State Terrorism

[BlueBalls]

Capturing him and putting him on trail comes with certain problems that just killing him outright does not. Firstly you would have the precedent set by the PLO and Hezbollah, of an increased risk of the kidnapping of the civilians of whatever nation he was currently held in and of course holding them up in front of cameras demanding his release, then to only be killed because there would be absolutely no way the US would just hand him over - of course these sorts of actions already occur, as do the terrorist attacks that would likely increase if he were captured and brought back to the US or the Hague, but the hope is that by killing him you would decrease that risk. Secondly, if the trail were to have taken place within the US, bin Laden and his defence team would have been well within their rights to see any and all confidential information about how the US knows he's responsible for 9/11 and various other things associated with al-Qaeda that would be used against him and it is a distinct possibility that he and his defence team could subpoena any information regarding him that might have been omitted as evidence because it may harm national security, including ongoing operations, surveillance, informants, etc. Plus the result would really be the same, you'd just give him an extra 5 years or so.

An enemy in a foreign nation guilty of one attack against another nation and by all accounts planning more; if the nation in which he resides is either ignorant of his presence of unwilling to do anything about it, states are well within their rights to act in self defence.

 

[Trident1]

do you suppose somewhere in the world some jihadist is saying: you don't play footsie with americans. you kill them, or capture then videotape torture and then decapitation. if it were up to me i'd dig a ditch, throw in the americans and bury them alive.

They started this war.

 

[Will E Worm]

In Pakistan first there was the shock of the raid and some joy at Osama bin Laden's demise.

Now however a deep anger is developing, not just within the government that the US has implied is untrustworthy, but also throughout the nation over what many see was an unwarranted attack on their sovereignty.

SIDDIQUL FAROOQ: We're all astonished as to how United States violated our sovereignty and I think this action should have been conducted, our operation by Pakistan, and United States should have taken into confidence.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Many here don't believe Osama bin Laden's actually been killed.

Some say it's a stunt to boost president Obama's re-election hopes.

Article

You can't just run into someone's country and do as you wish.
That could start a war.

They are correct, it was a stunt to boost Obama's ratings.

 

[Hot Mega]

you don't negotiate with terrorists, you kill them as well as their friends

What does paying them not to fight count as, negotiating with them or killing them?

Georges, you know if the "O" man ever dreamed he was dreaming of doing this you would have 50 threads on this board calling him a terrorist symp., everything that rhymes with it and everything in between.:1orglaugh

 

[Legzman]

Unlike that boasts the American operation in Pakistan was not a victory against terrorism. When a state grants a license to kill, boasts of using torture to obtain results, violates international law, tramples the sovereignty of others, no doubt, practicing a row of crimes that feed the cycle of terror. The summary execution of enemies, the desecration of corpses and disappearance were never positive landmarks of civilization. It is painful to see, but what happened in Pakistan was, by all respects, a model example of the worst and most dangerous type of terrorism: state terrorism.


Note: everything is connected with the recent wave of protests in the Arab world, in which the people of these countries went to the streets calling for democracy and political reform.

I've always found it ironic that America is so anit-terrorism, yet we are the biggest terrorist of all! But then again, if you can't beat em, join em.

 

[vodkazvictim]

I was gonna reply to specific points, but others have already done that well enough, so I'll keep it short.
1: It would've been better to catch O man alive, purely for intel purposes (note that I dissaprove of the use of torture on the grounds that it's unethical AND it produces questionable results, not reliable ones).
2: There's nothing wrong whatsoever with killing a man as dedicated to conflict with you as O man, especially when he targets innocents.
3: This raid is a GOOD thing. The fact is that america should NEVER have invaded a whole state to go after 1 man. Since Afghanistan is (and always has been) composed of warring tribes, the smart option would've been to throw a bit of money to get his location, then do a raid like this to capture him (negligable casualties) or fly something overhead, drop a bomb and turn him into strawberry jam, which may well produce collateral damage, but produces much less collateral damage than an invasion and doesn't risk the lives of american troops with their piddly 5.56 carbines, road bound Stryker trucks and (initially) no gunshields.

4: AND FINALLY, TO THE OP: It's not always wrong to celebrate death. Some people deserve to die. Osama was one of them. Are you trying to insinuate nobody in the rest of the world (or, more specifically, your region)has celebrated over the death of an american? Frankly, your bias is showing. This is proven by the fact that I, known for my distain of jingoistic americans, am telling you so.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

 

[D-rock]

As far as somebody else's national sovereignty and it being violated goes. If they have somebody they know is within their borders the likes of Bin Laden and the situation is what only can come down to and be described as either:

1. Complete incompetence and/or apathy to do anything about it, and an unwillingness to bring somebody that despicable to proper justice.

2. Where they, or at least certain relatively powerful elements of the government, might actually be consorting with him for their own purpose or convenience.

(While I would like to think the first option is the one that's true I also wouldn't find the second option highly surprising if it came out to be the true. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a combination of the above either.)

Then, for them, to put it bluntly....tough shit.

If they don't like it or anybody else doesn't like it I would suggest they get their act together, and not complain if somebody does it for them. If the situation was reversed and we were the nation harboring somebody on the scale of that I wouldn't feel any sympathy for us or blame somebody else for coming after somebody like that. It's not just because it's a place like Pakistan either. If it was the UK, France, or Germany or someplace providing a refuge like that I would feel it was just as justified if it happened just like it did.

 

[mickeit]

You don't play footsie with jihadists. You kill them, or capture then water board then kill. If it were up to me I'd dig a ditch, throw in the jihadists and bury them alive.

Never fight a monstrosity otherwise turn into a monstrosity. Congrats you are equal

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

 

[Trident1]

Never fight a monstrosity otherwise turn into a monstrosity. Congrats you are equal

Hardly bub. You exterminate jihadists, this is war..............a war they started but we will finish on our terms.

 

[bustybbwlover]

becoming the monster jihadists believe us to be will in no way be a victory. anytime one willingly abandons their moral principles to complete a task, no matter what it is, they've lost. if you sell your soul to win, your victory is a hollow one.

 

[Trident1]

becoming the monster jihadists believe us to be will in no way be a victory. anytime one willingly abandons their moral principles to complete a task, no matter what it is, they've lost. if you sell your soul to win, your victory is a hollow one.

If anyone thinks war is clean and a video game then you need to smell the coffee. War is immoral.

If you have to fight then you do it dirty. It's either you or some jihadi.

 

[bustybbwlover]

war is absolutely immoral, that is why we should do what we can to contain the immorality not embrace it

 

[vodkazvictim]

If anyone thinks war is clean and a video game then you need to smell the coffee. War is immoral.

If you have to fight then you do it dirty. It's either you or some jihadi.

War is often dirty, but it is immoral and inefficient to torture.
It's theoretically possible to have a moral war.

 

[Supafly]

I think that there are more than one truths in this case. Yet there is a Law of War:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOW-Deskbook-2010.pdf

This is the US version, mind you.

As mordern warfare has developed away from classic warfare, things get more and more complicated,specially in the so-called 'War on Terror'

Still, I remember that a large number of iraqi troops surrendered to british journalists, along as to the British Royal Marines and to other groups.

This is one example what you need Laws of War for.

Please, don't get too sarcastic, even if there is so much war going on.

Remember, there NEVER was a time where there was peace on earth. There are always people fighting.

Well, if the Jehova's Witnesses (And the Maya Calendar [Strange harmony there]) are right, it's all over soon