Osama bin Laden: Dead

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OsamaFacebook.jpg (14.15 KiB) Viewed 1353 times

[Ian]

[Chuck Jones]

Bin Laden has been dead for years. Wake up.

[Hermit]

I really don't care about the definition of "resistance". I doubt Bin Laden had been sitting in a chair twiddling his thumbs while the SEALs were helicoptering in and taking down other people in his compound before arriving at his room. So I don't care about the details of whether he was holding a gun or not. If the guy/s who finally shot saw reason to fire, then I won't question it.

What if they had him captured, and just executed him?

Isn't that what happened?

Few people outside of the DEVGRU (aka SEAL Team Six) team who were there know the specifics. Nobody here knows, that's for sure.

We do if we can trust Obama to speak the truth. In his speech to the nation he said that bin Laden was killed AFTER a firefight.

[Ian]

I really don't care about the definition of "resistance". I doubt Bin Laden had been sitting in a chair twiddling his thumbs while the SEALs were helicoptering in and taking down other people in his compound before arriving at his room. So I don't care about the details of whether he was holding a gun or not. If the guy/s who finally shot saw reason to fire, then I won't question it.

What if they had him captured, and just executed him?

Isn't that what happened?

Few people outside of the DEVGRU (aka SEAL Team Six) team who were there know the specifics. Nobody here knows, that's for sure.

We do if we can trust Obama to speak the truth. In his speech to the nation he said that bin Laden was killed AFTER a firefight.

Um, he was. Bin Laden may or may not have personally fired any shots during the fight. And it really doesn't matter.

[sandinista]

Okay Sherlock, so tell us what's so plainly obvious to you.

Don't keep us in the dark - you apparently have some clear idea of what the truth really is since you seem to have no doubts that the world is being deceived. So, what's your brilliant theory?

Sherlock? I don't know what the truth is, nor do I care really. I just know that to actually believe what the US government (and most governments in general but the US government in particular) is not only extremely naive but teeters on the edge of completely moronic. The stories already being changed and manipulated. Embarrassing that some people actually buy this baloney.

[Atheist-Lite]

Something appears to have happened. We are still in the fog of war with what, why and even who. I don't want to feed the fires of the conspiracy theorists but neither do I wish to be a lapdog for the government line on this, I say wait. Time tries truth better than anything else. Facts are pieced together slowly when a big lie is cast and when the truth is extra-ordinary. We should have patience and with patience we shallcatch the fish we seek here?

[Atheist-Lite]

What I think at this moment based on what I've gleaned, from the same unreliable sources as most here, is that they hit a high ranking terrorist. They had a shoot to kill policy which meant they didn't want to know the password for his encrypted intelligence data. Which means they already had the passwords or they wish to keep the contents of the hard-drives out of reach for other reasons. Given the seedy relations of the CIA and terror organistions in the past these reasons are easy to guess without much speculation. It certainly is a extraordinary story and saying they dumpied the body in the sea may be something they did so they could interrogate a live Bin Laden in private which would explain the lack of photographs? Altogether too many loose ends and too many possible ways this story within a story could go. Give it time.

[Pappa]

It does appear that the action, as currently presented, was against international law. The whole thing about Bin Laden being an enemy combatant is bunkum. In order for it to be a legal military action as opposed to an illegal assassination, the US would have needed to openly accuse Pakistan of harbouring this international terrorist who is a danger to the US's national security, and go to war with Pakistan (at least with the specific objective of taking out Bin Laden). The whole situation highlights a problem with international law that we can see shifting right now. The international agreements and conventions weren't designed for the type of global terrorism we see today, and it's understandable that the US feel the need to perform these kinds of actions that lie outside the rules of law. It may be understandable, but that doesn't make it legal. Bin Laden was clearly a special case, but it is worrying that this will set a precedent for future assassinations. I'm not sure if anyone read the link I posted earlier in this thread, but it claims the US has an assassination list of international terrorists who can be killed on the authority of the US Government without due process. One person supposedly targeted by the US has vehemently denied they are a terrorist. Is it ok that an individual government is happy to carry out assassinations on civilians based on their own intelligence that the individuals are 'enemy combatants'? The answer has to be no.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations

[Hermit]

It does appear that the action, as currently presented, was against international law. The whole thing about Bin Laden being an enemy combatant is bunkum. In order for it to be a legal military action as opposed to an illegal assassination, the US would have needed to openly accuse Pakistan of harbouring this international terrorist who is a danger to the US's national security, and go to war with Pakistan (at least with the specific objective of taking out Bin Laden). The whole situation highlights a problem with international law that we can see shifting right now. The international agreements and conventions weren't designed for the type of global terrorism we see today, and it's understandable that the US feel the need to perform these kinds of actions that lie outside the rules of law. It may be understandable, but that doesn't make it legal. Bin Laden was clearly a special case, but it is worrying that this will set a precedent for future assassinations. I'm not sure if anyone read the link I posted earlier in this thread, but it claims the US has an assassination list of international terrorists who can be killed on the authority of the US Government without due process. One person supposedly targeted by the US has vehemently denied they are a terrorist. Is it ok that an individual government is happy to carry out assassinations on civilians based on their own intelligence that the individuals are 'enemy combatants'? The answer has to be no.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... ssinations

As far as precedents are concerned for snatching individuals from countries they are hiding in, and killing them, I think mentioning Israel, Argentina and Eichmann might be more appropriate.

[Pappa]

Oh, I know this kind of thing has been done many times before, by the US and lots of other countries too, but I meant specifically to deal with terrorist suspects in the near future.

[JimC]

CES has done a magnificent job in this thread, IMO, in cooly and rationally detailing his concerns about the legality of the US actions, particularly given his overall political position.

Kudos...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, I know this kind of thing has been done many times before, by the US and lots of other countries too, but I meant specifically to deal with terrorist suspects in the near future.

US to future terrorists: Don't make us go all bin Laden on your ass.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/osama- ... ker,20293/

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/osama- ... ker,20293/

Daily Mash does it better.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/ ... 105053775/

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 105033768/