Bin Laden, RIH

[just john]

Let's not forget how many died in 9/11, nor that other more sinister authorities have killed men for less, in London even, with umbrellas and cups of tea no less, I know who should be condemned more . . .

[Quillan]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

What I do find upsetting was the dancing in the streets in the US, it is hypocritical.

Its stupid and somewhat thoughtless - but didn't the same happen after 9/11 in certain anti West countries ?

 

[/quote]

So does that make anyone better than the other or does it make them all the same? Are the morals of those dancing in the street any higher or lower than the others or have we all dropped to a rather similar and base level?

[Quillan]

[quote user="just john "]Let's not forget how many died in 9/11, nor that other more sinister authorities have killed men for less, in London even, with umbrellas and cups of tea no less, I know who should be condemned more . . .[/quote]

Yes but the number is a lot less than those killed by American financed criminals like the IRA and then of course there is Vietnam, Iraq (America armed Iran against them), Iran (more people have died since the invasion than before), Korea, Israel (armed by the US) and of course Afghanistan (again more killed after the invasion). But then we (as in English) have done similar out in the middle east over the years, Palestine, Suez, Aden, Brunei, Bahrain, Libya, etc, etc and when those countries turn on their own people using the weapons we sold them we get upset. My point being that the western world has just as much blood on its hands (in recent times) as BL if not more yet we seem to think our actions are acceptable when in reality none of the things he and we have done are both morally and physically acceptable. I fear that our past actions in the Middle East are starting to come back and haunt us, the problem is when a vacuum is created the likes of El Qaeda can move in.

[JSKS]

Well said Quillan.

To pretend that 'The West' is morally unimpeachable would be the greatest hypocrisy.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

What I do find upsetting was the dancing in the streets in the US, it is hypocritical.

Its stupid and somewhat thoghtless - but didn't the same happen after 9/11 in certain anti West countries ?

 

[/quote]Two wrongs don't make a right. It just leads to a spiralling descent.

[just john]

[quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="just john "]Let's not forget how many died in 9/11, nor that other more sinister authorities have killed men for less, in London even, with umbrellas and cups of tea no less, I know who should be condemned more . . .[/quote]

Yes but the number is a lot less than those killed by American financed criminals like the IRA and then of course there is Vietnam, Iraq (America armed Iran against them), Iran (more people have died since the invasion than before), Korea, Israel (armed by the US) and of course Afghanistan (again more killed after the invasion). But then we (as in English) have done similar out in the middle east over the years, Palestine, Suez, Aden, Brunei, Bahrain, Libya, etc, etc and when those countries turn on their own people using the weapons we sold them we get upset. My point being that the western world has just as much blood on its hands (in recent times) as BL if not more yet we seem to think our actions are acceptable when in reality none of the things he and we have done are both morally and physically acceptable. I fear that our past actions in the Middle East are starting to come back and haunt us, the problem is when a vacuum is created the likes of El Qaeda can move in. [/quote]

My Thrust was that in this case US had a right to go after Bin Laden, more so than Russia does after its dissidents.
My understanding of history shows Blood spilled by West was not in colonialisation attempts in these interventions, more one of attempting to institute ultimately peaceful democracy, 

Some people (British included) felt that Ireland had the right to govern itself without being part of the UK.
French broke agreements and started Indochina war in Vietnam. US were involved after an attack by North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin
Palestine was a majority-Jewish area in 1947, Israel was set up to be a democracy. 
Regional rivalry between Persian Iran and Arab Iraq caused the war and a border dispute that had its origins in the mid-1970s. Iran had begun supplying weapons to Kurdish nationalists in northern Iraq to stage a revolt against the Iraqi government. ETC, ETC,

Either way these things are not played out in an instant hopefully the whole tone of the middle east is turning towards greater freedom and democracy.

[Bugsy]

Those 'yanks' must have different bank holidays to us. Everyone knows you don't take your 'BIN out' on a bank holiday.

[just john]

[quote user="Bugsy"]Those 'yanks' must have different bank holidays to us. Everyone knows you don't take your 'BIN out' on a bank holiday.[/quote] [:D]

didn't it happen on Sat night? Saturday Night's alright for fighting [:D]

[Quillan]

The other thing of course thinking about it is Pakistan. As the US never told them they were going to send troops in and also as far as I know there is no UN mandate this could be deemed an invasion by an aggressive power. Forget a minute the reason why the Americans went there, does this now set a precedence for America, it can go and technically invade any country it likes to get what it wants? Who exactly is the antagonist here? Irregardless of the fact that Pakistan may have provided sanctuary to BL it does not give America the right to invade part of their country even if it was for only 40 minutes.

Yet other thing is, like Thatcher who was on her knees prior to the invasion by Argentina of the Falklands, Obama is also very low now in the opinion polls and was unlikely to get a second term of office. This may just have got him that second term.

[JSKS]

Quillan,

The US has had troops in Pakistan for years. They were invited in by Musharraf and have, I understand, a good working relationship with the Pakistani Security and Military services. Hardly an invasion.

[Mr Coeur de Lion]

Q, if Trump or Palin are his opponents for the next election, then I don't think he would have any problems in getting in.

[mint]

I agree wholeheartedly with Q and Rabbie.

I feel very uncomfortable with people rejoicing in such a blatant manner.  After Twin Towers, what I loathed most of all was the celebrating and noisy whoops of triumph...

And now, it seems that we, too, are no better.  We lose the moral high ground (wherever that is) when we do not show ourselves to be any more restrained and considered in our response.

 

[Théière]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

  We lose the moral high ground (wherever that is) when we do not show ourselves to be any more restrained and considered in our response.

[/quote]

[Quillan]

[quote user="JK"]Quillan, The US has had troops in Pakistan for years. They were invited in by Musharraf and have, I understand, a good working relationship with the Pakistani Security and Military services. Hardly an invasion.[/quote]

So why didn't they simply say to them "he's there can you go get him please"? Why did they feel there was no need to inform the Pakistan military or government? Rumour has it they didn't trust them and that they believed they would move him if they knew what the Americans were up to. So yes it was an operation carried out without the knowledge or permission of the Pakistan military and government which makes one wonder the legality of it all and how far will America go the next time.

[Quillan]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

I agree wholeheartedly with Q and Rabbie.

I feel very uncomfortable with people rejoicing in such a blatant manner.  After Twin Towers, what I loathed most of all was the celebrating and noisy whoops of triumph...

And now, it seems that we, too, are no better.  We lose the moral high ground (wherever that is) when we do not show ourselves to be any more restrained and considered in our response.

[/quote]

Exactly which is why I believe if it was him he should have been taken and put on trial in front of the whole world. I would have also liked to have seen Muslim judges involved but unfortunately this golden opportunity has been lost by these irresponsible 'gun ho' Americans. Let us not forget it is not just their country folk that got killed by the actions of this man. Many other people from many other countries were also killed.

[JSKS]

Quillen,

You clearly are privy to very sensitive information - the rest of us are stuck with trying to extract something approaching what might tangentially be the truth from the widely differing reports in the press and broadcast news.

You also seem to think that someone could just stroll in and pick the guy up. It really doesn't work like that. Hostage extraction is hard enough, reluctant, armed, scared, resistant hostage removal several orders of magnitude harder. What would you do - wait for him to run out of ammunition and then pounce? That only works in the movies.

It might well be that things could have been handled differently but to suggest that at this stage is pure speculation - sadly, in the confusion of conflicting reports people will take those things that suit their polemic. This will happen and opinions will be formed which won't change even should the grounds on which they are formed later be shown to be false. It really is too early to make judgements.

[idun]

IF it was him, then I can't see what else they could have done but kill him. Getting rid of the body so quickly is probably something that will come back to bite them.

Re the celebrations, people in emotional states do strange things. This will have been relief, the man represented such terrible things.

 

The whole thing is a mess though, we will never know how many people have been killed over the last ten years or by whom. 

[NuBeginnings]

OSBL is dead now that his how the Yanks top a royal wedding ! ;-)

[Quillan]

[quote user="JK"]Quillen, You clearly are privy to very sensitive information - the rest of us are stuck with trying to extract something approaching what might tangentially be the truth from the widely differing reports in the press and broadcast news. You also seem to think that someone could just stroll in and pick the guy up. It really doesn't work like that. Hostage extraction is hard enough, reluctant, armed, scared, resistant hostage removal several orders of magnitude harder. What would you do - wait for him to run out of ammunition and then pounce? That only works in the movies. It might well be that things could have been handled differently but to suggest that at this stage is pure speculation - sadly, in the confusion of conflicting reports people will take those things that suit their polemic. This will happen and opinions will be formed which won't change even should the grounds on which they are formed later be shown to be false. It really is too early to make judgements.[/quote]

Both the BBC and ABC News have stated that information given to them from a senior intelligence/military source stated it was a shoot to kill order, there was never any intention to take him out alive which is what I am getting at here if you read my posts. As an ex military person myself I know things are not how they are portrayed in films but there are methods of extraction with 'reluctant' people. The Americans sent their special forces in to a country, without the countries permission to assassinate somebody then dispose of the body at sea so it can't be found within the time frame permitted under Muslim religion as a matter of respect, you tell me who thinks they are living in Hollywood? There is something very fishy about all this and as I and others have said it has not been handled well and will come back to haunt America and the rest of us will be caught, yet again, in the crossfire.

[powerdesal]

It's reasonable to assume that a 'taser' would have immobilised OBL and allowed a live extraction - had they really wanted a live one.

[Bugsy]

Interesting thread this but some of the comments are, IMO, of course, flawed.

"They should have kept him alive to stand trial", you're having a laugh. In every similar situation in recent history, this has only led to hostage taking (and killing) in an attempt to get them released.

I do agree that getting rid of the body was a mistake though. It should have been put on public display prior to being thrown into a dumpster.

If the 'west' is really serious about defeating terrorism it time they started to think like the terrorists. They (terrorists) should understand, quite clearly, that if they travel that route they will be killed at every opportunity.

.

[powerdesal]

Agree.

[Quillan]

[quote user="powerdesal"]It's reasonable to assume that a 'taser' would have immobilised OBL and allowed a live extraction - had they really wanted a live one.[/quote]

Exactly.

Thinking about the reference to a Hollywood movie type scenario earlier I was watching the BBC this morning and they were showing the photo's of Obama and co watching it all live through cameras mounted on the soldiers taking part. I then read in the Daily Mail (I like reading the 'readers' comments in all the papers, some are quite funny) that when his sister died in a Boston hospital from cancer the FBI got a court order to remove her brain to 'preserve it' and it is from her brain that DNA has been extracted for comparison. Interestingly enough Obama is pretty sure its him but he says its only 99.9% confirmed which leaves 0.01% of doubt. If that is not Hollywoodish I don't know what is.

It's also very interesting that many of the relatives would have liked him to be taken alive and also there are many sceptics who would like to see video footage and photo's. As several people pointed out in the video we have seen so far there are no bodies. It is said they will release the video of him being buried at sea but then I thought you normally put the body in a 'sack' with weights so again how do we know its him. The absolute classic comment must be when asked about photographic evidence was that it has been discussed and felt that because he was shot in the head the photo's would be too graphic and might upset his relatives it has been decided not to release the photo's.

As I have said this does not currently 'smell right' and there will be many, including myself, who won't be satisfied until we can see absolute proof it's him. Even then there will always be questions over the alleged command to simply kill him and not bring him out.

By the way, in some papers it has been reported that El Qaeda claims to have had 'dirty bombs' in place in the US for some time as well as other countries. I am not sure this is true and can't see it myself but you just don't know. I am sure El Qaeda will make many claims over the coming months. Likewise it will be interesting to see how this all unfolds and what exactly is released by the Americans.

[NickP]

 After they  read your scepticism Q ; I'm sure that Obama and co. will take on board your worries and keep you informed before they take any further action in the future. I am not sure this is true and can't see it myself but you just don't know, unless of course it's in the Daily Wail. [Www]

[PaulT]

There is another possibility - they have captured him alive but told the World that he is dead. It seemed that a photo of him dead had officially been released but quickly denounced as being a fake - had the US govt been caught out?

Doing this there will be no hostages taken seeking his release. Dropping ther body in the sea is convenient - it has gone.

As to shoot to kill was this not the case with the SAS and the Iran embassy seige in 1980. Appraently one of the terrorists got out and the SAS were trying to drag him back in but the TV cameras prevented this.

Paul