Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Limehouse]

I've read post 54 nowhere do you back up your statement or admit you were wrong.

Now less of the bluff and bluster and come clean.

Stop ordering me about. Post 54 is as good as you are going to get. That's my final word to you.

[cappuccina]

You go, gurrlll!

[Red Zeppelin]

Just to re-iterate, and to agree with Bob Hinton's points, I also didn't say Britain never sold anything to Iraq. The incorrect comment about Britain selling him tanks and guns just piqued my interest as I'm an armour afficionado and took much interest in the American/British armour superiority over Saddam's mostly old Soviet armoured fighting vehicles in both Gulf Wars. Jolly good thing Saddam's forces were mostly NOT equipped with American and British weapons otherwise that would have made it tougher for us.

Britain (and America) selling 'stuff' to Saddam almost pales into insignificance compared to what the Soviets, French and Chinese sold him.

[Stephen Thomas]

On what exact legal basis was OBL killed?

[Celesta]

Hi Jukka,

I am an American and I have to agree with you. It was not the classiest thing to do and made us look no better than the people who celebrated in the Middle East on 9/11 when the Twin Towers fell. But at the same time, 9/11 was an incredibly horrible day for America. The memory of it has not faded and emotions are still raw. So I am willing to cut some slack.

I also want to say that as an American I am extremely proud of our military forces and the job they did in removing this evil scumbag from the world.

c.d.

I'm an American, too, CD, and I agree with you. Most Americans I know are not dancing in the streets over this death. As usual, I resent the stereotyping of people, lumping all people of a country together, because of the actions of only some of their countrymen, or the actions of their government. Many Americans are relieved and feel that justice has been done, but they're not dancing and cheering over it. Many are also uncertain of what will come next, and there is much discussion on various forums about the appropriateness of the celebrating that occurred, in the hours following the reporting of Bin Laden's death.

[cappuccina]

Bin Laden took credit for and provided support for acts which are "crimes against humanity" such as the 911 bombings and other terrorist initiatives. The terrorist group, al-Qaida, which he was an active member of and leader in, also declared itself to be at war, i.e., in an armed conflict with the United States and other countries. Al-Qaida and Bin Laden continued to announce that it was planning future terrorist attacks angainst US and other civilans after the 911 attacks had occurred.

Therefore, hunting down and killing Bin Laden was permissable under international law as an action of war and an action of self defense, as: 1. BinLaden and AQ had declered themselves at war with the US; and 2. that both AQ and BL had specifically declared that terrorist attacks against unarmed, innocent civilans were going to continue.

In addition, the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of September 18, 2001, authorizes the (US) president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned, or committed the 9/11 attacks. Since BinLaden himself took credit as one of the "masterminds" of this horrific attack, then hunting him down and killing him was, "fair game"...

The only point I am not clear on, is if the US secretly obtained the consent of the Pakistani government to cross over into their country on their mission, or of they only received permission from the Afghani government to do so...I am not sure on that....

[Magpie]

From Lao Tze:

Arms are instruments of ill omen. When one is compelled to use them, it is best to do so without relish. There is no glory in victory, and to glorify it despite this is to exult in the killing of men. When great numbers of people are killed, one should weep over them with sorrow. When victorious in war, one should observe mourning rites.

[cappuccina]

I think that is why President Obama is not releasing the "death pictures" and has clearly distanced himself from the "victory parties" that are going on. I think he has acted appropriately and in good taste; others, clearly have not.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

On what exact legal basis was OBL killed?

On the basis that as a mass murderer and a terrorist out of uniform he was not entitled to be treated according to the Rules of War. It's what we call 'Big Boys Rules'.

[cappuccina]

.....uhhhhh, Bob, with all due respect, what you said above, makes absolutely no sense...

The military and civilian lawyers basically used a more complicated version of what I posted, above...

President Obama does take all of this quite seriously, unlike his alcoholic, loose cannon predecessor...

In fact, BL WAS treated according to the overall "Rules of War", and they treated everyone in the compound appropriately also; they ONLY killed BL and his guards....They could have killed his wife when she "rushed" them, instead, they only shot to wound her in the leg, and then stopped. Also, none of the many children in the compound were hurt, nor were the others in the compound injured in any way.

They could have continued shooting and killed everyone in there quite easily, and they clearly chose NOT to...

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

.....uhhhhh, Bob, with all due respect, what you said above, makes absolutely no sense...

The military and civilian lawyers basically used a more complicated version of what I posted, above...

President Obama does take all of this quite seriously, unlike his alcoholic, loose cannon predecessor...

In fact, BL WAS treated according to the overall "Rules of War", and they treated everyone in the compound appropriately also; they ONLY killed BL and his guards....They could have killed his wife when she "rushed" them, instead, they only shot to wound her in the leg, and then stopped. Also, none of the many children in the compound were hurt, nor were the others in the compound injured in any way.

They could have continued shooting and killed everyone in there quite easily, and they clearly chose NOT to...

More nonsense from Caps. Clearly you have never had to shoot someone, otherwise you would know that shooting someone to wound them belongs in Hollywood and the fairytale.

I do hope you can back up your claim that George W Bush was an alcoholic, otherwise you might be hearing from his lawyers!

[cappuccina]

Clearly they shot this woman to wound her. You are insulting these men who are highly trained; they could have killed her easily and quickly, and they chose not to. Clearly by shooting her in the leg, they were shooting to wound her to then quickly get to BinLaden who they killed immediately.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, in the US, anyway...Here cops and even "special forces" such as the ones in the military are taught to shoot to immobilize/stop first, only using lethal force when necessary....That is why there are very few cases in the US of police officers or even "special ops" military or police shooting their guns at all, let alone killing suspects. They use a "graded system"....verbal and physical force first, then non-lethal weapons (e.g., taser), then a gun, then lethal force.

So, you live in a place where it is the norm for cops and others to shoot to kill first, without doing anything else? And where do you live, North Korea??

Oh, on the alcohol/cocaine thing (he also used cocaine)...Don't think so; we have freedom of speech here...Google George Bush and "alcohol" or "alcoholic"/drug addict and you will get thousands of entries on it...

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Clearly they shot this woman to wound her. You are insulting these men who are highly trained; they could have killed her easily and quickly, and they chose not to. Clearly by shooting her in the leg, they were shooting to wound her to then quickly get to BinLaden who they killed immediately.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, in the US, anyway...Here cops and even "special forces" such as the ones in the military are taught to shoot to immobilize/stop first, only using lethal force when necessary....

...

Oh dear. It looks like all my years as a firearms instructor teaching people to double tap center mass was all wrong. Silly me I should have known that Caps would know the right way to do it. Silly Bob, in future I'll advise everyone to follow Caps advice - I tell you what why don't we just tell them to shoot the gun out of the baddies hand? That way they don't injure them at all!

What utter rubbish you do spout!

[cappuccina]

Bob, where I live, on planet Earth, in both the US, and Western Europe, the shorthand for the escalation of force is: "shout, shove, show, shoot..." Again, I don't know where you live....In places like Bulgaria and Chechyna and North Korea and lately in certain areas of Mexico, they may do things a bit differently...

[cappuccina]

Here is an example of a reference to such in a United States Armed Forces Document pertaining to Iraq, for example:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/OathBetrayed/DOD%20043575-04380.pdf

(see page 3, g&h, specifically...)

(Oy vey, you do firearms instruction??)

So, they "double tapped" Bin Laden, but did not "double tap" his wife, when they easily could have EASILY ....clearly a CHOICE they made... and they ONLY killed his GUARDS...and NOT the other ADULTS IN THE COMPOUND...when they could have EASILY...clearly a CHOICE they made...

Edited to say I will not be back until tomorrow....fyi...