President Obama is about to make a statement, but major news outlets are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Just because other countries want it done too, doesn't mean it's within the law.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.
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.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 please! You are in serious need of some history lessons. And also apparently civics.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.
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.
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.
Just to be clear: I don't think you need to do more research because you disagree with me, but rather because I see you making simplified generalizations about a very complex issue without much factual basis. Like saying that everyone who celebrated 9/11 was just in it for the vengeance, and supporting that by saying we didn't back down after Pearl Harbor so the terrorists must have know we wouldn't back down after 9/11. When I pointed out that we have sometimes backed down after being violently attacked, your response was simply to repeat what you believe.
I don't think I am well aquainted with history and I have been studying it since I started college twenty years ago. It's a rabbit hole.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
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'm not downplaying the amount of danger they were in. I'm saying I don't know the amount of danger they were in. May I ask where you got the information about there being guns in arms' reach? Everything I've read was that he "made a threatening move" and that they were worried about suicide vests and booby traps. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'd just like to read what you read about it. I haven't watched the news or read any on line today, and I know the story is developing.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
eclipse, bin Laden didn't have a gun but he was reaching for one. An AK 47 and a handgun were within arm's reach. Had they hesitated, that hesitation could have allowed him to reach that gun and take out or critically wound one of our men. They did well to neutralize the woman by shooting her merely in the leg, rather than shooting to kill. Had she been reaching for a gun, they may have done the same simply to be soft on a woman--but it is also likely she would have been incapacitated the same way. I think it's really disrespectful to those brave men to downplay the amount of danger they were in.
Thanks, I'll check it out.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
I don't know it either; only they do. But I've seen numerous sources say that he was reaching for a weapon and that weapons were within arm's reach. Even if he wasn't reaching for a weapon, our guys had no way of knowing what he was doing when he made the "threatening move." He could have been reaching for a gun, and he might have been about to pick a wedgie. We don't know, and they probably didn't either. They knew what he was capable of, though, and they knew they were in the fox hole with a man who wants to kill as many Americans as possible.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/
Even FOX is saying guns were within reach, and they hate Obama lol
I read an article just this morning saying he had reached for those guns, but it was on my work computer so I have absolutely no idea where it was. If I do see another article referencing him reaching for the gun I'll post it.
You are right that I do not know what you know, but I am basing my assumptions on what you have posted in this thread.Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
Chamomile Girl, I recognize that governments are capable of committing terrorists acts, too. I do know the history of the Middle East; I do know the myriad of motivations behind terrorism. Believing that it is evil doesn't make me ignorant. Terrorism is evil, whether committed by an organization or a government. I think you show your ignorance by calling terrorists boogeymen, as if they don't exist. Everyone who has ever died in a car bombing knows firsthand that terrorism is a real threat. Don't call me hon. We don't even know each other. That is so rude and infantilizing. Don't use what/who society does/does not label as terrorists as proof of my ignorance, and please especially don't call me ignorant and then follow up with hon.You don't even know me. Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know. I know that there is more going on here than what is on the surface; if you read the thread you see where I acknowledged that we created this monster. I'm not blind, and my eyes aren't closed--so stop accusing me of it. I found your whole post extremely patronizing and riddled with unfounded, rude assumptions.
We all have different experiences; we all are knowledgeable about different things; we all have different perspectives to bring to the table. I'm young and I don't know everything, but I'm not so ignorant that I deserve to be written off as uninformed. It felt very much like that was what was happening. We're all ignorant of some fact or another; it doesn't make us ignorant people. I appreciate those of you who apologized.
I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.
Quote:
I have been reading and staying out because I wanted to avoid snark, but I just cannot let this slide...How much courage does it take for a bunch of heavily armed Navy SEALS supported by the strongest military power in the world to break international law to murder someone in cold blood so that someone never gets legal justice. If that is courage then every bully that ever lived is rejoicing in having found a new character trait. Because anyone that knows anything about bullying knows that it is done out of fear and not out of courage. It would have taken much much more courage to take Bin Laden alive...even at the risk of their own lives.
But how does killing one man neutralize the threat of an organization? Because I have seen here in Colombia how that has not proven true. Tthey have killed THREE Leaders in the last ten years and things may die down for a few years whole they regroup and train, but it doesn't take long for them to start targetting civilians again, and each time they do the attacks are more devestating and more sneaky. The hatred and moreover the sophistication and the financial backing of their forces are a teeny tiny fraction of that of Al-Qaeda., and the size of the pool from which the FARQ can recruit is also miniscule in comparison to Al-Qaeda. What is the proof from which you are making this pudding?Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
hakeber - that I don't know the answer to those questions is not proof of his innocence, only of my ignorance of the answers. I know that his testimony isn't the only evidence we have. I know that we have caught some of the hijackers and have their testimonies; I know that we have the testimonies of people who interacted with the hijackers. Not all of it was obtained through torture. We have been watching this organization for decades. I don't like Bush, and I suspect he played a role in the attack. I HAVE a healthy dose of skepticism... I'm just skeptical of different things than you seem to be. I'm not skeptical that bin Laden was involved in 911 or that he is dead; I'm not skeptical of whether the kill was lawful or of whether those SEALs were in danger. I am extremely suspicious of George Bush and his administration, however.
No, it doesn't, but it does prove he has not been found beyond beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of them. He never gave testimony. The tapes in which he supposedly confesses were tapes that showed (someone who looked like) Osama Bin Laden discussing his plot with an advisor. Testimony of everyone else is pretty much hearsay. The hijacker involved in 911 are all dead. The hijackers of latter attempts were not involved in 911, so their testimony is useless, especially since they would have been offered a deal to testify against Public Enemy Number One, and that in and of itself does not constitute viable evidence. That's why legally it has all been useless in building a case, and why Pakistan was unwilling to aid the US, and weren't so until war and destruction seemed imminent, and then they were all "okay, we'll help!" But they didn't.
The legality of it is really a matter of perception. The law says if you think you are in imminenet danger, you can kill a man if he is attacking you. Targetted killings are allowed in situations of war. Now we could say that we we were at war with OBL IF we believed and had a statesment from him as the head of AlQaeda directly declaring war on the US....but we don't. To the best of my knowledge an act of war cannot substitute for a verbal declaration of war. Furthermore, Pakistan was (semi) friendly territory. For us to violate their sovereign ground to perform a targetted killing is against the humanitarian laws of the UN. However, if we felt he was about to plan and implement in the near future another attack (no evidence of that has come forward but as you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have the evidence and choose not to share it) we may have the right to defend ourselves given some loose readings of international law...Below are some links to some articles on international law and targetted killings. The SEALs were in danger...but that's sort of their job, isn't it? They were in danger the minute they signed the registration form to be a part of our armed forces. But the point is they were instructed to KILL, and then the secondary instruction was , unless you think he'll go peacefully. If it was a case self defense they could have shot his leg, or used a stun gun, or disabled him as they ARE TRAINED TO DO VERY WELL. They killed him because that is what they were told to do...the video in your link had the head of the CIA saying that point blank. The legality of being able to both kidnap him and/or murder him is where it gets grey.
Of course the US administration and the CIA will say it's legal. What are they gonna say "yeah, it was totally below the belt, but that's how we roll, dudes!" They are trained to repeat like Ollie North and his "I cannot recall at this time." Clinton and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", like Bush and his WMDs...We followed the law to the letter "He did not raise his hands in surrender."
If you are Skeptical of the Bush Administration, you should consider the fact that though the face of the state has changed, not much else has.( please correct me if I am wrong) The government is still a government of the people, by the people and for the corporations. I have yet, despite my longing and wishful thinking, seen ANY evidence to the contrary. Please share what you have seen that has not been broadcast in the international news. I need to restore a little faith back to the hope I felt back before the elections. As far as I can see it's the same adminstration with different figure heads.
I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.
Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden's demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved "America can do whatever we set our mind to." If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden's death, then this only suggests we clearly don't want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren't addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.
We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can't manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can't fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can't reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can't break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can't protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.
But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child - maybe the age of one of my own - who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he's watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.
And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?