Osama bin Laden has been killed in a mansion within a multi-building complex in Pakistan near Islamabad by American Navy Seals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden

 

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

 

Comprehensive coverage is at:

 

http://news.discovery.com/history/osama-bin-laden-killed-110502.html

Views: 305

Replies to This Discussion

Do you think those willing to kill themselves to "save" him won't be willing to kill themselves to seek "justice" for him?

The fact that he is dead I think is for the better.  But I'm uncomfortable with a policy of assassination instead of trial.  He wasn't a official of a nation, he was a criminal.  I know a lot of people think he can't be treated like a criminal and must instead be treated like an enemy, but I'm not one of those people.

 

It was a complicated issue, and with the information available, I'm not clear on it at this point.  If he did have a human shield and was resisting a SEAL team, then shooting him was probably the only real option.  The question is, how did it play out. 

 

The question is, did we really ever consider taking him prisoner?

Im hoping that the "capture" option was briefly discussed because that would have been the rational thing to do. And I hope it took the President about 2 mins of conversation to throw it out. This would mean the President had already weighed that option prior to locating Bin Laden..which any intelligent leader should do.

  Your use of the word "assasination" may be helpiing to fuel that "moral" quandry you seem to be having about killing and ENEMY COMBATANT.

Yeah, it doesn't matter whether he was a foreign official or not.  He had declared war on us, whether he had the official backing of a nation or not.  That means shooting him in the head is a perfectly acceptable option.

 

One of the things I've heard fundy, right-wing radio criticizing Obama about was that he waited 14 hours after receiving intelligence that bin Laden was there.  I'm sure Obama spent a good chunk of that 14 hours figuring out the best possible way to handle the situation, sorting through the likely results of either choice.  I think the best choice, politically, is not having him covered by the American and international media during his trial.  The fallout from the assassination will almost certainly be far less than the results of bin Laden's preaching from the witness stand.

Indeed! Fuck that guy and the camel he rode in on.
I think killing him unnecessarily was a strategic mistake. He will now be viewed as a martyr by radical Islam and, in this, serve to incite the movement. If he had been taken alive we could have water-boarded him until his spirit broke and then released a video of him recanting. This would have significantly deflated radical Islam.

Also, the fact that he had been living for some time right under the noses of Pakistan authorities suggests that some of them were covering up for him (i.e., were radical Islam sympathizers). Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Having killed him, especially in an operation not involving Pakistan's permission, rather than making him recant might incite the sympathizers to smuggle nuclear weapons to radical Islam.
Wow, you just suggested illegal, unethical and immoral torture to gain political points.  Way to be creepy.

LOL! On the other side of this coin, I did feel that Obama was gloating a wee bit too much - perhaps to gain political spin over George "Mission Accomplished" Bush.

 

Where I'm looking from (England) were we're rather less cavalier, this could be the start of an all-out war.

START of a war?  Are we selling cookies over there right now?

All out war, Stephan. A kind of perfect storm war.

 

I'm assuming you've seen that movie Unthinkable?

 

I've always thought that 9/11 was a result of America's actions overseas (ably abetted by Europe, it has to be said). Obama (and the US in general) always came across as if they were all innocent: I don't see it that way (and more than I can condone 9/11). I honestly thought then that Bush would turn the middle east into a great big mirror after that; but then, he needed their oil.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but this act could be the trigger for a shitstorm on your homeland the like of which we've never even imagined.

No argument with that John... but why are we pissing in their pool anyway? Oh yeah, it's because we wanted their oil - the oil under their land - and they didn't want to give it up.

 

America, let's not forget, created Bin Laden in the first place - she trained him to fight another war (for them) against another sovereign state. Bit like training an attack dog and then whining when it bites you on the arse.

 

I'm seeing this from a moderate perspective - in a country where guns are outlawed and we don't assume that everyone prays to a god. Where even the worst criminals have rights.

 

Bin Laden was unarmed - and that means he was not an enemy combatant. Getting shot in the face was probably the best thing to happen to him - in his eyes, he goes to Islamic heaven and becomes a martyr. One of these things we know to be false, the other is a virtual certainty. 

 

The general feeling in the UK and Europe seems to be running the same way. Particularly as we're more likely targets simply because we're physically closer.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service