Bin Laden - Page 13

[moonfirefaery]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

I know what my ex husband's training was regarding those vests, and it would not be to shoot within the confines of a building. If they are going to shoot to kill (and they do) it is at range with a head shot. This is why so many children who are used as messengers have been shot, they can't allow them to get close enough to see if there is a bomb or not.   He was/is one of the 'elite' in a different branch.  

They had no choice but to shoot him within the confines of a building; that's where he was... and he did die of a head shot.

[insidevoice]

Moonfirefaery, 

Would you be supportive if you knew that the orders given had been to execute him period?  Just curious, but I suspect this is where we can't see eye to eye. 

[meemee]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

I will always hold out hope that things will improve in the US, but it is not where we plan to raise our family in the long run. 

i hear you too, but i am finding it difficult to find the kind of place i'd like to raise my dd in (not that i could even if i wanted to as i coparent) but i like looking around.

the iraq war is not having repurcussions just in US and iraq. its affecting other countries in teh world. the cancer of xenophobia is taking over. sweden has one of the easiest immigration policy to immigrate. guess what today it is a HUGE issue there and there is a lot of hatred towards the iraquis who are seeking refuge there. now france has banned the hijab. to me it seems like almost all countries have some sort of issue going on that i disagree with. sweden has completely canged in the last 10 years. the face of europe has changed.

almost every continent has something that makes me not want to live there. in a sense i feel like i have no idea where to go. even siberia - has discovered oil and it looks quite different today. 

[moonfirefaery]

hakeber, we're not responsible for what other people choose to do. We are responsible for what we do. That others are reacting to us doesn't make us responsible for their reaction; they could have chosen differently.

I think his confession is a smoking gun. I am not shut off to the idea that Bush, being affiliated with the bin Ladens, helped the attack along. I'm not at all. But we, the American people, are responsible for punishing all involved. We know bin Laden was involved, and if we ever have more evidence that Bush was, we can try and hang him too.

Yes, we have the right to use fire power against a wanted man and anyone defended him to bring him to justice for killing thousands. We were at war with his organization, and he conspired to murder thousands on our soil by attacking a military installation and the capitol, as well as two large buildings important to the world. He admitted to the murder, then evaded capture for ten years while continuing to incite violence.

And I do question people...doesn't make me less glad there's one less terrorist in the world.

Our SEALS were ordered to take him in only if they could do so safely. They had no idea what could have been on him; I am glad they did not endanger themselves to find out, even if he turned up unarmed. Had he been armed and wounded someone or escaped, we'd have wondered why they didn't just shoot him ASAP.

[moonfirefaery]

Quote:

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

Moonfirefaery, 

Would you be supportive if you knew that the orders given had been to execute him period?  Just curious, but I suspect this is where we can't see eye to eye. 

I would be disappointed, but accepting. I consider him a threat to national and global security and I think it is the president's obligation first to do whatever he thinks best protects the people of this country and its allies. I trust his leadership, and his judgment seems sounds to me.

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by meemee 

i hear you too, but i am finding it difficult to find the kind of place i'd like to raise my dd in (not that i could even if i wanted to as i coparent) but i like looking around.

the iraq war is not having repurcussions just in US and iraq. its affecting other countries in teh world. the cancer of xenophobia is taking over. sweden has one of the easiest immigration policy to immigrate. guess what today it is a HUGE issue there and there is a lot of hatred towards the iraquis who are seeking refuge there. now france has banned the hijab. to me it seems like almost all countries have some sort of issue going on that i disagree with. sweden has completely canged in the last 10 years. the face of europe has changed.

almost every continent has something that makes me not want to live there. in a sense i feel like i have no idea where to go. even siberia - has discovered oil and it looks quite different today. 

Much of my  family has lived internationally, though most have decided to keep the US as their 'home' and travel to live and work.  I am lucky in that we have a very easy door to relocate as I am not married to a US citizen 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

I think his confession is a smoking gun.

The problem with major criminal acts... You can't trust that someone did it just because they confessed. You'd be surprised how often people confess to much lesser crimes than mass murder because of some perverted ideas on how to because famous.

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Quote:

I would be disappointed, but accepting. I consider him a threat to national and global security and I think it is the president's obligation first to do whatever he thinks best protects the people of this country and its allies. I trust his leadership, and his judgment seems sounds to me.

And that is where I can not see eye to eye.  That action would be blatantly against international law, and I would expect the President to be held accountable.  (Frustratingly, as in general I have been fairly impressed with him, and think he has been quote good in his role as president and done a lot to begin to heal international relationships.)  If he did make that choice however, I would be unable to find any support for his remaining in his position, or, in fact, for his not being brought up on charges. 

[moonfirefaery]

We have other evidence that he's guilty, and I think his confession is legit. I don't know if Bush had any involvement.

I don't think it is against international law, as we weren't the only country or organization that wanted him, and I think the government has the right to act to protect its people and allies. So yes, that is a fundamental difference in our principles.

[eclipse]

As I said up thread, the legality of the action has absoloutely nothing to do with how many people/governments want it to happen. Being accepting of assassinations is a very, very slippery slope. If a country (or, hell, a concept like "terror") sends someone to assassinate one of our leaders, and succeeds, do we then just consider that a regrettable loss due to a war?

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

hakeber, we're not responsible for what other people choose to do. We are responsible for what we do. That others are reacting to us doesn't make us responsible for their reaction; they could have chosen differently.
 

But we have not been held accountible for what we have done around the world in the name of capitalism, and "democracy".  We have not been made responsible in the same ways that these people are constantly made responsible for their actions.  It is as though ONLY the developing world must learn to keep its place and the rich global north can continue to trample all over the impoverished of the world with total moral impunity because...wait...why is that? I still don't get it.  The 9/11 attacks if we are to believe they were the work of Osama (and again the so called confession tapes have been shown to be fakes, the source dubious and the figure speaking most definitely NOT Osama Bin Laden) and his gang, but more specifically more recent attacks and attempts are proclaimed to be doing EXACTLY what we did this weekend...holding responsible the people who have acted in violence and collusion against THEM.  Albeit indirectly, we individuals are responsible for the continual abuse of the impoverished people of the world.  Our obvliouness does not absolve us from responsibilty, in my humble opinion.  No one deserves to be attacked or murdered (NO ONE), but we as individuals are and should be held responsible for othe actions of our governments against peoples smaller, less heavily armed, and less richly funded than we are.  We need to stand up and demand answers and demand justice for everyone, not just the pain we feel.

I think his confession is a smoking gun. I am not shut off to the idea that Bush, being affiliated with the bin Ladens, helped the attack along. I'm not at all. But we, the American people, are responsible for punishing all involved. We know bin Laden was involved, and if we ever have more evidence that Bush was, we can try and hang him too.

If his confession were real, I might agree.  But I don't think it is.  If it was, UN forces would have finished this thing 10 years ago.

Yes, we have the right to use fire power against a wanted man and anyone defended him to bring him to justice for killing thousands. We were at war with his organization, and he conspired to murder thousands on our soil by attacking a military installation and the capitol, as well as two large buildings important to the world. He admitted to the murder, then evaded capture for ten years while continuing to incite violence.

International Law of war does not allow a STATE to declare war on a MAN or an organization unaffiliated with a state.  It is a State to state thing, and it is an act that can only be done by those who are recognized heads of state. That is why we have declared war on Iraq and on Afghanistan, but NOT Osama...Because he is not a head of State.  We are not at war with Al-Qaeda.  That is not how war works in international law.  Check out the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

Note:

In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.These declarations...have no legal standing in themselves....
 

He has come out again and again denying those "confession tapes" and denying his involvement in the towers.  Was he evading arrest or were we really not looking all that hard?  A few months ago he was "believed to be in a cave somewhere on northern border of Pakistan"...turns out he's in the burbs of a major city...c'mon!  How stupid do they think we are? 

Furhermore, if we respond to the illegal declaration of war upon us by a a group of armed forces made up mostly of impoverished and undereducated people manipulated by someone we believe to be an evil genius with retalliation...what does that make us?  The bully on the playground who proudly shoves down anyone who dares to  question our authority?  Even if it means playing dirty?  I'm not comfortable with that.

And I do question people...doesn't make me less glad there's one less terrorist in the world.

Our SEALS were ordered to take him in only if they could do so safely. They had no idea what could have been on him; I am glad they did not endanger themselves to find out, even if he turned up unarmed. Had he been armed and wounded someone or escaped, we'd have wondered why they didn't just shoot him ASAP.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

We have other evidence that he's guilty, and I think his confession is legit. I don't know if Bush had any involvement.

I don't think it is against international law, as we weren't the only country or organization that wanted him, and I think the government has the right to act to protect its people and allies. So yes, that is a fundamental difference in our principles.

Just because other countries want it done too, doesn't mean it's within the law.

I would hope to god that the law doesn't allowed the US to send people into another country just to kill someone. The US already seems to think it can do what ever the hell it wants, we don't need even more arguments to support that.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Thao, I think that the common citizens that support terrorists are deceived and that terrorists themselves act primarily out of vengeance, the desire to control and to be in power, and hatred. Terrorists warp religion into a radical form that doesn't resemble the accepted dogma much at all, then they enforce that religion on others. They believe they are fighting right, but they are cruel and domineering. Others may be deceived into believe they are fighting for the right, because no one else seems to be doing it. The people in the world that celebrated 911 were terrorists and their supportors... and to celebrate the deaths of 3000 innocents, they must have been at least a little bloodthirsty. I think there are many people in the world who were blood thirsty for bin Laden, too...but at least we punished bin Laden for his crimes, not innocent people for their government's.
 

Yes, I get that you think this. I've tried to point out that things are not as simple as you think, but you are still making sweeping generalizations like "terrorists act primarily out of vengeance". I could list quite a few groups that have committed terrorist acts that did not spring from vengeance, but rather a calculated attempt to achieve a political goal (I suppose I'd start with the US and Hiroshima). But I'm thinking there's no point, as you haven't really engaged with the facts I raised above, but rather just repeated what you believe.

We agree, however, that a world without Osama is a better place, so let's just leave it at that. And I'd encourage you to keep researching and learning about history and foreign events.

Edited by Thao - 5/4/11 at 9:10pm

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by Thao 

Yes, I get that you think this. I've tried to point out that things are not as simple as you think, but you are still making sweeping generalizations like "terrorists act primarily out of vengeance". I could list quite a few groups that have committed terrorist acts that did not spring from vengeance, but rather a calculated attempt to achieve a political goal (I suppose I'd start with the US and Hiroshima). But I'm thinking there's no point, as you haven't really engaged with the facts I raised above, but rather just repeated what you believe.

We agree, however, that a world without Osama is a better place, so let's just leave it at that. And I'd encourage you to keep researching and learning about history and foreign events.

YES please!  You are in serious need of some history lessons.  And also apparently civics.

[hakeber]

Given the amount of lies the American people were told about 9-11 I find it hard to believe that the people we saw celebrating after 9-11 were celebrating that at all.  Just because that's what CNN, ABC and Fox News told us those peoplewere celebrating doesn't mean it was.  It could have been footage of just about any celebration in the world.

I am way too skeptical of the media to believe that.

Edited by hakeber - 5/5/11 at 5:21am

[moonfirefaery]

eclipse, I am waiting while the legal scholars debate the legality of this, but I do think it is in keeping with international law. We didn't assassinate the leader of a country/nation; we assassinated the head of a terrorist organization.

hakeber, the confession tapes haven't been shown to be fakes, and 911 hasn't been proven to have been done by anyone other than bin Laden. At this time both of those theories are considered to be conspiracy theories, ones that I don't currently subscribe to. I can't follow you along this line of debate because of that. That he hid well, and probably had help from the Pakistan government, doesn't mean we just simply weren't looking for him. That's an insult to the men and women of the armed forces and intelligent agencies that have spent so many years gathering the information that finally led to his capture. We're not responding to an illegal declaration of war; we're responding to an attack on our nation by removing the threat to our national security, which we do have the legal right to do. Again, let the world punish us if not. So far it doesn't seem inclined to. I don't appreciate veiled insults over my beliefs, especially when I'm not the one buying into conspiracy theories without substantial proof; the bridge-selling comment was unnecessary and rude.

Thao, those "sweeping generalizations" have always been paired with the admission that I understand terrorists act out of other motives as well; I'd be happy to repost the several posts I've made acknowledging that, even going into detail about it, distinguishing Hamas from al Qaeda, etc. I research and learn about history and foreign events everyday. I spend my whole day at work, with the exception of busy days, reading the news, article after article. I don't appreciate the insinuation that because I disagree with you so ardently I must need to do more research and learning. I am aware of the events that led up to 9/11 and I have been paying wide-eyed attention since that day.

Laws are made by governments, so yes, what other governments deem legal and acceptable does have an impact on the legality of an action.

Chamomile Girl, I have taken history lessons in high school as well as civics; I'm sure I will continue these in college. I am, however, well-acquainted with history, it being one of my major interests. That I disagree with you over civics doesn't mean I don't understand civics. It means that we disagree. Again, being accused of ignorance because I disagree with you is something I don't appreciate. Even scholars of civics have debates over it; it doesn't mean one camp needs to go back to school.

I seem to be the only one remaining; the others in my "camp" seem to have given up on this debate, not that I blame them since arguments are not being based on conspiracy theories touted  as fact--and since disagreement is being met with accusations of ignorance. I'm leaving this thread now, because I don't debate with people who turn to insults--even veiled, insinuated ones--as part of their debate. "The reason we don't agree is because you just need to learn more!" doesn't fly with me. It's poor logic, a poor argument, and a poor way to handle an argument. Back up your statements with facts, not "Well, you just need to be more educated." The US does need to be held accountable for its actions, but that doesn't make 911 justified nor does it rid us of our legal right to self-defense and to punish criminals. Good day to you all.

[hakeber]

If the video was not a fake, and it was viable, and the source was verifiable.  If the testimony is viable evidence and there is enough to prove his involvement...just please answer me this...

Why didn't the UN forces demand Pakistan hand him over sooner?  Why DIDN'T the Grand Jury indict him? 

If our evidence against him is so rock solid...why didn't we prove it in court instead of trying the case in the media?

Just answer that question and I'll let it go.

[monkey's mom]

Well, just for kicks I (for the first time) checked out the FBI Most Wanted List the other day. Sure enough, there's Bin Laden w/ a big red "deceased" across his picture and a blurb about why we want(ed) him.

Know what's NOT there? Anything about 9/11. 

Why would that be?

Wouldnt' that be first thing? I mean, no offense, but "killed 3,000 innocents in WTC bombing" seems a LOT more evil and compelling than "killed 300 in USS Cole attack" (to paraphrase).

But it's not even mentioned. So how much of wild-eyed conspiracy are we looking at here?

(And I will admit that I do not know tons about this, but c'mon...)

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

hakeber, the confession tapes haven't been shown to be fakes, and 911 hasn't been proven to have been done by anyone other than bin Laden.

First, hakeber wasn't just talking about the confession tapes. There were a lot of lies told about 9/11, the war in Iraq, the "evil doers", after a while most other news stations started separating fact from fiction more and more, but Fox news just kept trying to perpetuate plenty of BS.

Second, just because the confession tapes hadn't been faked, doesn't mean the confession is accurate. Probably one of the first things law enforcement personal learn about interrogating someone in regards to a crime is don't take a confession at face value. I mean, I think like a dozen people came forward and confessed to being the Boston Strangler back in the 60's. That is not counting DeSalvo, and his own confession has evidence against it. For all we know, Bin Laden could have simply been attempting to take credit for another person's work to boost the moral of his supporters.

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

eclipse, I am waiting while the legal scholars debate the legality of this, but I do think it is in keeping with international law. We didn't assassinate the leader of a country/nation; we assassinated the head of a terrorist organization.

An assassination doesn't have to be of the leader of a nation. Aside from that, shooting an unarmed person is still illegal under international law, unless it is in self defense - meaning that the shooting has to happen to directly prevent immediate loss of human life. There is no evidence that this shooting meets those standards. Shooting at his wife might have met those standards, assuming that she lunged at the SEALS as has been reported - but they managed to only shoot her in the leg, which was presumably enough to bring her down and subdue her. She was just as likely as OBL to be strapped with a suicide vest and was in the same potentially booby trapped room. There has been no claim that OBL lunged at anyone, reached under his robe, or really did anything but stand there and watch his wife get shot. Maybe he did do something that the SEALS could reasonably have assumed was a danger to them, but there's not been any evidence offered to support that. In fact, there hasn't even been an explanation, a story.