BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:40 AM

"Lively, that exact phrase, in the context I gave, was used by a Pakistan government official in that BBC programme I linked to."

Thank you, I'll have to take a look later.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:34 AM

"I have already stated that I will not support the soldiers if they acted unlawfully.
That would be if they ignored a request to surrender. ...
That is what your UN piece was about Lively."

Yes, that's correct.

I wouldn't advice soldiers on anything of course.
However, considering the differing accounts of the event as initially given by The Whitehouse press office, compared to those later submitted by the Seals themselves, I think it legitimate that the UN request disclosure of further details pertaining to the operation.

Note the text of the UN statement which refers to the planning of the mission rather than it's execution:

"the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden."

If it were to unfold that this was in fact a planned assassination, as some indeed suspect, then it's not merely soldiers who acted unlawfully.

Many on this thread (from your statements, clearly you are not among them) clearly find issues of lawfulness or otherwise, to be an irrelivancy in this matter. I don't agree with such a position.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:12 AM

Lively, that exact phrase, in the context I gave, was used by a Pakistan government official in that BBC programme I linked to.
It comes just before Lubell comes on.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 11 - 07:09 AM

I have already stated that I will not support the soldiers if they acted unlawfully.
That would be if they ignored a request to surrender.
Remember, their own lives depended on a split second decision.
We are told that his companion, you have to say bravely, rushed at the soldiers.
She clearly did not intend to be taken without a fight.
Is he about to detonate an explosive belt?
If it was your son or daughter in that room, what advice would you give them?

That is what your UN piece was about Lively.
No-one is questioning the legality of the incursion itself.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:28 AM

Keith, I agree that the phrase is ambiguous and open to differing interpretations. I haven't seen any clarification of what was precisely meant by it from the source however.

....

An (unrelated) opinion piece from Noam Chomsky on the "planned assassination" of Bin Laden:

"We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic."

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

While I have much respect for him as a thinker and writer, I imagine feelings about Chomsky will range very widely on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:12 AM

Lively, if you read it in context,"of "disastrous consequences" if the US were to attempt any more unauthorised unilateral military raids of like kind within Pakistan." they were concerned that they might be an unintended engagement.

Richard,that was not a nice thing to say about me, and it is not true.
Wars do sometimes have to be fought.
In war it is accepted that you must kill enemy combatants without warning or due process.
OBL was an enemy combatant.
I find it surprising if he did not have some way of taking some Americans with him.

I am not knowledgeable on the law regarding drone strikes, but they have been happening for years now with no legal challenge.
They are also credited with turning the tide against the insurgency.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:05 AM

Jim, I don't think Keith is an appeaser. He just approves of shooting people. In his world justice comes from the barrel of a gun. Indeed I suspect he'd have rather the UK assassinated ObL as a measure of our virility.

Notice how he sets out no legal justification of drone attacks - merely that they are common.

Don, pretending that waterboarding is not torture is pretty silly. It involves slowly drowning people, letting them cough their lungs up, and doing it again. "Stress positions" are no more justifiable - simply modern variations of the strappado. With torture you can get anyone to say anything. Just think Salem witch trials. You appear to be treating the world like a Stephen Seagal film.

The US does not set a great example for civil rights or the rule of law. Guantanamo bay was established precisely to keep detainees out of any available justice system. Its oppression of its indigenous peoples is worse than anything the UK ever did in Ireland (about which so many USAians wax wroth), and probably as bad as the world's first concentration camps - used by the UK against Boers.

Whether the USA is still involved in rendition is not the point. The fact of rendition is well established. Imagine that you are an innocent man, siezed in your home country, and flown to where you can conveniently be tortured until you admit to something you did not do. Some so seized may be guilty even though their guilt is not established, but a 100% record of accuracy in deciding who to seize and torture is simply inconceivable.


I would also mention that although the US is claiming that its torture regime found ObL they would say that, wouldn't they? I have seen other suggestions that it was the interception of one telephone call "from a trusted lieutenant" that actually enabled the USA to find ObL.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:57 AM

"No one is complaining and it was legal."

I would say that outside of the US, reactions have been very mixed and less than jubilant. Pakistan in particular has given out some very mixed messages, including threats of "disastrous consequences" if the US were to attempt any more unauthorised unilateral military raids of like kind within Pakistan. Those sound like fighting words to me.

In any event, as to the issue of legality, I believe that question is still open. The UN have requested full disclosure of details pertaining to the raid from the US:

"the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment.
Actions taken by States in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances.
In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards. For instance it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden."

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10987&LangID=E

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:54 AM

"they incurred the animosity of many countries"

Which countries Jim?
Give us a short list of the major ones.

The only ones complaining are you, and other West hating fanatical extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:40 AM

"No one is complaining and it was legal. "
Yes they are, and the legality remains to be seen - your 40 minutes is just bloody nonsense - it wouldn't make any difference if it had been 40 seconds and one soldier - they belligerantly sent troops into a country to carry out an assassination when there was no need for them to do so.
Not only did they kill a bystander in the process, the importance of which you have snopaked out (collateral damage) but they incurred the animosity of many countries, which will have repercussions on the fight against terrorism ("The Yanks are at it again")
In the end it is not the point. Appeasers like yourself can sell your or anybody's country to the highest bidder on the grounds of legality if you want - the question being discussed here is was the US action the best course to follow - it wasn't and it is likely to backfire on all of us - it is about time they cleaned up their act, for all of our sakes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:09 AM

" you executed your man without taking him through due process"

You know this Jim?
How?
Were they in fear of their lives possibly?

", you killed a bystander"


An extraordinarily low number of civilian casualties for such an operation.
There were about twenty people in that compound.

"and you invaded the sovereign territory of another nation"

Yes but only for fourty minutes by 25 blokes.
And they did them a massive favour while there.
No one is complaining and it was legal.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:51 AM

"Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me"
One way out Don - but you really need to look in the mirror sometime.
Nobody here has a good word to say about bin Laden and his bunch of fanatics - we all wanted justice - for 9-11, for London, and for every act of terror they've committed, but the operative word is justice - not vengeance.
You blew it - you executed your man without taking him through due process, you killed a bystander and you invaded the sovereign territory of another nation (needlessly) to do it. In that way you were, and are seen by many as little different from them, especially with your unenviable track record. Almost the first comment in the press here was of the jingoisticly triumphalist chanting mobs on the streets of New York and Washington.
You'll get your support from brown-noses like Keith, who will happily bare their country's arse for whatever you choose to do, but you'll not get it from where it counts, which is what will be needed if our kids are to have a future where they can live in peace - you don't shoot and bomb religious fanatics into submission - that's the way to give them something to die for.
You're right - there is a great deal of anti-Americanism in all this - it's the self-flagellation kind, rising directly from your own behaviour.
Jim Carroll
BTW - it was Dick Cheyney who has called for the continued use of torture.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:58 AM

I say spike the football, do a victory lap, make the very special mini series...

IF we can't have a real picture of bin Laden's dead head, I say we issue a postage stamp of a wounded bin Laden and postmark the shit out of his face for the next year.

Or maybe casting a bust of bin Laden with all the gory wounds and sell them as lawn ornaments.

I think the politically correct restraint has left a deep seated need to have one last swipe at the fucker.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:42 AM

The prior administration does deserve all the debt and credit for killing bin Laden

Listen up.

It is as large and oily as the nose on your face that Dick Cheney is instrumental in killing bin Laden.
First he showed America and the world the technique of shooting old men in the face at close range.
Second, torture clearly defeated bin Laden. Did you know that Ossama was in the same room as his wife and a couple toddlers for 6 years and never went out of the house !?
When the commandos showed up he said "Just shoot me".

All this is behind us now. It has gone full circle.
All the conspiracy nuts are even at peace. Since they thought bin Laden is not really dead and that it was really George Bush who did 9-11 by implosion to distract attention from Hawaii where CIA operatives were planting photoshopped birth certificates so that a Kenyan guy named Obama could come to power to kill the phoney bin Laden who Bush blamed for blowing up the WTC in a phoney act of terrorism.

With the exception of a couple dozen Pakistani nukes and several small nukes that they have lost the pass words to make them explode, we can all take a collective sigh of relief.

As long as we don't let the Supreme Court elect another D student spoiled rich kid with a daddy complex to the white house, we should
do OK.
















Bunker entrance
_
__
____
______
________
H===========
H
H
H
H===========
H
H
H
HH===========
H
H mmmmMmMMmmm
H
H___H----H___    A loud and droning hum of the ventillation system reverberates deep underground in the situation room where Obama speaks plainly asking each advisor their opinion.
Barak asks quetly, "What do you say we get out of Afghanistan?"
Hillary says "Yes we can".
Petraus says "its to soon to change"
Pannetta says "Yeah man, thats a good idea.
Barack: "Yeman? really? I think its a good idea too. OK lets go into Yeman next ."
Panetta: "Sir is this a joke like your 'two jihadists walk into a bar' story?"
Barak: No, I'm serious, but this time were are going to give George W Bush and Dick Cheney full credit from the git go."
Petraus: "Sending them both to Gitmo has been a secret wish of mine for the last eight years."
Barak: "Thanks everyone lets break for lunch and get this plan started ASAP."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:12 PM

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 May 11 - 10:42 PM

I'm wondering if the people who are saying that the ""enhanced interrogation techniques" worked and helped find Bin Laden - are the same people who WANT it to work and support it's usage.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:53 PM

I would guess that the senators who are claiming that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques led to - or didn't lead to - Osama's capture know about as much about it as anyone here...which is to say, nothing. The most credible comment I've heard is that his location was deduced by putting a number of very small pieces together over several years.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:26 PM

It was waterboarding, that's what it was and that's what they're arguing about. Whether you call it "torture" just depends on which side of the argument you're on.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:06 PM

""enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you."

'Enhanced' sounds so, well elegant Bobad! Nothing like the awful nasty crass things being implied here.

Surely you're describing techniques belonging to those 'exotic' ladies we are used to seeing in James Bond films?

I know their 'enhanced' techniques are inevitably foiled by suave old Bond - but of course he was something of a one off.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:04 PM

This just in: The rift between the U.S. and Pakistan just got bigger, and more serious, with ultimatums and saber rattling.
I guess we can surmise who's who in the zoo...

gotta go..and catch up on the 'news'(?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:51 PM

bobad: "Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you."

Well, that that old 'politically correct' bullshit for ya!

Them there 'libbies' insist on it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:46 PM

Oh come on now, it's not torture it's "enhanced interrogation techniques". Get it straight will you.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:42 PM

Don Firth: "AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture"

Jim Carroll: "I'm assuming nothing of the sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy"

It was also mentioned on BBC Question Time last night. I think it's generally a well accepted fact that the US used torture to determine Bin Laden's whereabouts and that some are now arguing in favour of the US's continued use of torture.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:39 PM

Bah, dang dictation software…

and reasonable = at reasonable
remade = were made

Meh.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:37 PM

Well, from the screed just above, I can see that any further discussion will be unproductive. Assumptions based on personal bias.

Not that I won't necessarily be back if the spirit moves me.

"Yank-bashing" is sure what it sounds like to me. My reputation goes before me? Sorry, Jim, but look who's talking!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:36 PM

A couple of points in defense of Pakistan:

1. I understand that the Pakistani government has arrested some 40 people in Abbottabad (is that where Bud Abbott came from?) for helping to hide and protect Osama bin Laden. Although now I can't find the article – can anyone confirm this?

2. Pakistan makes great sheets and reasonable prices. The best sheets I have remade in Pakistan. I bought another made-in-Pakistan set of sheets just yesterday at Target, only $19.95.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:27 PM

"Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time!"
Are you claimin that torture and imprisonment without trial doesn't happen.
I have no doubt that the troops are their to do their duty but they are there carrying out the policy of a government that has no qualms in using the methods I have described, which is why, of course, you have refused to comment on it.
"Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights"
Established as a fact years ago Don - by an Irish govenment that not only has refused to inspect the planes, as they have a right to do, but who have said they were not prepared to interfere in the war against terrorism.
It provoked a huge row here over the breach of Ireland's policy of neutrality. Pretty well a known and all but admitted fact - sorry.
"This, as I understand it, was considered,"
As the assassination (this is what it was) took place on foreign soil, every effort should have been made to involve the government of that country. The only other nation that takes such action as a matter of course is Israel, and their name is pretty well shit internationally - if that's the reputation you want.....!
This is an extremely sensitive situation which involves us all and needs to be dealt with sensitively - do you think it has been?
"That is a really ignorant statement"
Then you believe the US isn't using torture, holding detainees without trial, hasn't poured napalm on peasants, attempted to starve them by poisoniing their food with Agent Orange, helped overthrow inconvenient governments, bankrolled some of the world's monsters.....?
"AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture"
I'm assuming nothing of he sort - it appeared in our press yesterday that one of your senators has stated that as it has proved proved successful in this case, it should be continued as routine policy - think I still have the details somewhere, if not, yesterday's Irish Times has the story.
You need to understand that Ireland is one of the great friends of the US - historical reasons - yet even here there is a great deal of mixed feeling on how the US have behaved in this matter.
I wonder how you would have reacted if a helicopter load of say French troops had landed in your back garden unannounced and started shooting te place up - a little less than a bunch of flowers and the offer of a drink, wouldn't you say?
Please don't hide behind the pathetic 'Yank bashing' - your reputation goes before you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Taconicus
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:26 PM

Andrew E. wrote:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr.

According to Snopes.com, that's a bogus quotation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:23 PM

Lively: "Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology... "

Yeah...up until then, I wasn't quite sure if you knew much about the subject!

Waving!

gfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:45 PM

"Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink)"

Ahh, OK thank you - I accept your apology...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:27 PM

Lively: "Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please?"

Oh, I thought I was complimenting you! (wink)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:22 PM

"That one, I give you."

That's nice of you.

Could I please have an apology for those rather graphic sexually spiked insults you responded to me with last time, please? I found them exceedingly offensive. I'm not proud of the way I reacted either BTW..

As for a conspiracy of Bankers dedicated bringing about The Apocalypse or whatever. I don't really take too much notice of such things, but I do hope they feel better soon. I hear the sea air is a great restorative.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:56 PM

Lively: "An international military precedent has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time."

That one, I give you.
Frankly, If you've noticed by the tone of many other threads on Mudcat, there are a great deal of people in our countries, who feel that the administrations in collusion with the international bankers are at war with the common citizenry, of us all. Let's all hope and pray that sanity may eventually rule the day..because as of this moment, it's not too much in the forefront!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:51 PM

"There are still unofficial flights going through Shannon, about half-an-hour's drive from here, unchecked by the Irish authorities, taking uncharged prisoners to god-knows-where to have god-knows-what done to them - it is believed on a weekly basis."

Jim, how do you know that these "still unofficial flights" going through the Shannon airport are transporting uncharged prisoners for the purpose of "special rendition?" Do they have some special insignia that identifies them as such? I'm sorry, but I don't think the CIA is quite that stupid. So. How do you know?

"The arrest of bin Laden, a trial and sentence would have been 100 times more impressive to the rest of the world that the bloody act of vengeance which took place, and would not have caused the antagonism that has arisen over the hasty execution of a murderous terrorist."

This, as I understand it, was considered, but what was also considered was the likelihood of hostage-taking during the incarceration and trial period, along with threats of massive terrorist attacks if bin Laden was found guilty. The people who planned this operation are not as bloodthirsty and stupid as you apparently prefer to think.

And as to that "bloody act of vengeance," as you choose to characterize it. There are vast numbers of people in the world, most especially the families of the innocent people murdered by terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden who characterize it as an "act of justice." You show a great deal of sympathy for the murderer and no regard whatsoever for his victims and their families.

Even according to Sharia Law, bin Laden deserved his fate. In fact, he had long since had a Fatwa issued against him. (I heard that on the radio this morning in an interview with an Imam.)

". . . a country with a bad human rights record. . . ."

That is a really ignorant statement, Jim. If you really believe that, you just haven't been paying attention. One of the major thrusts of both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States has been toward the principle stated in the very opening sentence of the U. S. Constitution about "inalienable rights." And the idea that these inalienable rights belong to everyone, whether the government they live under recognizes them or not.

But those "inalienable rights" do not include a "right to commit mass murder on innocent noncombatants."

". . . if America had sought support for its action beforehand, especially from the country concerned. . . ."

America did. The Pakistani government had offered full cooperation in the search for bin Laden. Whether they actually were cooperating is another question, but considering the fact that they offered this cooperation, they are hardly in a position to protest.

AND—you seem to be making the assumption that locating bin Laden required that the U.S. involved torture. What is your evidence for this?

There are a variety of methods by which he could be located that would not involve anything of this nature. Some of which are pretty exotic and don't infringe on anyone's rights.

"Yank bashing." That about sums it up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:43 PM

"An international military president"

What a typo! Make that "precendent" :)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:43 PM

Richard Bridge-to-Stupidity: "The rule of law is not a matter of convenience."

Neither is WAR...especially when one side would just as soon as annihilate anyone who had anything to do with drafting it, or obeying it!

Wake up, and welcome to reality....even when it's NOT so 'convenient'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:40 PM

Thanks for your cordially rephrased question artbrooks, much appreciated.

"a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?"

While I have no decided opinions on much of this incident, for me the question would be more "under the circumstances of such poor current US/Pakistan relations and ongoing major political upheaval among Arab nations, would it have been a more "practical scenario" to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? Albeit while keeping them under surveillance. Otherwise, I'm no military expert. However I feel more comfortable when "the rule of law" is followed rather than dubious tactics. As others have said, what is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. An international military president has been set here, one which the US (and the rest of us) may come to regret - hopefully not - in time.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:28 PM

Richard, drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan happen all the time.
There was one yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:26 PM

Artbrooks, they could have asked the Pakistan military to go in and arrest him.
Of course, he would have escaped.
Again!

That would have been the preferred outcome for some here.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:23 PM

The rule of law is not a matter of convenience.

And I am far from clear how a drone attack could have been proper.

An aerial attack on enemy forces in territory they hold or occupy is one thing - as might well a "hot pursuit" attack be, but an aerial attack on a compound in a town in an allied territory would surely be quite another.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:22 PM

Richard, I believe there are a number of American forces in Pakistan too.
So, 25 extra popped in for 40 minutes, and while there removed the leader of a group that has been terrorising them for years and killed 30 000 of their people.

No wonder they are not very cross!
The only question is why Jim IS so cross.

Answer.
Because it was an American success, and an enemy of the West was removed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:04 PM

No apology needed - this is, after all, a friendly forum in which we are all free to express opinions.

And let me rephrase my question, since it may appear that it some readers believe it was only addressed to a limited audience. There have been a lot of comments made regarding the idea that the attack on the Obama compound in Pakistan and his death during this raid was illegal. Without getting into the question of what law or laws were violated, I would like to know if anyone can provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama, under the circumstances thus far on record, which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 11 - 02:03 PM

Fighters are routinely killed, without chance to surrender, by drone strikes.
Would that have been preferred?
No risk to US troops, but all the civilians and children in the compound would have been killed.

(Law of armed conflict states that aircraft are not required to accept surrenders)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:36 PM

Artbrooks, I'd like to apologise for the seeming terseness of my comments in response to your post. There has been some personal hostility displayed on this thread (disgustingly sexual in fact). I think perhaps it has left me feeling a little defensive...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:32 PM

"Lively, is that an answer to my question?"

No, as I'm not a "yank basher", your question was not addressed to me. However as it was posted on a public form, as someone interested in this topic, I am free to respond as I see fit.

The use of your term "yank basher", appears to imply that ANY concern voiced over US military actions such as this one, is a personal attack on ALL American citizens.

As such I suggest that some posters here, try to identify the distinction between themselves as sovereign individuals and their activities, and the activities of the state (which they may, or may not, individually sanction).

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:21 PM

Lively, is that an answer to my question?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: BanjoRay
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:13 PM

I understand Elton John has recorded a song about Osama Bin Laden. It's called Sandals In The Bin.

Ducks and runs....

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 06 May 11 - 01:01 PM

Artbrooks: "resident Yank-bashers"

Criticism of US military activity (at home and abroad) seems to be something of a sore point on this thread, though I'm uncertain as to why.

If actions of the British govt. is criticised, I don't feel personally affronted because I don't conflate ME with either current - or indeed historic - actions of the British govt.

If I were a "yank basher" I'd be calling you all "lard-arsed burger-stuffing morons" (or whatever your favourite "yank bashing" stereotype is), not merely questioning US foreign policy - which of course, has international consequences which is why it is also of some interest to those of us outside of the US.

I do think there was a "redneck" reference below somewhere however, and to be clear, I don't think such terms are particularly constructive in discussions such as this.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 May 11 - 12:42 PM

I would really be interested in seeing if one of the resident Yank-bashers could address my previous question. That would be: can you provide a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama which does not violate what you see as a "rule of law"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:35 AM

Again, correct me if I'm wrong Keith, but the US servicemen stationed in the UK are here with official permission.

Even those whose presence is transient as they indulge in "rendition" (translation, illegal kidnapping of suspects for torture) are here with the permission of our craven governments. It is frankly quite shameful that our government is complicit in that activity.