Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

Bin Laden was not a military commander. He was a rebel leader, a freedom fighter or a terrorist depending on your point of view. He never led an army, he never appears to have carried out an attack himself and exactly how much invovled he was in attacks attributed to him will now never be known. He is also charged with crimes in many countries- what gives the US the moral authority to execute him without trial?

Add- watching American crowds react to the news and its deeplyt distatseful- this is vengeance and nothing less. U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A,. B.B, B.B., B.B..........

[Eldorion]

Bin Laden was not a military commander. He was a rebel leader, a freedom fighter or a terrorist depending on your point of view.

Two of the three terms you mention instantly call to mind militaries to me, and there are different types of terrorism. I will admit that I should have continued to say paramilitary as I had earlier in the thread, but you're splitting hairs. He was the leader of an organization that perpetrated attacks on both military and civilian targets, he declared war on the U.S., and he was intimately involved in supporting the Taliban, which was a more clearly military organization than than al-Qaeda. I didn't say he was a field commander, but that doesn't mean he wasn't still a leader of the organization.

I'm not sure if this is just a manifestation of your incessant need to be contrary towards whatever the majority of people appear to be feeling (whether it's about politics or about movies), but that's really beside the point. You're grasping at straws in your attempt to treat bin Laden as an ordinary criminal.

[Saradoc]

"Ordinary criminals" don't get tried in an international court of law, which is where I believe was the correct place to send Bin Laden. Instead of the vigilante action, prove that the west aren't just men with guns, but men of law and justice.

[Pettytyrant101]

Agreed. Amereicans seem to have a blind spot to this.They taslk about justice and democracy yet given the chance to demonstrate it they do whats expected- shoot first ask questions never. They could have showed those who call them 'evil' that they were above that, that they meant what they said about justice -Obama even uses it in his address 'brought to justice'- justice is not execution without trial. What is it Americans don't get about that?

[Kafria]

no body, and more importantly no trial, no justice seen to be done- this is not a good day for democracy or the rights of the individual- this was an ill man hunted down and shot without trial.

And here you have hit the nail on the head for what i have been feeling all day since hearing the news.

Now I understand that for someone who lost someone in some of the awful events that Al Qaeda were responsible for may find closure or some justice in this. I also get that having identified him as the leader it is an important event in the war on terror.

But, I do find the jubulation and taking to the streets leaves a feeling of disquiet. People are dead, people responsible for terrible things I know, but joy at any death is not something I feel comfortable with. Equally I am worried about the feeling that this solves the problem, it doesn't.

Finally, through some of the recent conflicts there has been an identified leader and importantly that leader has been put on trial so justice can be done, this has been denied in this case!

[Kafria]

Saw the separate thread first then the discussion on here and just wanted to respond here to the current issue.

I think there is a difference in how OBL is seen (and from those of us who are commenting it seems a little to be a trans-atlantic difference), and how that determines how he should be treated. In a war there are leaders and this is very much presented as a 'war on terror' in that context I can see how it may be seen that this was a campaign or operation within that war and totally justified.

I think the problem comes that for a lot of us we don't see it quite in those terms. OBL is the symbolic head of this movement, many things have happened in many places (possibly including the recent Morocco bombings) often inspired from within this organisation, but how much of each individual attack he is responsible for has not been proven. (religious leaders who spout hate and violence are charged with incitement, not the crime itself!). This is the problem here. And while I can see the logic in the get in, get out, bury the body at sea so there is no shrine/ martyrdom idea the reality is that it has opened up a bigger more insidious can of worms. Is he dead? was it mistaken identity? was it a cover up cos there was no proof? etc...

Finally as I said on the other thread:

through some recent conflicts there has been an identified leader and importantly that leader has been put on trial so justice can be done, this has been denied in this case!

We have a war crimes proccedure in place and if at all possible this should have been followed! (As it was following the serb conflict, even if death disrupted those proceedings!) The fact that this seems not to have been tried is the thing that is giving most people disquiet I think!

[Pettytyrant101]

Couldn't have put it better Kafria. Agree with every point.
For justice to be doen justice has to be seen to be done. Without that how can anyone be sure it was justice?

[Eldorion]

I think the problem comes that for a lot of us we don't see it quite in those terms.

I'm curious - why not see it as a war? It's an unusual and assymetric war, to be sure, but would you call the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan not a war just because they were fighting disunited groups of mujahideen too? I fail to see how bin Laden, being the founder and leader of one of the main militant organizations that the U.S. and NATO are engaged with, is not a legitimate military target. And I'm pretty sure that no nation has ever required a trial before eliminating a legitimate military target during a period of conflict.

NB I should clarify that the war I'm referring to isn't the broader "War on Terror" (which can be applied to many different conflicts) but specifically the war in Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

[Pettytyrant101]

For myself I don't think it falls within the classification of a conventional war. This is a war of ideas conducted by individuals connected only by shared ideas. When the IRA were bombing Britain those found responsible for it were put on trial, I dont see why Bin Laden should be any different- he is possibly a criminal, and possibly a terrible, dispacable one, but without a trial how can anyone be certain he was behind it all?
And from a strategic stand point killing him seems a silly move. It risks inflaming his supporters, but more imprortantly he may have provided intel- who in the Pakistania government was shielding and protecting him, how are funds raised, if orders are being given how are they implimented and coimmunicated? Not to mention the questions America perhaps shot him dead to prevent- how long was he in CIA service? How close was he to the Bush family before 9/11 and what were the business dealings?

But because they opted to kill and not bring to justice at all these things will never now be known.

Out of curiousty Eldo, Obama said this was 'justice' and you seem to be agreeing- what is your definition of justice in this case? As for me justice cannot occur without due process. Shoot to kill is not my idea of justice.

[Eldorion]

For myself I don't think it falls within the classification of a conventional war. This is a war of ideas conducted by individuals connected only by shared ideas.

You can't be serious. The Taliban and al-Qaeda aren't unitary organizations by any stretch of imagination but their members share a hell of a lot more than just ideas.

And from a strategic stand point killing him seems a silly move. It risks inflaming his supporters, but more imprortantly he may have provided intel- who in the Pakistania government was shielding and protecting him, how are funds raised, if orders are being given how are they implimented and coimmunicated? Not to mention the questions America perhaps shot him dead to prevent- how long was he in CIA service? How close was he to the Bush family before 9/11 and what were the business dealings?

To a certain extent I agree with you about that. According to at least one person interviewed by CNN, the plan was to capture bin Laden, but he "posed a threat". Other sources have said he was personally involved in the firefight. This contradicts some other reports though, so we may never know for certain one way or another.

But because they opted to kill and not bring to justice at all these things will never now be known.

Not necessarily. We don't know what information and material the U.S. may have captured from his compound. Perhaps it was nothing, but bin Laden's death doesn't automatically mean that any investigation was doomed to failure.

Out of curiousty Eldo, Obama said this was 'justice' and you seem to be agreeing- what is your definition of justice in this case? As for me justice cannot occur without due process. Shoot to kill is not my idea of justice.

I'm not entirely sure if justice is the right word, since that has legal connotations. I do have the distinct sense that bin Laden got what was coming to him, though, since he was the leader of a violent organization that perpetrated attacks against numerous countries and who issued an (already linked-to) declaration of war. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that a slaughterer of innocents can't commit anymore crimes.

[Pettytyrant101]

Its just the US idea of justice seems to often to come from the barrel of a gun.
As to satisfaction- a word I am uncomfortable with- a man who wa sprobably responsible for killing people has now been killed- its just death on death. If he was in prison awaiting trial you could feel just as satisfied his killing spree was over- but satisfaction at yet another death, even his, makes me uncomfortable. And the cheering crowds are evn worse- if they had been given his body they would have torn it to pieces and trampled the remains.

[Tinuviel]

I agree completely Kafria. The fact that people were partying at Ground Zero this morning kind of disgusts me. Celebrating killing someone isn't making us any better than Osama himself!The best thing America can do is to forget everything he has done, and leave it with him at the bottom of the ocean in his "unable to worship him there" watery grave
They shouldn't have killed him. Death is too easy, for most people at least. I don't think he was afraid to die or get caught or anything, because he knows that he's spread hatred into everyone's hearts that won't quickly go away, not even now. If we want to end the war on terror, we have to stop playing to their level and show some kind of supperiority. We can't fight someone out of anger, because anger blurs judgement.

[Tinuviel]

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Those who run a country and live by the sword, risk having the entire country die by the sword. When the whole world lives by the sword, it's difficult to escape from it.
As Eowyn said in TT "Not all who die by the sword live by them"

[Eldorion]

I can sympathize with your opinion regarding the celebrations, Petty. I will admit that it's difficult for me to be wholly rational in my response to this given the impact 9/11 had on my country and on the childhood of everyone growing up at the time I did. It's a bit hard to explain the feeling. I still think bin Laden was a valid military target but I can understand why the celebrations come off as distasteful and disturbing. Also, with regards to finding about the extent of bin Laden's involvement, apparently the raid did in fact yield valuable intelligence information. Politico has the story.

One other thing that was on my mind: I wonder if Prince William and Kate Middleton's delayed honeymoon had anything to do with being warned of this. Hadn't they been planning on going to Jordan? I know that in the US, at least, people are being advised to be cautious when travelling abroad for fear of retaliation.

[Eldorion]

While (as I mentioned in the other thread) I can understand people being upset or disturbed by the celebration of death, I think it's a big stretch to compare celebrating the mass murder of innocents with celebrating the assassination of someone involved in killing innocents.

[odo banks]

Glad he's dead. No ongoing trial. No more wasted energy on the monster. At a tangent, but still related, I sometimes dream of a time when those who plan suicide attacks do it themselves. Soon suicide attacks would end, along with those clever manipulating ideologues themselves. Hey! Osama planning the deaths of so many - not just in America - might have born a realisation that his own days were numbered due to his knowledge of impending reprisal, a form of suicide perhaps; but I doubt he saw it that way, because he wanted to live until a time when his vision of world rule was in place, with him at the helm (as Allah's voice on Earth). Just like Hitler, or Stalin, or any other dangerous ideologue, he wanted to Rule. Like I said, good, he's dead. Let's move on.

[Pettytyrant101]

9/11 was a strange and terrible event Eldo- but not as strange as the US reaction to it- perhaps becasue the IRA were bombing left right and centre over here when I was growing up (I can still remember the signs in shops and hotels from the time-'No blacks, Irish or dogs' -really) so whilst 9/11 was a very bad thing and all, it was really just a spetacular terroroist bomb. It killed a lot, but fewer than the IRA did in their career and the IRA main funding was form the happy US citizen full of blarney stone tales and leprechauns, helping the freedom fighters throw of the evil empire. Funding tended to stop after 9/11 oddly enough. But there is no one defines hypocrite like America I am afraid.

edit- Eldo would it not be easier to merge the Obama thread with this one or vive cersa? I feel like i am in a house having a conversation in two seperate rooms at the same time! And I'm getting to old and lazy to be arsed running up and down stairs between them.

[Ringdrotten]

There's bound to be some sort of retaliation for this. Sinking him to the bottom of the ocean, I imagine that's not quite to the liking of certain people with certain friends carrying certain explosives

[Eldorion]

I will be the first to admit that the U.S. can be highly hypocritical, Petty.

Also, threads merged on request.

[Kafria]

Been reading an interesting piece on the beeb website about the reaction in the US and possible reasons for it. I think for those of us in the UK the point about living with the IRA (and I remember Omagh and Manchester particularly) as part of growing up as opposed to what I think can be seen as a lack of a domestic terror threat in the US has a lot to do with it. 9/11 clearly shook America to it's core and implanted a fear that these types of attacks could happen there, that it wasn't safe from attacks. Given the scale of the attacks that is understandable and I think we fail to appreciate as Eldo said how this has impacted those in America, including the response we now see, the feeling that there has been some vengence for what happened and also that the bogey men is now gone.

By contrast, when 7/7 happened here (and yes I know the scale was a lot smaller), the response was different, it was about finding those who carried out the attack and any directly involved with them in the planning/conspiracy. Living in Leeds at the time ,where 3 of the 4 lived, the feeling I most remember was the shock of the local community that these well liked and respected individuals, who many felt showed no extremist ideas had done this. And a lot of questioning about how such extremism could develop within our communities. Innocent people being under attack at home for political/religious reasons on a national scale was not new.

[Pettytyrant101]

Your post reminded me of a Rich Hall routine Kafria! The relevant bit is from 3.44 to 5.25 (although its all good )



With terrorism from Ireland (terrorism from a UK point of view I should add) going back a couple of hundred years we are pretty used to the idea. Then there was the small matter of the bombings during WW2 (everyone remembers the London Blitz but there were raids all over the UK including in Scotland where most of the shipyards were)- so I guess we do have history with this sort of thing that Americans are lacking- I think I may have said this before long ago in a debate with GB- bt I watched 9/11 unfold live at a friends house. Given Americas seemed completely bemused and shocked that such a thing could happen- and seemed even more amazed at the idea anyone in the world could hate them so much to do something like that- it it remarkable that as we watched it unfold my friend commented "Well that's been coming for a long time", to which I could only reply "Your not kidding."
I think that difference speaks volumes about the difference in world outlook between our two countries. One can only hope a percent of Americans have now taken a more interested view in the wider world and what their governments part in it has been since the end of WW2.

[Pettytyrant101]

So now we know they shot an unarmed man who was resisiting- what is resisting? Surely that covers everything from 'please don't shoot me' upwards?
It now perfectly clear that there was a choice here- capture or kill and the US choose kill. Bin Laden was not taken in a fire fight, not shot down then only discovered it was him afterwards- he was delibretly executed. Sorry but I just don't see how the US can justify that when the man may have been guilty of crimes against humanity- for which there is a world court specifically to deal with people charged with that.
With each new bit of information the image of brave US troops getting their man fades more and more away to be replaced with the more typical image of gungho US troops exterminating a man becasue they did not want the rest of the world to hear what he might have to say in a trial.
Secrets and damned secrets. America may come to rue this day yet, especially the undignified celebrations and the seeming growing view that this somehow brings the whole terrorism thing under wraps. (The best hope for that is the revolutions in the ME for democracy and more secular governance, not shooting more people).

[odo banks]

I find it perplexing how many of us with a, dare I say, 'Western' mindset (I'm talking here about Western apologists not Western pragmatists) often seem to examine how it is 'our' fault. You know, Ted Bundy kills heaps of people mecilessly: "How did we create such a monster?" Osama bin Laden: "Who do we blame in 'our' society for the killings he orchestrated?" That is, "How did we cause these things and though it's not 'my' individual fault (I'm a Lefty or a Liberal and therefore, somehow, sinless); but it's surely the fault of 'others' in our Western society. Probably Political or Religious Leaders." It's like we can't acknowledge Ted's and Osama's complicity in what they are and what they do. It's "our" fault as Westerners - though not 'me' as such, just 'my' society (clarification: I mean "except me and my sinless friends, we are blameless). I guess I'm a simple hobbit from Rushock Bog (below Needlehole) all said and done. If a wolf kills our sheep, we shoot it, feel a certain satisfaction, certainly don't make a song and dance about it or hold rowdy street celebrations, just get back to living our own lives as best we may, and definitely never question that the wolf was a wolf and that we 'caused' him (or her).

[odo banks]

My goodness, we were thinking things at the very same time, Mr Tyrant! I can't see the need to change anything I said though... mmm...

[odo banks]

...On the demonstrations in the ME. Surely we shouldn't let that happen. For don't we hate Democracy in Forumshire? The ME want an Islamic State --- don't they? No, most don't -- but what does that matter? Careful, don't suggest the ME wants Western-like Democracy in their countries - Western freedoms. If you do, Mr Tyrant, you'll be howled down.