On OBL, USA and Murder

[DeTomaso]

One anomaly:

 

Since it is technically a 'War' as in 'War against Terror', didn't either the Hague or Geneva Conventions prevent unarmed combatants from being killed? I mean, technically, he was unarmed during the whole time, yes, he had a few weapons hanging around, but he didn't carry it.

 

I'm not defending Osama's death or anything, so please don't get me wrong.

 

'War against Terror' is just a one-sided elastic concept, a phrase covered by the media and the Bush jr.administration. Not only doesn't al-Qaeda understand itself as in a 'War for Terror', it likewise has opened the general opportunity to justify any military actions against "everybody that is not with us", the "bandits", the "outlaws" of old we today prefer to name "terrorists", for example the separatist Kashmiri in North India. Actually we are not dealing with inter-country war but first and foremost with punitive action and reaction between the US empire and regional and/or worldwide operating rebels that are beyond the Geneva Convention. This is the key differentiator between the jihadists of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The latter are legal combatants in the Afghan War.

Technically seen the "execution of Osama bin Laden" by US military was a clear minding other states' business, namely that of Pakistan. This not only calls for a diplomatic Pakistani reaction but likewise for a political revaluation of the Pakistani by the US. Precisely this has happened. So the Pakistani question to the US "why did you do something on our soil without our permisson?" gets nullified by the US back answer "why have you consciously hidden the most wanted terrorist?" We'll see a cooling in the relation between the US and Pakistan (which automatically strenghtens the Pakistan-Iran axis), probably with consequences for the US troops and their allies in Afghanistan, caused by reinforced Taliban offensives.

Needless to say that it would be absolutely impossible for the US to use the same jump and run tactics in the case of no. 2 of al-Qaeda's senior leaders, Aiman az-Zawahiri, without taking the risk of massive Pakistani reaction.

The remarkable offical comment on bin Laden's (2nd) death by the former Taliban state secretary runs as follows:

"Who cares? This group is operatively irrelevant already since a couple of years."

In other words: The bearded mullahs don't tolerate the young leader with downy beards of al-Qaeda in the same way they once have tolerated his father, the 'Mahdi'. And this might go for the exiled Arab legion on Afghan and Pakistani soil as well.

Whatever the case may be, the full-flavored statement lately given by the well-known journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Bob Woodward on AlJazeera on bin Laden's death as "a decapitation of al-Qaeda" is naive, to say the least. "The group will continue with their actions on the 'limited level' of the last years." (Gilles Kepel, French al-Qaéda specialist).

Edited May 11, 2011 by DeTomaso

[Tamujiin]

Regardless of what was said and done, the united states killed a person, who was very much like hitler. He killed his own people because they didn't go fundamental muslim, when the need arised. ( strap on a bomb ). I dont see a point in debating whether this is was a bad thing or legal thing to do, If your from europe, you know damn well that your country could have/could be next in line. I don't care if you live in england, france, turkey, or greece. The united states was attacked, flat out, whoever did it, osama bin laden took the blame in his own words. Therefore the man was no less legal to kill than hitler would have been. Hitler shot himself. Osama got shot in the face.

 

My deal about all this is, i work with a pakistani christian, who was persecuted by his own country because of his choice to believe in jesus, than to believe in muhammed.

I am informed about what his country thinks and believes, my pro-pakistani belief is they dont even have freaken survielence at a gas station or grocery store. Survielence isnt the top priority in there country. Watching out for "bomb blasting" is.

 

When you ask for an unbiased intellegent answer, your never going to get un-biased in a debate. I don't care if the author of this thread is pro/anti islam, democracy, whatever, the fact is all this bull crap in the world is a fundamental fight between the forces of common sense and insanity. It isnt muslim vs jew vs christian. the youth are rising up in in there country's tired of living by sharayah law. Tired of being poor, tired of being persecuted. At some point in time in modern history, this was expected to happen, is it a sign of the apocolypse? Absolutly not, its a sign of the opposite, its a sign of world peace trying to find its way into our lives. How many sad stories are in these countries, where the peaople have to worry about being blown away.

 

I just want everybody around the world to know, that yeah, the world is watching the U.S.A, But remeber, whatever country you live in, the world is watching you. Albiet it england., france, russia, china, Japan.....Pakistan, Iran, ect.

[McclaudEagle]

"the united states killed a person"

 

I'd like to point out that a out of the 79 soldiers sent in to deal with him, only 1 or 2 actually shot him. Those soldiers were acting under the authority and orders of their superiors, who were acting under the order of the US Government. Those 1-2 soldiers do not represent the USA or its people. Now, you're probably wondering why I pointed this out?

 

The reason I pointed it out is that many people around the world simply dislike/hate America because of what a few people did. By saying the United States killed him, you might as well be saying the entire 400+ million people living in the US shot him. Generalizing is the reason many countries have such bad reputations. Rather than look directly at the people responsible, they choose to simply blame an entire group of people.

[ginnyfizz]

 

Needless to say that it would be absolutely impossible for the US to use the same jump and run tactics in the case of no. 2 of al-Qaeda's senior leaders, Aiman az-Zawahiri, without taking the risk of massive Pakistani reaction.

 

 

You make a big assumption that he is still in Pakistan, which is not certain as far as we know. I suspect that the first we will know is when the Seals or the SAS give him his much deserved comeuppance. As to the massive Pakistani reaction, the prospect of having billions of pounds of aid withdrawn would concentrate their minds wonderfully. They have been taking the aid and giving the West the finger by harbouring the rat, now they should put their house in order.

[Aurielius]

Needless to say that it would be absolutely impossible for the US to use the same jump and run tactics in the case of no. 2 of al-Qaeda's senior leaders, Aiman az-Zawahiri, without taking the risk of massive Pakistani reaction.

It's intriguing that you snidely refer to a covert insertion and evacuation as "jump and run", it seems imply that the Seal Team should have waited for the Pakistani Army to show up and have relieved them of all the intelligence gathered with the operation in deference to their sovereignty. Or would it have been better to have informed their military so they could have warned OBL to escape justice once again? Most of us within the US do not believe the protestations of innocence by the Pakistani government. OBL hid for SIX years just down the road from one of the premier military institutions of Pakistan, in a military town which requires clearance to reside in. When we find out where Aiman az-Zawahir is hiding it is my hope that the identical procedure is used with the same final outcome. There is strong feeling within the US that the Pakistani's have been playing the west for fools with their only real concern being their influence in Afghanistan not the war on terror. They like our money well enough it seems. The Pakistanis have not even controlled the tribal regions which is used as the gateway for Al Queda operations in Afghanistan. I say cut off the money tap now and make them fend for themselves or at a minimum only pay a bounty on terrorists that we want instead of funding the ISA's designs on the Kashmir region. An untrustworthy ally is of little value to the west, lets cut them loose.

[DarkeWolf]

Wow, we've had some incredible insight going on, about whats going on with what happened.

I applaud you all for your open-mindedness and awareness :thumbsup:

 

Aurielius-

It's intriguing that you snidely refer to a covert insertion and evacuation as "jump and run".....

I think that you may have misread the comment that you're responding to. Which could be understandable. This is a large thread with a lot of walls of text. And it's a heated issue.

But, I think that what they were saying, is that the military forces were not doing that kind of thing, and that if they had been it would have been a very big mistake on their part. ;)

 

 

Oh.... and for the record... simply stating an opinion is not trolling. As long as it's done in a considerate and non-abusive way.

If I were to say "So and so, you're a complete moron, who doesn't have a brain in their head, and has less sense than was given to a doorknob..." I'd write myself up for trolling. ;) And NO, that comment is NOT aimed at anybody in particular. Not on the thread, not on the site at all. (My gf's ex husband on the other hand... wellllll.......)

[DeTomaso]

az-Zawahiri, the falcon, should be where the falcon nest, the main operational base, is. And the MOB of al-Qaeda is where the Arab mujaheddin are operating militarily and this already since a couple of years - in the Peshawar province, the Pakistani borderland to Afghanistan. There we'll find their training camps too, the ideological head as well as the bulk of terror directed to the promising Pakistani capital Islamabad and the Pakistan People's Party (Bhutto) in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League (Sharif), the vulnerable rear covered by the still allied Taliban at the Khyber Pass. That is the one-front cave-dwelling strategy or lion’s den strategy of al-Qaeda, to be linked to the one of the 80s and the Soviet–Afghan War, different to the internationalized one of the late 90s when “the taste of war will be brought to America” [Osama bin Laden]. Such being the case I have serious problems to understand the idea of al-Qaeda as being urbanized in the meantime. The Arabs stand out like a sore thumb among the Pashtuns, no matter how long their beard is and if they wear the customary pakol filt hat or not. A village or city quarter in the Peshawar province where everybody knows each other by birth is probably the worst place on earth for the still numerous Arab foreigners to hide away, the almost deserted hinterland is not.

 

The interesting fact that the Arabs of al-Qaeda didn’t participate in Taliban offensives in Afghanistan since the fall of Kabul in 2001 is IMO a striking proof of their actual military capabilities as well as the great respect shown by the Taliban, or better: the absolute lack thereof.

 

My hopes rest on a first careful peace talk between the US and the Taliban one day, still before the withdrawal of the last Western soldier from Afghan soils. This would be helpful not only for the future of a decentralized Afghanistan, a country that is simply not to be ruled centrally by Kabul, but likewise for a final isolation and consequently a final withering of al-Qaeda terrorism.

If we don’t see such a peace talk within the next three or four years, well then our troops have probably fought and lost their lives for nothing cos after the withdrawal of the West the finally victorious Taliban in the war for Kabul will doubtlessly establish their strange Islamic republic of the third kind once again, and the civil war of the tribes goes on, then with Karzai back in the USA. Though a zero sum result is not what we're fighting for since a decade, right?

Edited May 12, 2011 by DeTomaso

[Harbringe]

My hopes rest on a first careful talk between the US and the Taliban one day, still before the withdrawal of the last Western soldier from Afghan soils. This would be helpful not only for the future of a decentralized Afghanistan, a country that is simply not to be ruled by Kabul, but likewise for a final isolation and consequently a final withering of al-Qaeda terrorism.

If we don’t see such a talk within the next two or three years, well then our troops have probably fought and lost their lives for nothing cos then the finally victorious Taliban will doubtlessly establish their strange Islamic republic of the third kind once again. Though this is not what we're fighting for since a decade, right?

 

Well said

 

The Taliban are an ideollogical movement within the Pashtun people and the Pashtun tribal lands are a divided kingdom between the nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan .A historical circumstance imposed by the departing of the British empire in that region.Since the independence of Pakistan they have managed to have the Pashtun look past this artificially imposed division of their people , but since the War on Terrorism began in that region it has caused an awakening of Pashtun identity that is very problematic for the rest of Pakistan ,so when it comes to American concerns of what they hold as important , its low on their list of concerns compared to their own geo political concerns.When the Americans are long gone they will still have to deal with the consequences of what this war has brought to them for a long time to come.So when it comes to Aiman az-Zawahiri or Osama Bin Laden they have had other priorities on their plate , basically not letting this whole situation destabilize their country ,nuclear armed country at that.

 

The only thing that I would alter in what De Tomaso said is that any focus of discussions must be addressed to the Pashtun people as a whole ,and if the Taliban choose to be there as a participant fine but the priority of focus must be on the Pashtun.

[Sync182]

@Sync

 

I did not invite you in the thread, if you do not like it, take your trolling away.

 

Edit: Also, this is not a movie, its reality, so what is with the movie quotes?

 

If you don't want opinions that might differ from your own, don't start a thread in an open forum.

 

My posts are just that - opinions. I'll concede I'm trolling when a member of staff tells me I am.

 

And my quotes are points of relevance - lines from scripts that accurately say what I want to. Someone else said it first, so I ensure what I write is properly attributed (as best I can).

 

 

BACK ON TOPIC:

 

Much of what I would say has already been said:

* Whether directly or indirectly, bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, all of them killed in a manner that gloriously violates the Rules of War that some are now starting to wave around in the face of the USA;

* Rightly or Wrongly, the US military took direct action against bin Laden and stopped him from stealing oxygen;

* Rightly or Wrongly, some are accusing the US of unfair tactics in the killing of bin Laden, while conveniently overlooking the FACT that bin Laden's tactics were far worse.

 

Was bin Laden armed or unarmed when he was killed? Does it matter? I'm pretty sure that only a handful, at best, of the 3000 people that perished on 9/11 were armed, and certainly nothing to defend against an incoming 737 or two.

 

Was the USA abiding by the Rules of War when they took action against bin Laden? Does it matter? Sure as hell the various al-Quaeda actions didn't play by any rules of warfare I'd normally subscribe to. I'm only guessing, but I'm pretty sure that those rules say something along the lines of "thou shalt not kill civilians or innocents". Popcorn, anyone?

 

Some people are now up in arms over how bin Laden's body was given a burial at sea (in accordance with Islamic traditions, mind you). I challenge those people to stand up in front of the families of those who died on 9/11 and demand that bin Laden be given a proper burial and religious service. Can't see that happening, somehow. Some of those families never got the bodies of their loved ones back for burial.

 

Am I right, or am I wrong? Isn't that what we're debating? ;)

Edited May 12, 2011 by Sync182

[grannywils]

Sync 182, I have already vowed to stay off this thread, and will not be long here. But just wanted to say this in response to you and the last two posters. Most who know me know that I believe in loving my fellow man regardless of race, creed, etc, etc. and all that other good stuff. However by now you all must also realize that I am no Pollyanna and that I do know the difference between right and wrong. And I do very definitely know that there is a right and a wrong.

 

Anyway, what I am trying to get at here is that I do in fact believe in pure evil in this world, and I believe that this man personified evil. Those who feel the need to rag on the US for how it went about doing what it felt was necessary, will just have to go on and feel that way. We did what we did, and so be it. We can live with it, and we will have to live with it. No one man among us has the right to judge another. That duty belongs to a higher power (depending upon one's beliefs), so all this judging that has been going on is just so much hot air in my opinion. We do not need to justify our behaviour to anyone on this earth. We are all only human, and no one of us is perfect.