[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yea, side with Bin laden over the evil Yanks. Mmmmm.

Worked when the Yanks were siding (not to mention training and aiding) with that very same guy fighting the evil Commies.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Hmmm I guess we have to look at who Carney got his info from. Would it be safe to assume that someone other than those "lying special ops guys" was on hand to witness the events?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hield.html

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

You really want to go there with Bin Laden? I can see your argument for the Taliban in Afghanistan (which of course many people can't manage to separate from Al Qaeda).

Yet it was the CIA who trained OBL. They were the ones skulking around and not fighting by the rules of war in their proxy war with the US.

To expect anybody to adhere to our "rules of war" is just complete BS when our side simply ignores then whenever we find them inconvenient.

Who are they in their proxy war with the US?

My point is do you really want to depict Bin Laden as a freedom fighter? The Taliban, yes, that is what they are, they are fighting to free their country of enemy invaders and their puppet regime. (And of course they treat their women far worse than the French). I've never bought the enemy combatant thing when the US invades a country and people resist. But Bin Laden was just a nut job terrorist. It's not about him wearing a uniform or not.

I'm becoming more torn about this too. At first I dismissed any criticism about this but as more info comes out, and the euphoria wears off, it's good to start asking questions.

It sounds like they could have taken him alive but didn't want to have to deal with where to keep and try him. And him becoming more of martyr than he already is to his folowers.

[DrCaleb]

DerbyX DerbyX:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Like like various resistance groups who fought the Nazis?

Goedwins law is hereby invoked.

No. Its just the best example of non-uniformed people fighting a war. To expect them to follow the rules we invented for war is just plain wrong.

No, it's an example of the citizens of an invaded country fighting back the only way they can. No countries were occupied when US embassies were bombed, nor when the USS Cole was love tapped. Al Queda are not the Maquis. Your example does not hold.

And there are rules of war for an invaded country with respect to it's militia. Al Queda and the Taliban also do not follow them. Invoking the Nazis is then subject to Goedwin's law.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It’s a tough one which isn’t settling well with me either way I look at it.

Have we lowered ourselves to the level of scum like Bin Laden or are we taking a pragmatic approach in using fire to fight fire?

Certainly most of the enemies of the US and it’s allies have been telling their ovine followers of the Great Satan’s evil ways and this will play into Al Qaeda propaganda quite well.

On the other hand, is it preferable that they do fear this kind of retribution?

It’s in the open now. The US and some of it’s allies, will use extra-judicial killings, murders if you like, in dealing with those that would massacre thousands of innocents in the West.

It’s a real Hobson’s choice.

Play by the rules or kill the bad guys without rules. Like I said, I’m conflicted on this one.

When asked about his suspension of certain Constitutional rights during the Civil War Abraham Lincoln responded that, 'the Constitution is not a suicide pact.'

If faced with the choice of national existence or suicidal adherence to principals we sometimes must make the hard choice that's best for future generations.

[raydan]

I'll repeat what I said before, all this would be a non-issue if he would have been killed in a drone attack.

So... why the big fuss?

[Choban]

$1:

Isn't sniping him still shooting an unarmed enemy?

Yes it is, I have my doubts about him being unarmed (or at least not having a weapon very nearby) though. All I really meant was that if they wanted to asassinate the guy they could have just sniped him as opposed to sending in Seals apparently without Pakistani knowledge and risking any collateral damage, really though who among us is really gonna lose any sleep over this.

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

Who are they in their proxy war with the US?

They were the CIA who were the illegal insurgents then and proable unlawful combatants now

andyt andyt:

My point is do you really want to depict Bin Laden as a freedom fighter? The Taliban, yes, that is what they are, they are fighting to free their country of enemy invaders and their puppet regime. (And of course they treat their women far worse than the French). I've never bought the enemy combatant thing when the US invades a country and people resist. But Bin Laden was just a nut job terrorist. It's not about him wearing a uniform or not.

I'm becoming more torn about this too. At first I dismissed any criticism about this but as more info comes out, and the euphoria wears off, it's good to start asking questions.

It sounds like they could have taken him alive but didn't want to have to deal with where to keep and try him. And him becoming more of martyr than he already is to his folowers.

My point is that it is patently absurd to complain the enemy isn't fighting a tank vs tank war and using unsavory tactics.

We wouldn't facing an overwhelmingly superior enemy and its ridiculous to think they should either.

[andyt]

Choban Choban:

$1:

Isn't sniping him still shooting an unarmed enemy?

Yes it is, I have my doubts about him being unarmed (or at least not having a weapon very nearby) though. All I really meant was that if they wanted to asassinate the guy they could have just sniped him as opposed to sending in Seals apparently without Pakistani knowledge and risking any collateral damage, really though who among us is really gonna lose any sleep over this.

They wanted his body to confirm the kill. It's another reason they did not use JDAMs, as had been contemplated at one time. Obama decided to go this riskier way to make sure they could confirm the kill, and so as not to kill innocent people.

[DerbyX]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, it's an example of the citizens of an invaded country fighting back the only way they can. No countries were occupied when US embassies were bombed, nor when the USS Cole was love tapped. Al Queda are not the Maquis. Your example does not hold.

And there are rules of war for an invaded country with respect to it's militia. Al Queda and the Taliban also do not follow them. Invoking the Nazis is then subject to Goedwin's law.

Oh? How many despots have the US supported over the decades? Can the CIA operatives be considered the same type of animal since they have engaged in the same stuff?

And no. We called the insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan the same type of terrorists when we invaded both their countries. The example holds true. Its not invoking the Nazis though a few mouth breathers here will cry just that.

Its claiming that the enemy is somehow being unfair because they don't walk out into the desert in the open to be mowed down by superior firepower.

They aren't using any tactics in war we wouldn't if we felt our home was under grave threat.

[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

I'll repeat what I said before, all this would be a non-issue if he would have been killed in a drone attack.

So... why the big fuss?

Good point.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

Who are they in their proxy war with the US?

They were the CIA who were the illegal insurgents then and proable unlawful combatants now

andyt andyt:

My point is do you really want to depict Bin Laden as a freedom fighter? The Taliban, yes, that is what they are, they are fighting to free their country of enemy invaders and their puppet regime. (And of course they treat their women far worse than the French). I've never bought the enemy combatant thing when the US invades a country and people resist. But Bin Laden was just a nut job terrorist. It's not about him wearing a uniform or not.

I'm becoming more torn about this too. At first I dismissed any criticism about this but as more info comes out, and the euphoria wears off, it's good to start asking questions.

It sounds like they could have taken him alive but didn't want to have to deal with where to keep and try him. And him becoming more of martyr than he already is to his folowers.

My point is that it is patently absurd to complain the enemy isn't fighting a tank vs tank war and using unsavory tactics.

We wouldn't facing an overwhelmingly superior enemy and its ridiculous to think they should either.

We're making the same point if we're talking about the Taliban. But we're not, we're talking about Al Qaeda, who's primary motive was to get the US troops out of Saudi Arabia so they could foment revolution there. These are not freedom fighters but terrorists.

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

We're making the same point if we're talking about the Taliban. But we're not, we're talking about Al Qaeda, who's primary motive was to get the US troops out of Saudi Arabia so they could foment revolution there. These are not freedom fighters but terrorists.

Semantics. We are helping the brave freedom fighters in Libya who are who and want to do what again?

No wonder nobody in the ME wants to trust us. We bomb some countries because they are working with Al Qaeda and then turn around and help them in another.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

We're making the same point if we're talking about the Taliban. But we're not, we're talking about Al Qaeda, who's primary motive was to get the US troops out of Saudi Arabia so they could foment revolution there. These are not freedom fighters but terrorists.

Semantics. We are helping the brave freedom fighters in Libya who are who and want to do what again?

No wonder nobody in the ME wants to trust us. We bomb some countries because they are working with Al Qaeda and then turn around and help them in another.

WTF Derby. Are you really calling Al Qaeda freedom fighters?

And you're saying it's Al Qaeda that's fighting in Libya? You can prove that?

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

WTF Derby. Are you really calling Al Qaeda freedom fighters?

And you're saying it's Al Qaeda that's fighting in Libya? You can prove that?

I was being sarcastic but EVERYBODY is a freedom fighter from a perspective. The guys at WACO that Bart thinks was government sanctioned murder. They may not think like we are but they are fighting for their freedom as they see it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... links.html

Just google it. Plenty of people saying "umm, guys? About the people we are helping in LYbia ......"