Osama bin Laden killed by US forces in Pakistan

[phildwyer]

If that is the case, why did the USA attorney General need to make this statement?

Edit to save people looking it up:
Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. raid on bin Laden's compound was lawful "as an act of national self-defense."

Bin Laden "was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."

The raid "was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the laws of war," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Carney declined to offer specifics, but said "there is simply no question that this operation was lawful. ... (Bin Laden) had continued to plot attacks against the United States."

Fair enough, hypocrisy of the first water.

 

[Pickman's model]

The way in which this killing is being treated as an equivilant to VE day.

you thick fuck. ve day was the end of the war in europe, in which perhaps 50 million people died. there were, understandably, people celebrating in the streets of london. could you point me to a similar number of people celebrating on the streets of any european city after the death of osama bin laden?

 

[Pickman's model]

That's quite a misrepresentation which fails to take into account the weight of offences.

Is flying into a compound in Pakistan, then killing half a dozen people, worse than flying Jets into office buildings killing thousands? Is invading Kuwait worse than carpet bombing a retreating Iraqi column? Is detention without trial worse than taking up arms against your own countrymen?

Every side tries to claim moral superiority but the question's absolutely subjective. I'm more than happy for my government to execute terrorists, in fact I'd encourage it. I think were morally obliged to. Dylans (and probably you) won't agree with me.

That's because you're both wrong and I'm right.

good thing you weren't about when nelson mandela was on trial.

 

[1%er]

That's quite a misrepresentation which fails to take into account the weight of offences.

Is flying into a compound in Pakistan, then killing half a dozen people, worse than flying Jets into office buildings killing thousands? Is invading Kuwait worse than carpet bombing a retreating Iraqi column? Is detention without trial worse than taking up arms against your own countrymen?

Every side tries to claim moral superiority but the question's absolutely subjective. I'm more than happy for my government to execute terrorists, in fact I'd encourage it. I think were morally obliged to. Dylans (and probably you) won't agree with me.

That's because you're both wrong and I'm right.

I have no moral position on this personally. As you will see I have posted above the US Attorney General, Eric Holder's statement on this. so it seems to me that the USA are claiming the higher ground.

I am sure I could find 1000's of lawyers who disagree with him, but he speaks for the US government.

 

[dylans]

Or people we have never even heard of being killed by unmanned drones. I see far more mileage in making a noise about that stuff than about a man that had long since become 'evil personified' in the minds of millions, a lost cause.

Over 2000 dead since 2004. 900 in 2010 alone.According to the Brookings institute ten civilians die for every militant killed by drones.

Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0714_targeted_killings_byman.aspx?p=1

 

[Spymaster]

good thing you weren't about when nelson mandela was on trial.

Yes, it could have been problematic. But then, one mans terrorist ... etc.

I have no moral position on this personally. As you will see I have posted above the US Attorney General, Eric Holder's statement on this. so it seems to me that the USA are claiming the higher ground.

Well of course they are. What kind of statement do you expect him to make? "The United States, in an act of extreme moral turpitude, today executed an unarmed man, uninvited on foreign soil. They then shot his wife in the leg, and killed a further five random fuckwad's, and another woman ....... YEEE HAAA!"

 

[dylans]

Well of course they are. What kind of statement do you expect him to make? "The United States, in an act of extreme moral turpitude, today executed an unarmed man, uninvited on foreign soil. They then shot his wife in the leg, and killed a further five random fuckwad's, and another woman ....... YEEE HAAA!"

No. Don't be ridiculous....George Bush has gone.

 

[elbows]

YEEE HAAA!"

 

[1%er]

Well of course they are. What kind of statement do you expect him to make?

I don't expect anything from the USA at all. The point I made was that "Some people seem to think it is alright to break International law when it suits their view of the world, but scream blue murder when it doesn't" and I asked "Who is the arbiter who will judge when and where it is correct to break such laws".

I think you make my point well when you say "But then, one mans terrorist ... etc".

 

[elbows]

Those American Crusade trading cards are just as good in hindsight as they were at the time.

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/cards.html

 

[Spymaster]

I don't expect anything from the USA at all.

Well I'd agree they be better off saying nothing than trying to justify the legality of the strike. My guess is that the attempted legal justifications will peter out as soon as they realise the whole fucking world knows that they just whacked the cunt, but very few of us actually mind!

 

[dylans]

Israeli MK calls for more assassinations of Palestinian militants following the Bin Laden killing

The chairman of the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee has urged the government to step up assassination operations against the leaders of Palestinian factions following America's killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Shaul Mofaz, MK, referred to the Palestinian groups as "terrorist organisations".

Mofaz made his outrageous suggestion on Radio Israel: "If terrorist activity [sic] continues to originate in the Gaza Strip, the leaders of Hamas should be made aware that they are potential targets for assassination and that such targeted killings are considered unquestionably legitimate."

The opposition Kadima Party MK claimed that, in killing Bin Laden, the United States has adopted the Israeli strategy of targeting "terrorist" leaders. This has, he claimed, been a proven success over a number of years.

http://uruknet.info/?p=m77431&fb=1

 

[claphamboy]

My problem here is that I fully accept that technically you are absolutely right - rule of law, good governance, due process, we should expect better from our elected govts etc.,etc.,...
and yet....against all this, Is the fact that I do believe OBL is dead, and as such I couldn't give a stuff how Bin Laden died. I am just glad he is dead, and I care about as much about his rights as a person, as he ever did about any of his victims. The world, is to me, a far better place for his passing, all things considered.
That isn't to say I hate anyn the less all the evil things USG has been involved in over the decades - simply that, if there's one instance where I'm prepared to let it slide, it's this one.

Just catching-up on the thread since this morning, was going to post exactly what Streathamite has here, so thanks for saving me the time.

Bin Laden is one exception to the general rules of international law I am more than happy with.

I've always enjoyed dylans' posts and I agree with much of what he's posted over the last couple of pages, but I seriously think he's calling it wrong over Bin laden.

 

[dylans]

What concerns me about all this is this idea of American exceptionalism. That the US (and perhaps those such as Israel who fall under the protection of American Emperial patronage) are somehow entitled to act in a manner that other nations are not. For example. Let's say a wanted Pakistani terrorist, someone responsible for some real atrocities in Pakistan managed to smuggle himself into the US and disappeared amongst sympathizers in say Chicago. Many years pass and the Pakistani's discover his location. Then, without informing the US they smuggle in a commando group go to his location and kill him and half a dozen others, carry his body away and vanish through mexico.

What would the US have to say about this? They would go mental. Violation of sovereignty blah blah. So if it is ok for the US and it is ok for Israel why is not ok for everyone else to just trample over the norms of international law and national sovereignty. Oh because Bin Laden is so bad, so exceptional, that it is ok? I don't buy that. George Bush and Tony Blair killed far more. The Israeli government are dripping with blood. We could go on and on. I am sure I can think of other vicious killers with blood on their hands. So what makes Bin Laden the exception and why does the US think the rules don't apply to itself? Finally, Empires come and go. What is to stop the likes of China from doing the same when the Empire game changes hands and they are the worlds emperial power? If we believe in the principle of international law, (however flawed the concept right now) as the US claims it does, then they have to demonstrate their respect for it themselves

 

[Streathamite]

Thing is its not about OBL. I couldn't care less about him. It's about us. Its about the kind of governmental and institutional corruption that is caused by waging a ten year war on terror that has torn up the rule book about constitutionality and rule of law etc. The killing of BL is not something that occurs in isolation or something that has no effect on other things. For example the fact that we don't care about OBL means we don't care about how he died, means we don't care about the truth of the events of that attack, means we are allowing Obama to present a narrative that may be other than the truth and if we allow that in this case then without realising it we allow it in other far more important issues.

For example, as I have posted elsewhere, there is a growing divide between the US and pakistan. A divide that may have massive regional and world implications. As such the truth of certain facts relating to the US Pakistan relationship are important and by allowing Obama to spin a propaganda version of events during the assault we may allow Obama to fit into that narrative a less than truthful account of events that led up to it, like the knowledge that both Pakistan and the USA had about the presence of high level Al Qaeda operatives in the country and the timing of the assault, the possibility that Pakistan tipped off the USA about his presence, the possibility that the assault was deliberately timed for now to suit political interests etc.

(and Streathamite, I know that you know this.)

important points - will come back to them later

 

[Idris2002]

There's a long tradition of killing one's enemies to prove one's potency. And that's why Obama/the US killed Bin Laden - one reason, anyway.

But if OBL has been politically dead since the Arab spring began, does his killing really matter?

 

[Spymaster]

But if OBL has been politically dead since the Arab spring began, does his killing really matter?

Dylans would probably be able to answer this better, but I see the only real advantage being symbolic and psychological. No doubt there are plenty of other planners equally adept at causing chaos and motivating jihadi's. He'll just be replaced won't he?

 

[toggle]

Even if this doesn't become the thin end of the wedge in terms of US actions, it could put those of other states beyond the moral reach of others. For the foreseeable, they know they have the retort - "well, you did it to obl, so go mind your own business".

since when has that kind of point ever made a difference to US government behavior?

 

[1%er]

Well I'd agree they be better off saying nothing than trying to justify the legality of the strike. My guess is that the attempted legal justifications will peter out as soon as they realise the whole fucking world knows that they just whacked the cunt, but very few of us actually mind!

Would you mind if Bradley Manning was shot and killed, if the USA could show you that his actions has put many American lives at risk?

 

[dylans]

There's a long tradition of killing one's enemies to prove one's potency. And that's why Obama/the US killed Bin Laden - one reason, anyway.

But if OBL has been politically dead since the Arab spring began, does his killing really matter?

No. His death means nothing in terms of Al Qaeda. He was the founder of an organisation that was in fatal decline anyway having achieved nothing. This is something to bear in mind. He knew it. He knew he had failed. He died a loser.

People forget but the ideology behind Al Qaeda didn't begin in Afghanistan, it began in Egypt. 3 senior Al Qaeda leaders were Egyptian Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef, and Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri and had a direct influence on inspiring Al Qaeda's global agenda. The first attacks on Western civilians were not on Americans but on Western and Japanese tourists in Egypt and they were aimed at overthrowing Mubarak by ruining the economy. I mention this because it is Egypt along with Tunisia that drove a stake through Al Qaeda's heart long before the bullets sent by Obama. A secular mass movement demanding democracy achieved and is still achieving what all their nihilistic violence couldn't and the demands for a khalifat are notably absent.

What does matter about this killing is what it may mean for the relationship between Pakistan and America. This is important and as I have posted many times here, very worrying for the region and the world

 

[elbows]

Do you have any intention of answering my question about whether a trial and the truth would be worse for the stability etc of Pakistan than the bloody alternative the US have indulged in?

 

[manny-p]

Love the way so many liberals are celebrating the extra judicial killing of Osama. Ejits

 

[Spymaster]

Would you mind if Bradley Manning was shot and killed, if the USA could show you that his actions has put many American lives at risk?

If he were shot retrospectively, in lieu of being locked up out of harms way, yes I'd have a problem with that. If he were shot to prevent greater loss of life whilst in commission of the offence. No.

Note: Your hypothesis. I do not believe that Manning should be shot.

 

[dylans]

Do you have any intention of answering my question about whether a trial and the truth would be worse for the stability etc of Pakistan than the bloody alternative the US have indulged in?

I will answer you in more depth later. For now I have to admit that possible revelations from a trial probably would have a destabilizing effect on Pakistan yes. Whether that in itself is a reason enough to avoid such an event is debatable. Not a terribly satisfactory reply I know.I will come back to it when I have a bit more time.

 

[Spymaster]

Love the way so many liberals are celebrating the extra judicial killing of Osama. Ejits

Ha!

Your shite thread didn't get the singular, thoughtless result you wanted so you've come back here to snipe.

 

[dylans]

Ha!

Your shite thread didn't get the singular, thoughtless result you wanted so you've come back here to snipe.

His thread is doing ok and I note that his poll has 67% of pollsters agree with me

 

[manny-p]

Ha!

Your shite thread didn't get the singular, thoughtless result you wanted so you've come back here to snipe.

You are right. I am tired, will come back another day with a better poll. At the moment it is showing the retarded mentality of some of the posters here.

 

[Spymaster]

His thread is doing ok and I note that his poll has 67% of pollsters agree with me

That's because his OP was crap and and didn't explain the situation.

If you look at the posters who've voted 'no' on his poll, you see some of them have disagreed with you on this thread.

If his poll question had been "do you give a fuck about OBL's execution?" the results would have been mighty different.

 

[manny-p]

That's because his OP was crap and and didn't explain the situation.

If you look at the posters who've voted 'no' on his poll, you see some of them have disagreed with you on this thread.

The OP was crap I must admit.

 

[manny-p]

If his poll question had been "do you give a fuck about OBL's execution?" the results would have been mighty different.

The poll is more aimed at targeted assasinations by the US by the use of drones in Pakistan. I was trolling on the other thread.