Osama bin Laden Killed

[guamainiac]

Well gee, let's just have a group hug after our "Class in Cultural Mores and Folkways" of the dry world or French Indo China.

Then we'll jump on the bird and go off and wreak havoc on enemy as a declared signatory or not the the Geneva Conventions .... of which the US is not a full signatory anyway and we will kill the mo-fo's.

The "Krauts" did not send little kids with grenades strapped to their PJ's did they? The "Japs" were pretty brutal with the death marches and such or how bout the Nanking BBQ? Just a little fun in the sun.

We find it difficult to kill people so we give them funny names. Slo-ped on the uptake are you?

What did the French call the Nazi? Our neighbors to the east who are just visiting. How about the Hunkies .. what did they call the Reds?

Get off you soap boxes will you. He was bad and now he's fugging dead (we think), but coming up with a way cool conspiracy will make me a hipper hipster and feel way smarter than you. Who ever you are.

Is he really dead. Someone pointed out that suddenly Obama comes up with a "long form" birth certificate and masterminds the downfall of the evil one? All in one week as his polls go into the tank. Funny thing no?

[HalcyonDays]

It is a sad commentary on the general decline in society when people are more concerned with the life of a mass murderer than those of his victims.

In truth I think it is a small minority of people and media elements who are making these complaints. Perhaps it reflects the very democratic diversity we uphold so highly that there are some people who feel motivated to conduct this kind of discussion. There is always the danger of a descent into the jungle - we may not have been as bad as the Nazis or the North Vietnamese or the Iraqi insurgents, but in Europe or Vietnam or Iraq we did ourselves carry out some grim atrocities. Over the decades and centuries we have seen that it is in the nature of war that both sides typically lower their ethical standards. However, in this case most balanced commentary, whether from the right or the left or the broad silent majority, accepts that for once the right decision to eliminate bin Laden in one clean fell swoop was the right thing to do. And I think it most certainly was perfectly right and proper to deal with him in the way we did.

[B757300]

It is a sad commentary on the general decline in society when people are more concerned with the life of a mass murderer than those of his victims.

[SYDCBRWOD]

It's an interesting discussion. I have heard points both ways for and against.

The "killing was correct argument" runs this way. He's gone, that's the end of it. Its barely ample compensation for the deaths committed in his name (from an Australian perspective JI's attacks in Bali and Java strike closer to home metaphorically and litterally than the strike on the WTC).

With him dead there will be no hostage situations created by extremists trying to get him released (we swap OBL for this cruise ship full of people) etc.

Vengance feels good.

The "Capture is correct" argument runs this way. If he were captured and bought to justice he would be entitled to a trial as we are a civilised society, as opposed to the muslim (probably taliban like extremist) caliphate he was proposing. If we execute, without trial then are we any better than what he represents?

Also, now he is dead he has been martyred - he becomes a symbol of and to the struggle - if he were just an old guy shuffling around a prison cell in chains, and being ordered around by a female prison guard, that would be far more humiliating. It would disempower the myth. Because you can bet that the extremists didn't believe he died in his jocks hiding behind one of his wives - their side probably has it that went down in a hail of bullets after holding off 30 SEALs for 30 minutes.

I personally believe Juan is correct - he should have been captured if possible BUT, what we don't know is what the digger at the scene found - if he believed he had no alternative, then good for him - a quick lead injection will definately slow somebody down when delivered to the scone. If the US government is that worried about the deficit, I'll give them the cost of the two rounds.

It's like that old argument - I may not like what that person is saying but I'll defend his/her right to say it etc etc. Anything else is a slippery slide down toward a totalitarian society.

Anyway, my 5 cents worth.

[Evan]

Oh please. You can hate Bush all you want, but to compare him to Osama bin Laden just shows you're being delusional.

I'm not comparing Bush to Osama Bin Laden. Yes, they both have the blood of many innocent people on their hands, but perhaps Bush did his worst by being sheltered and naive rather than deliberately hateful and malicious. I'm simply pointing out that those who are raised in privilege tend to be sheltered from the realities of the world and develop a sense of entitlement that leaves them with the assumption that they are above the law and the cold impression that other human lives are less significant than their own. They devalue human life while exalting their desires and ideologies. It's called megalomania. But Bin Laden had to answer to universal law in the end. He ran out of shelter from reality. Bush will probably never run out of shelter and never have to answer for anything (nor will Cheney, the evil mastermind). So there's no comparison really.

[B757300]

Probably because the first shot felt so damned good. The question is why only two times. The gun must have jammed. Osama Bin Laden, like Bush, and every other trust fund casualty I've ever known, considered himself exempt from the moral laws of the common man. Well, Osama, now you're dead, and maybe beginning to realize that those laws were there to protect you too. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. That's the universal law.

Oh please. You can hate Bush all you want, but to compare him to Osama bin Laden just shows you're being delusional.

[Evan]

Well, now that it is clear the Osama was even unarmed, one can really question why he was shot in the head 2 times.

Probably because the first shot felt so damned good. The question is why only two times. The gun must have jammed. Osama Bin Laden, like Bush, and every other trust fund casualty I've ever known, considered himself exempt from the moral laws of the common man. Well, Osama, now you're dead, and maybe beginning to realize that those laws were there to protect you too. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. That's the universal law.

[BoeingKing77]

Also under the Geneva Convention, an enemy combatant not in a uniform is classified as a spy and can be immediatly executed, which I think applies to OBL.

[guamainiac]

Don't be so smug about definitions and cliche terms. Look up the origins perhaps. Are you perhaps chauvinistic? Most days I am.

Could you accuse perhaps the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of being fascist, heck they kept us in "The Nam" for how long? Now it just may be "what I say" versus "what I do".

Most of the time I am confused which is just how they like it ... perhaps?

Now, lets take a good example. I mentioned the FALN. But down where the breezes blow midst the palms a Republican is a liberal and a ...

I guess I am confused. Or are you confused?

Now just for the fun of it? You get on a plane and the Captain comes on the com and welcomes you .... "This is Captain George Bush and we" ..

Do you scramble for:

A. The exit?
B. Sit and relax.
C. Wiki to see exactly which Bush could actually fly the thing?

I know that was OT but if fell out. Mental FOD.

[ConcordeBoy]

You sound like a fascist liberal

And you sound like a real genius who doesn't quite grasp that fascism and liberalism are akin to tall/short or fire/ice. "Fascist Liberal" lol lol lol.

[Alessandro]

He is yesterdays news, but good to send a message, "anytime and anywhere". ISI surely knew his location, but choose not to anger his supporters.

[Felipe Garcia]

There are always new concepts. However note and this is a big note, the adherence to the Conventions and Rules is among signatories.

I do not see his signature.

Worse, the team was in danger. And no, Pakistan has been playing the innocent card for too long. I have been saying this for years.

And there's still no proof that he would adhere to said conventions even if he signed it.

Seems like the entire world knew he was in Pakistan, except for the US Government.

[brianw999]

So civillians are automatically targeted as combatants trying to evade?

If they pose a lethal threat to others then, yes.

Rather like the IRA really. They called themselves an army but there was nothing officially military about them. Would you have wanted British Forces to have ignored them and let them carry on killing civilians ?

[Simpleboy]

The rules of war and Geneva convention apply. He was not in a recognizable uniform was he? Not in uniform I believe you are an automatic target as a combatant trying to evade.

So civillians are automatically targeted as combatants trying to evade?

[guamainiac]

What you are debating Gabriel is in essence the very reason why the Geneva Conventions ... note more than one, and Rules of War and Engagement have evolved.

There are always new concepts. However note and this is a big note, the adherence to the Conventions and Rules is among signatories.

I do not see his signature.

Worse, the team was in danger. And no, Pakistan has been playing the innocent card for too long. I have been saying this for years.