BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:41 AM

Pat Condell's rant on the fuss in Pakistan over the killing of Bin Laden and his disposal at sea.

http://www.patcondell.net/

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:19 AM

Jim sez "As I said, this has been a public relations disaster -"

To whom? The presidents ratings have soared here in the states { at least for a little while }. If someone is upset other than you I havn't heard about it. Those who have hated the Americans will continue to do so. And nothing will change that. A couple of pundits who didn't like us anyway are upset. We get to trade that for the life of Bin Laden.

Pretty good trade if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:11 AM

Pakistan PM Gilani described killing as "proper justice."
He said relations with US "remain strong".
He described the incursion as a violation of sovereignty, which of course is technically correct.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:46 AM

Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this.    All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:27 AM

If Pakistan were as outraged as some posters think it is, or should be, its government would be doing a lot more than just complaining, which I believe is chiefly for home consumption.

It would be going to the UN, recalling its ambassador, cancelling trade agreements, breaking off diplomatic relations, etc., etc. That's what you do when a nation commits an "act of war" against you, assuming you don't have the desire or wherewithal to strike back
with weapons.

Let's see how much of that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:23 AM

Here's an interesting snippet from a Pakistani retired general that I hadn't run across before that indicates the Bin Ladin's compound had attracted some security attention when it was under construction:

Shaukat Qadir, a retired military brigadier, told Al Jazeera that the blame rested with "all parties" because the house bin Laden was reportedly living in should have been under surveillance since it had a history of being an al-Qaeda hideout.

"When the particular house bin Laden was living in was under construction in 2003, it was first raided by the ISI to catch a senior al-Qaeda leader.

"So if this was under suspicion in 2003, how could it not remain under surveilance now?"

I realize that not everyone in this thread is concerned with the details of this story but I'm always interested in the details. The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:18 AM

You would prefer he escaped again Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:14 AM

"It stands alone."
Just seen arial photiographs on the news - no it doesn't.
You have produced a photograph showing a close up view from the front; the place is scattered with local dwellings.
Whatever anyway - the killing of 20 non-combatants would heve been akin to an act of terrorism - is that what you are excusing?
As I said, this has been a public relations disaster - it was not necessary to kill bin Laden and it would have been far more effective to have taken and tried him.
It is pretty well accepted that Al Qaeda is not an organisation as such, but unconnected groups scattered all over the world. Bin Laden's strategic role was of no importance whatever; rather he was a spiritual leader.
Two days after the assassination US drones tried and failed to kill a likely successor, Anwar al Awlaki - in Yemen; four others have been identified as also likely successors - 3 in Afghanistan and 1 in either Afghganistan or Pakistan - business as usual.
There hasnever been a greater need to get co-operation from other countries - especially after the move to democracy in North Africa; already there is fighting on the streets of Egypt between Muslims and Coptic Christians.
This adventure will have done much to polarise Muslims and halt any advances made over the past yars.
im Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:36 AM

Richard, The President will have taken legal advice.
That advice was that as an act of national self defence it was legal to kill or capture OBL in Pakistan.
The legality may be challenged.
Some individuals already have.
No country or organisation yet has.

I think you are saying that even if legal it was wrong.
I respect but disagree with that opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:36 AM

You post as if they have released the footage from the SEALS cameras, Ron..?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:24 AM

"taken alive...".    Thanks for your perceptive comment, showing complete knowledge of the circumstances of trying to take into custody an international terrorist, who is not trying to give himself up, and who has heavily armed assistance in the building.

And just think, then we could have all agonized over how unfair it was that he was not to be tried by a jury of his peers;    that is, a jury of international terrorists.

What fun we could have had.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:13 AM

Prague was enemy territory, 1942 was wartime. Even so the fact that Churchill authorised one assasination it does not prove that it was lawful - he was of course a very right wing alcoholic manic-depressive which may from time to time have impaired his rationality. It certainly does not prove that this assassination was lawful.

What, Keith, do you expect the US to say? They invented the wholly spurious legal case for detention at Guantanamo Bay, precisely to prevent fair trial or habeas corpus.

It may turn out that both assassinations were good things - although in Heydrich's case I suspect the harm was already done so it was mere revenge - but that does not mean that they were lawful. Equally it may turn out that the present assassination was a bad thing, if the Arab spring turns into a winter of discontent, but that does not mean that it was unlawful.

You may believe that the US will never turn on the UK or others of its present allies. That is not a universal view. You may believe that it is "right" that the US can disobey the law but that people of a largely non-white or non-Xtian persuasion must not - but that is not a universal view.

I have asked you to explain a particular point you were trying to make. Would you kindly do so? At present I do not know what you were trying to say and cannot therefore respond if appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:12 AM

It seems a small group of U.S. leaders probably do know the answer to part of the above question "COULD/should he have been taken as prisoner?" - they were watching it via cameras strapped to the SEALS, yes? And wouldn't international lawyers say that, if he could have, he definitely should have been taken alive for trial?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:58 AM

"if bin Laden had tried to escape...."

If Times says this, what is their source?

My understanding is that they did not actually know bin Laden was in the building.   This being the case there was no contingency plan to drop a bomb on the building.    They had considered this idea and rejected it for the specific reason there was no certainty bin Laden was in the building.

If this is not so, let's have a direct quote from an authoritative source.

I don't claim to have the last word, but we need some direct quotes here.

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:54 AM

We have all seen pics of the compound now.
It stands alone.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20110504/obama-osama-death-announcement-ratings-110504/

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:35 AM

Should read potential - of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:34 AM

"30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban."
The Taliban are terrorists - are you now saying the Americans are?
"No buildings were that close to the compound. "
Again, ignorance on your part - according to the map in the Sunday times the compound ware many houses inthe area and itis not far from a public road - stop making it up to excuse the potentioan killing of non-combatants.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:29 AM

the JDAM system will provide a minimum weapon accuracy CEP of 13 meters or less when a GPS signal is available, though Boeing and the Air Forces report less than 10 meters CEP in testing. If the GPS signal is jammed or lost, the JDAM can still achieve a 30 meter CEP or less for free flight times up to 100 seconds

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:26 AM

30 000 Pakistanis killed already by Al Qaeda and Taleban.

The Mk84 2000lb bomb is highly accurate and has a danger zone of 315m.
No buildings were that close to the compound.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:59 AM

"What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children."
You can act on the basis that there are non-combatants in the area - you do not kill hostages - we've been here before with you.
It was never necessary to kill bin Laden and it would have been a far greater diplomatic victory - not to mention justice seen to be done, had he been taken and tried.
The argument that hostages might have been taken to free him is far outweighed by the threat of reprisals yet to come for his death.
Your arrogant assumption that only those in the compound would heve been killed doesn't even hold water - it would depend where the bomb landed, and an assuption that a 2,000lb bomb would restrict damage to within a confined area is bloody nonsense.
This was an act of revenge with no consideration of how many would be killed, and has proved to be an utter diplomatic shambles, comparable only with the shootout at the OK Corral.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:39 AM

What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children.
The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host).

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:16 AM

"No one in nearby buildings would have been harmed. "
Oh - only 20 - that's all right then!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:16 AM

Either way, PL, I suppose the main issue is could/should they have taken him as prisoner.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:51 AM

Or maybe just the wife or one of the children messing about with the camcorder?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:42 AM

Saw the abovementioned video again and it does indeed seem Bin Laden had himself filmed watching TV - probably produced to prove, at some stage, he was alive.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:24 AM

"".... if bin Laden had tried to escape before the Seals arrived a 2,000lb bomb would have been dropped on the compound, obliterating it." - and no doubt, a considerable number of Pakistani citizens along with it - I'm sure they were as happy to welcome the troops as some would suggest in such circumstances!!"

There were about 20 people in the compound.
No one in nearby buildings would have been harmed.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:51 AM

Yes, I read that too.
I do not believe they would hold it back in case OBL was taken.
Maybe save it for an important occasion, e.g. royal wedding or 9/11 anniversary.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:14 AM

"No-one could take that threat seriously Lively."

Perhaps not, I really wouldn't know the truth of the matter.

All I know is what I have read, and that is that one week prior to Bin Laden's killing, Wikileaks released materials indicating that certain information had been gleaned by US intelligence pertaining to a nuclear threat supposedly located in Europe - by which one might well suppose London.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:02 AM

Richard, Hamas' rockets are indiscriminate.
Lack of better technology does not excuse their use.
Their use is an act of terror.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:00 AM

Richard, it is not my assertion, it is the position taken by the US government.

"Reinhard Heydrich was one of the key architects of Hitler's genocide against the Jews.

In 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was authorised by Winston Churchill to assassinate high-ranking Nazis wherever they could be found.
In 1942, two of the many Czech citizens whom the SOE had trained to implement this strategy blew up the car carrying Heydrich to his office in Prague. He died a week later from infection following his injuries.

If that had taken place today, we would most likely find the Archbishop of Canterbury fretting 'justice didn't seem to be done', Paddy Ashdown tut-tutting that the rule of law did not condone 'non- judicial execution', and human rights lawyers seeking to arrest Churchill for war crimes"

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:31 AM

Well, Bobad, you are not conveying that you are so listening. The points you seek to make here are as to practicality not legality or the gut-level argument of "well he deserved it". Maybe he did, but hard cases make bad law.

Keith: your point to Don is irrelevant. I expect he will tell you why.

I am still not clear what your point I queried above was and should be grateful if you would clarify.

I do not think I agree with your assertion that "self defence" could not apply to attacks by Hamas or Hezbollah. Most rocket attacks by them for example, it seems to me, are targeted as accurately as the technology they can muster enables. But further, the US courts have held that the IRA were freedom fighters and political prisoners (InOBU gave details some years ago on here) and I do not see grounds for a more favourable view of the IRA than of Hamas or Hezbollah.

Moreover, if the USA were to recognise international law (see my comments above) as far as I know the determination under international law that a person was an unlawful combatant requires to have been made by a court of competent jurisdiction, and there was no such determination.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:22 AM

Just in case there is any doubt about the Pakistani government's attitude to the incursion into its territory.
Plan B, from a Sunday Times report into the raid:
".... if bin Laden had tried to escape before the Seals arrived a 2,000lb bomb would have been dropped on the compound, obliterating it." - and no doubt, a considerable number of Pakistani citizens along with it - I'm sure they were as happy to welcome the troops as some would suggest in such circumstances!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:50 AM

No-one could take that threat seriously Lively.
They hated us enough already.
You can't believe they were holding back on any attacks they could make.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:21 AM

"scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama"

As said I'm no military expert. However I'm sure that there are those of us here, who would have preferred it if those who are military experts could have done so, and that there had been a proper trial rather than an execution.

By the by, I wonder how many US posters here are aware of the Wiki leaked information (from US intelligence) which threatened a nuclear attack in Europe if Bin Laden were to be killed in the way that he just has been?

I mention that not in support of terrorists, but just as a reminder to those here angered by outsiders expressing concerns over aspects of this operation, that US military actions can and do have implications for the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Wotcha
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:08 AM

OBL put himself into combat on 9/11 so it did not matter whether he was picking his nose, brandishing a weapon, or sleeping when he was shot by a service member nearly 10 years later. For this op it appears he was declared a combatant (along with others in his entourage) by the highest national authority, therefore he could be targeted under the ROE being used. This is not assassination but a lawful military action. This was not a civilian law enforcement matter but an extraordinary military action, therefore neither police rules on self defense nor arrest warrants applied. Naturally every op has unintended consequences but that's why Obama is paid to be the "decider" ...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:18 AM

Richard, national self defence could justify an incursion such as this one, but not random acts of terror against a civilian population as practiced by Hamas.

Don T, was I wrong volunteer to stand with the British Army alongside our US allies, against the might of the Warsaw Pact's armoured divisions?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:53 PM

Just as a point of interest, the United States is a legally constituted government recognized as a nation by every other nation on earth. So is Pakistan.

Hamas is a political party.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:49 PM

Oh, I'm listening alright, to a lot more eminent legal mind than yours, contrary to what you might think, and the vast majority of them are of the opinion that it was legal.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:45 PM

It is now slightly more than 72 hours since I originally said the following:

I would be very interested in seeing a practical scenario for the peaceful capture of Osama from some of those who believe that what actually happened violated some "rule of law".

Anyone care to take it on?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:44 PM

Don Firth, the USA at present refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (unless it wants to) or the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at all.

Dual standard?

Or were you referring to something else?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:32 PM

Are you listening, Bobad? It's not whether ObL deserved to die. It's whether the operation and his killing were LEGAL.

Oh, and if Keith were to be right that self defence legally justifies incursion, then that would be a perfect answer to the claim that Hamas are terrorists.

Oh, and surely Obama, former editor of the Harvard law review realises that no court of competent jurisdiction had ever convicted ObL of murder. He's just found an approach that plays well to the rednecks. The law of the Wild West.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:55 PM

President Obama on 60 Minutes:

"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out," Obama said. "Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:18 PM

"Nobody here is siding with terrorists"

The "usual malcontents" have defended the actions of Hamas in attacking Israel, you can look it up. As for calling me an arse....well, that doesn't surprise me.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:18 PM

""But your knee-jerk idea that Americans in general, or me personally, totally approve of the whole operation, especially the possibility of the use of (and call it what it is!) torture, are insulting, offensive, holier-than-thou, and blatant evidence of rank prejudice.""

Your case might be quite a strong one Don, if you ignore the television coverage of all those non political Americans dancing in the streets.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 11 - 08:09 PM

""The only people I see disagreeing are this sites usual malcontents and other terrorists like Hamas that they side with.""

Bobad you are a complete arse, and your agenda is both transparent and reprehensible.

Nobody here is siding with terrorists, and nobody here is the least bit sorry that ObL is dead.

The bone of contention is the way in which the US government rides roughshod over the sovereignty of enemies and friends alike. You obviously support their attitude as you do the very similar arrogance of the Israeli government.

As a citizen of one of the countries most likely to take the brunt of any retaliatory action, I object to the way in which the US handled the affair, and to their insanely self congratulatory insistence that they have made the world a safer place.

It might look that way sitting 4000 miles away from the source of such action, but unlike our resident cold war hero, many in the UK will feel that they stand right in the line of fire from both sides and won't be any too sure which represents the greater danger.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:58 PM

By the way, I almost missed this many posts back.

Jim:   "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."

Which is to say, the planes were NOT inspected. So what kind of cargo they may or may not have been carrying is NOT KNOWN. So the idea that they were transporting people for "extraordinary rendition" is merely speculation.

Not a "fact" at all!

V-e-e-e-e-ery interesting. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 May 11 - 07:29 PM

""Jim, we have thousands of US service men and women here all the time!
I used to train with them back in the Cold War.
We were very grateful to have them with us in those dark days.
All of which means nothing to you.
Marxist?
Trot?""

So that's where you picked up your biased ideas.

Pity you didn't notice that they were here by agreement between the US and UK governments.

Pillock?

Prat?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 May 11 - 06:40 PM

Actually, the Japanese often used poison gas against the Chinese in WWII.

The Chinese didn't have any to strike back with. The Japanese never used it against the western Allies, who did. One reason that it wasn't used in Europe is that both sides had it. If anybody had thought that the use of gas, lawful or not, would have given them a decisive advantage, they'd have used it.

More than one treaty banned the use of poison gas after WWI, but industrial nations kept right on developing and manufacturing them for decades - just in case.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:42 PM

I can't speak for Keith, but I believe he's talking about the stipulations of International Law. Rulings of the World Court in The Hague. Among other things, after WWI and as a result of the fact that it was totally uncontrollable once released, it outlawed the use of poison gas, which is why it was NOT used in WWII.

You might want to acquaint yourself with that body of law.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 05:23 PM

Keith, what is the latter part of your post timed at 04:48 trying to say?