This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Osama Bin Laden is dead
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Are you going to allow the driver that t-boned and killed the other to get away scott free? If they purposefully intended to injure or kill whomever they hit, especially. That's a more legitimate metaphor.
Would you send a kill squad into a foreign country, without obtaining permission, with orders to 'capture or execute' the driver? No. There are laws in place for dealing with criminals who flee the country - next time they're in town, they will be arrested and tried.
The irony, of course, is that despite being the ringleader, Osama himself has probably killed less Westerners than many of his underlings.
Post by
xaratherus
Are you going to allow the driver that t-boned and killed the other to get away scott free? If they purposefully intended to injure or kill whomever they hit, especially. That's a more legitimate metaphor.
Would you send a kill squad into a foreign country, without obtaining permission, with orders to 'capture or execute' the driver? No. There are laws in place for dealing with criminals who flee the country - next time they're in town, they will be arrested and tried.
The irony, of course, is that despite being the ringleader, Osama himself has probably killed less Westerners than many of his underlings.
Directly, yes - you're probably right.
The thing I find ironic is that the majority of the hijackers in the actual 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. Which is, well, not where we've been operating. Take that as you will...
Post by
Squishalot
That's not that surprising though, considering that Saudi Arabia is probably the most extreme of the Muslim countries? Sorta like how the US works with other countries' troops, but is the one most targeted by terrorists because of the perception that the US is calling the shots in the Middle East conflict. You go after the leader, on the (somewhat flawed) basis that by stopping them, you'll stop the operations that they're progressing.
Post by
xaratherus
True.
Although personally, I think it's a bit less strategic than that - at least, in regards to actual combat. Saudi Arabia is one of our allies in the region,
and
we get a ton of oil from them as well. It would sort of equate to "biting the hand that feeds us".
Of course, the solution to that would be to ween ourselves off dependence of foreign oil - but that of course has its own problems (like the fact that the oil companies in the U.S. are such big contributors to politics).
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Yutrippin
Can we please develop a policy for withdrawing from Iraq?
I'm not sure where you've been, but we've already begun the process of withdrawing from Iraq. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but if you needed, I could find them for you.
Are you going to allow the driver that t-boned and killed the other to get away scott free? If they purposefully intended to injure or kill whomever they hit, especially. That's a more legitimate metaphor.
Would you send a kill squad into a foreign country, without obtaining permission, with orders to 'capture or execute' the driver? No. There are laws in place for dealing with criminals who flee the country - next time they're in town, they will be arrested and tried.
The irony, of course, is that despite being the ringleader, Osama himself has probably killed less Westerners than many of his underlings.
Alright, so you really want to keep going with this? It wasn't just
one
person that was killed, and thus justified the kill squad. It was thousands of American lives. To make the running metaphor as explicit and more literal so that you can understand it, it's like having one man orchestrating multiple semi truck drivers to run over hundreds of kids on their way to smashing through a couple school buses, killing even more.
Would you
then
finally think it's horrific enough to catch the man responsible?
Post by
Pwntiff
Oh, Internet, I sometimes love you.
Post by
821561
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Would you then finally think it's horrific enough to catch the man responsible?
To breach another country's laws, kill their residents and shoot the particular man while he was unarmed? No. If you have principles of democracy and order, it would do you well to stick by them.
To condone that action would also justify a terrorist group infiltrating the US and assassinating Obama, for his orchestration of the significant number of civilian dead in the Middle East.
Post by
Monday
Oh, Internet, I sometimes love you.
Win.
Post by
Yutrippin
Would you then finally think it's horrific enough to catch the man responsible?
To breach another country's laws, kill their residents and shoot the particular man while he was unarmed? No. If you have principles of democracy and order, it would do you well to stick by them.
To condone that action would also justify a terrorist group infiltrating the US and assassinating Obama, for his orchestration of the significant number of civilian dead in the Middle East.
Do you know that country (Pakistan)'s specific laws? Its specific agreements with regards to the provisions allowed for doing certain things (i.e. catching one of the world's most wanted terrorists)?
It's really blowing my mind that you actually seem
against
the fact that we capture/killed UBL.
There's a ginormous difference between a democratic nation enacting justice and law upon a specific terrorist, as opposed to a terrorist organization assassinating the POTUS. He's not orchestrating the civilian deaths in the Middle East. They're casualties. Accidents.
Post by
Skreeran
Would you then finally think it's horrific enough to catch the man responsible?
To breach another country's laws, kill their residents and shoot the particular man while he was unarmed? No. If you have principles of democracy and order, it would do you well to stick by them.
To condone that action would also justify a terrorist group infiltrating the US and assassinating Obama, for his orchestration of the significant number of civilian dead in the Middle East.He wasn't unarmed, he shot right back.
And as for Obama, he is more or less operating under the rules of war, and doing his best to make sure only the militants get killed, rather than civilians. That is much different from intentionally killing mass numbers of civilians in a non-hostile country for religious reasons.
I personally think Osama should have been brought back to the states and tried, rather than shot (and honestly I can't help but a twinge of suspicion that perhaps Osama has been dead for a while, and this was staged to give Americans closure), but I don't really feel bad about his death. He was a terrorist by the most basic definition of the world, and at his command, thousands of innocent Americans were killed intentionally and out of malice.
Iraqi civilians have died in the Iraq war, and I'm sorry for that, but as far as I know, most weren't killed intentionally, and I sincerely hope that if any soldiers intentionally killed civilians, that they be punished to the full extent of the law. But do not compare Osama bin Laden with our President, please.
Post by
Monday
He wasn't unarmed, he shot right back.
Osama was indeed unarmed.
Post by
Squishalot
He wasn't unarmed, he shot right back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04raid.html
Bin Laden’s wife, who was with him in the room, “rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,” said the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, reading from the brief account, which was provided by the Defense Department. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed.
He was not armed
.”
Emphasis mine. Mind you, the story keeps changing so much, it seems that the '40 minute gunfight' was actually 'one courier with a gun'.
Do you know that country (Pakistan)'s specific laws? Its specific agreements with regards to the provisions allowed for doing certain things (i.e. catching one of the world's most wanted terrorists)?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/03/osama-bin-laden-raid-unauthorised-says-pakistan-warning-america-against-a-repeat-115875-23105408/
It has specific agreements, that allow for authorised bilateral or unilateral actions. Had the US asked permission, that would have been fine, and I would have no issues with it.
It's really blowing my mind that you actually seem
against
the fact that we capture/killed UBL.
I'm against the principle that the US brazenly ignored the laws of another country to kill someone who did exactly the same thing to them, because doing so merely stoops to your opponent's level.
There's a ginormous difference between a democratic nation enacting justice and law upon a specific terrorist, as opposed to a terrorist organization assassinating the POTUS. He's not orchestrating the civilian deaths in the Middle East. They're casualties. Accidents.
Casualties are casualties, intended or otherwise. The plane that was aiming for the Pentagon or the White House? The people on board were 'accidents' by your definition - mere collateral that happened to die as a result of the operation. Don't belittle their deaths with your rhetoric garbage.
Post by
151311
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
He wasn't unarmed, he shot right back.
Osama was indeed unarmed.
Are you sure about that?
I believe the
New York Times.
Post by
Yutrippin
Do you know that country (Pakistan)'s specific laws? Its specific agreements with regards to the provisions allowed for doing certain things (i.e. catching one of the world's most wanted terrorists)?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/03/osama-bin-laden-raid-unauthorised-says-pakistan-warning-america-against-a-repeat-115875-23105408/
It has specific agreements, that allow for authorised bilateral or unilateral actions. Had the US asked permission, that would have been fine, and I would have no issues with it.
I'll give you that. However, what's to say there are no al-Qa'ida operatives deeply placed within Pakistan's ranks, and any word that this operation would happen would get back to UBL and we'd be back on the "
just
behind him" track?
It's really blowing my mind that you actually seem
against
the fact that we capture/killed UBL.
I'm against the principle that the US brazenly ignored the laws of another country to kill someone who did exactly the same thing to them, because doing so merely stoops to your opponent's level.
I get what you're
aiming
for, but it just doesn't work here. You're seriously comparing crashing three planes full of people into buildings (another plane brought down) -- a terrorist attack --, to using Special Forces to take out one man responsible for heinous crimes.
There's a ginormous difference between a democratic nation enacting justice and law upon a specific terrorist, as opposed to a terrorist organization assassinating the POTUS. He's not orchestrating the civilian deaths in the Middle East. They're casualties. Accidents.
Casualties are casualties, intended or otherwise. The plane that was aiming for the Pentagon or the White House? The people on board were 'accidents' by your definition - mere collateral that happened to die as a result of the operation. Don't belittle their deaths with your rhetoric garbage.
Again, I see what you're going for, it just does not work. The terrorists were aiming for as much death and destruction given a specific objective. Those people on board the planes were just as much victims as those intended at the White House or Pentagon. They were just as targeted to die. The un-intended civilian casualties as a result of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are truly unfortunate. They are in a war zone. And it's not like the terrorists are going to distinguish themsleves from the general population and say, "Hey guys,
I
'm the one you're looking for. Not him."
Post by
Adamsm
Again, I see what you're going for, it just does not work. The terrorists were aiming for as much death and destruction given a specific objective. Those people on board the planes were just as much victims as those intended at the White House or Pentagon. They were just as targeted to die. The un-intended civilian casualties as a result of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are truly unfortunate. They are in a war zone. And it's not like the terrorists are going to distinguish themsleves from the general population and say, "Hey guys, I'm the one you're looking for. Not him."Well, the terrorists did declare War on the United States of America....../sigh logic like that is just plain nuts. After all, Friendly Fire isn't; and I'm sure all those non-military targets the dumb bombs hit made the local popular fear the 'liberators' just as much as they feared the terrorists/oppressive regime.
Post by
Skreeran
Again, I see what you're going for, it just does not work. The terrorists were aiming for as much death and destruction given a specific objective. Those people on board the planes were just as much victims as those intended at the White House or Pentagon. They were just as targeted to die. The un-intended civilian casualties as a result of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are truly unfortunate. They are in a war zone. And it's not like the terrorists are going to distinguish themsleves from the general population and say, "Hey guys, I'm the one you're looking for. Not him."Well, the terrorists did declare War on the United States of America....../sigh logic like that is just plain nuts. After all, Friendly Fire isn't; and I'm sure all those non-military targets the dumb bombs hit made the local popular fear the 'liberators' just as much as they feared the terrorists/oppressive regime.I don't know, in my opinion, there is a difference between war declared by two armies that is subject to International Law, and men blowing themselves up in crowds/buses/subways for a express purpose of causing civilian casualties.
If we had dropped a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan/Pakistan in response to 9/11, the two acts would be comparable. As it stands, they just aren't.
I too think it would have been better to capture Osama bin Laden alive instead of just shooting him, but he is a murderer, has been at large for more than a decade now, and I understand that the people who arranged the operation were willing to give up the chance to capture him if it reduced the risk of him escaping justice again.
If the President is accused of intentional mass murder of civilians, let him stand before the International Criminal Court. He's not hiding. We know where he is, and he can be held accountable by civil means.
When a mass murderer has evaded capture for a decade, though, it's a lot harder to take him to court.
Post by
722089
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.