American Hero.

No real American would make that mistake. Are you some sort of furriner infiltrator?

biccat wrote:No real American would make that mistake. Are you some sort of furriner infiltrator?

Curses, foiled again! And I would have gotten away for it if it weren't for those meddlesome kids!

Bin Laden's still dead! feth yea! May not mean that much to some, especially civvies outside the states, but its a boost for the general morale especially to those who sacrificed to reach such a goal.

samrtk wrote:

reds8n wrote:To get the British that riled up you'd have to destroy something really serious : like our breweries, crisp ( chip for you lot) factories or Ant & Dec.

I actually don't think anything would rile us up. We just don't care enough.

Were ya around for the Falklands War?

ChrisWWII wrote:1) If Osama died when Bush was still in office, why didn't Bush throw it out there to save his ratings? He could have milked the killing for a bunch of political capital.
2) If Osama died when Bush was in office, and then Obama replaced him, why didn't OBAMA do the same thing to discredit the Republicans and earn himself political capital?
3) If Osama has been dead for years, and Obama is only releasing that info now for political reasons, why do it in the late spirng of 2011? Why not release it in summer 2012 so that it would actually help his reelection campaign?

1. It would defeat the purpose behidn the war. Oil.
2. Because Obama was pretending to be a new age messiah, he couldn't be petty at the time.
3. It keeps the action going in the east? Furthering profits. Wars which have caused more loss of life than the events of 9/11.

Empathy; people over in the east, innocents, are losing loved ones too, as many did that day. Two wrongs don't make a right. War only brings more misery. Then again if Obama really cared for his country he'd end the wars, but he's not that kind of president, he's another tool out of the machine. I really hope you guys elect Ron Paul in 2012, I'm not religious, but I'll pray for that if it'll give me some faith. He's the only guy who knows what America was meant to be when it was founded.

EDIT: I'm getting off-topic so I'm going to cut myself off