Should the Taoiseach be Supporting Bin Laden Killing?

Jim236

I know most of us here have absolutely no sympathy for Osama Bin Laden but is it right that our Taoiseach and Tánaiste have decided to speak out in support of his killing? I mean whether or not you despise Bin Laden, the man was assassinated. Surely 2 wrongs don't make a right?

Not just that but this isn't Ireland's war, so why is our Taoiseach speaking out as if it is? Surely he is making Ireland more of a target for these people by moving away from our traditionally neutral stance on such issues? And its not just the case of Bin Laden where the new government has taken sides, we also saw them back the actions of France, Britain, and America in Libya with Eamon Gilmore saying Ireland will do whatever it can to support America.

Enda Kenny is also on record as saying he wants to end neutrality in Ireland by participating in a Europe-wide defence policy and making the triple lock system less strict so as to allow deployment of the Defence Forces to other areas.

We've always heard people in the past saying Ireland wasn't really neutral because of this and that, but we're seeing noticeable change in tone from this government where it is siding on nearly every conflict that arises, even though it has nothing to do with Ireland.

Surely we should just keep our mouths shut and say nothing? Its worked up to now...

jc84

Think of all the innocent people that died because of that man, he deserved everything he got and more, its just a shame it was so quick

Tayla

I think that whole "two wrongs don't make a right' phrase is completely overused. The man deserved to die, no doubt about that.

I always wonder why they bother to mention world news, like the Irish people really care what our 'leader' (ahem) has to say about any world events, I also would be 100% sure that noone else in the world would really care what our politicians have to say.

R P McMurphy

No, he should just keep his mouth shut on the matter if he personally thinks it is ok to engage in extra judicial killings

Jim236

In the wider context though, should Ireland be taking a stance on these incidents? Surely its in our interests to just stay out of it and keep our mouths shut?

Knight990

People of that kind of absolutely focused hatred are a danger to every single human being on the planet. Terrorism ultimately knows no borders, madness knows no borders. Bin Laden and his group could have gone on to cause larger, more terrible bombings anywhere in the world.

His death is more a symbolic act than anything else, and so is the act of supporting it. It's not just supporting the death of a man, it's supporting a significant blow against terrorism across the planet.

Keeping our mouths shut and saying nothing may be a good way to stay out of trouble, but all it would take is one misplaced comment, one media mistake, one step in the wrong direction, even by accident, and it would become very much our war.

In my view, it's everyone's war as everyone, everywhere could be targeted. Sure, there are major targets, but victims of terror attacks are never exclusively citizens of that particular country. We're all in it together.

So yes, I do think it is important that Gilmore and Kenny speak out about it.

AdMMM

Given the circumstances surrounding the killing, I think it would have been prudent to wait until the picture becomes clearer over what exactly happened. So far it appears that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated. In my view justice has not been served and the US has stooped to the level of those it claims it's morally superior too. For that reason I don't think Enda or our Government should be supporting the US in this matter.

dublincelt

Would love to have seen him taken alive, then face a joint trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague along with George W Bush (who has killed far more than Bin Laden)

In relation to the leader of our country supporting the Bin Laden Killing, he was never going to say anything different. We have our business interests to think of...

walrusgumble

knight everyone gets what you are saying.american intervention into northern ireland showed its good side.but this was not our war.we have not been attacked despite shannon.just remember,our soldiers are returning to places like the lebanon.the key to their success was that as peacekeepers they did not take sides,despite one off attacks from both sides nor did they seek retaliation.its ngo's and un forces who have to clean up the mess.no comment has been made about pakistan and protecting innocent people from certain attacks.no lets draw the line &call it quits speech.america & ussr created people like bin laden- no point asking whether the wars were right as its not so straight forward as america was attacked & sadly war is often neccessary to get rid of evil,which bin laden was.blair's comments were stupid red rag to a bull for british safety.once again our eu foreign minister has nwot to say. fairness kenny was asked for his opinion,he could have hardly have said anything bad when we rely on us economy

The Waltzing Consumer

Who gives a crap? I much prefer a leader who calls a spade a spade rather then someone like Dev who offered condolences when Hitler died. There is neutral and then there is NEUTRAL. But again, who really cares?

Jim236

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Who gives a crap? I much prefer a leader who calls a spade a spade rather then someone like Dev who offered condolences when Hitler died. There is neutral and then there is NEUTRAL. But again, who really cares?

I do.

The Waltzing Consumer

Jim236 wrote: »

I do.

Why?

caseyann

Considering it has been said on previous occasions that Ireland has possibly their own cells of al Qaeda here.

However as we have the IRA in Ireland and they would be well aware of what would happen if they stuck a bomb here.
In relation to the government here no they should have kept their mouth shut.

Although when i read they arrested those men by sellafield we would feel something if they blew that up.

walrusgumble

fg have been consistent with its neutrality opposition.some top brasses in the army are ambitious and would love a chance.like to see fg justify serious investment in the millitary.an island nation with feck all ships we cant stop a sizeable portion of drugs coming in,witout british help i would dreed to see how our brave search n rescue people would cope.would love to see fg come to army towns and encourage young people to fight for dodgy causes in countries they may not even spell.see how clever they are then.what the hell has happened to the un?you trust sarkosy?

The Waltzing Consumer

walrusgumble wrote: »

fg have been consistent with its neutrality opposition.some top brasses in the army are ambitious and would love a chance.like to see fg justify serious investment in the millitary.an island nation with feck all ships we cant stop a sizeable portion of drugs coming in,witout british help i would dreed to see how our brave search n rescue people would cope.would love to see fg come to army towns and encourage young people to fight for dodgy causes in countries they may not even spell.see how clever they are then.what the hell has happened to the un?you trust sarkosy?

FG could always get you to confuse the enemy to death

Jim236

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Why?

Because I choose to care. I think we have benefited from remaining neutral in the past, and I don't think Gilmore and Kenny giving their 2 cents worth and siding with America on every single international incident has any benefit for Ireland. Like I said, if anything it makes us more of a target.

Again, its not specifically the Bin Laden issue, we've seen them take sides on the Libyan issue as well and we know Fine Gael support the ending of Ireland's policy of neutrality and Ireland taking more of a military role abroad.

walrusgumble

caseyann wrote: »

Considering it has been said on previous occasions that Ireland has possibly their own cells of al Qaeda here.

However as we have the IRA in Ireland and they would be well aware of what would happen if they stuck a bomb here.
In relation to the government here no they should have kept their mouth shut.

Although when i read they arrested those men by sellafield we would feel something if they blew that up.

regarding sellafield,thats an understatement. wonder what would dev have thought?(tongue in cheeck-sure there is no afghan embassy here?)

Jim236

I'd take the sellafield arrests with a pinch of salt. Over there anyone can be arrested under their Terrorism Act, and protestors are regularly arrested under it.

caseyann

walrusgumble wrote: »

regarding sellafield,thats an understatement. wonder what would dev have thought?(tongue in cheeck-sure there is no afghan embassy here?)

There sure is according to this.
http://www.embassyireland.com/

Oh_Noes

Knight990 wrote: »

Terrorism ultimately knows no borders, madness knows no borders. Bin Laden and his group could have gone on to cause larger, more terrible bombings anywhere in the world.

I completely agree with this sentiment. Especially in the context of America going into Pakistan without any prior agreement with the Pakistan government and assassinating someone, regardless of who they are.

Actions like these just further encourage the negative stereotype about America not practising what they preach at home when it comes to their foreign policy. Surely their actions will now prompt a huge number of Americans to take the attitude that if this can be done once, it can be done again. That's a terrifying thought considering this is a country that elected George W. Bush twice. If they happen to vote in an even more extreme president in the future, he/she will always be able to use the Bin Laden precedent as an easy excuse to violate international borders and assassinate people without any judicial process.

caseyann

Jim236 wrote: »

I'd take the sellafield arrests with a pinch of salt. Over there anyone can be arrested under their Terrorism Act, and protestors are regularly arrested under it.

Ah so Bangladeshi males in 20's went all the way from London to there to protest with a camera?

Anyway they were released but,the point is if they could get that close and with a camera in these times.Who else could?

Poccington

We supported the mandate for ISAF in Afghanistan, we have delpoyed troops(Although a small number) to Afghanistan. We send our troops on Courses with NATO armies, we train soldiers from NATO countries over here in Ireland, we've contributed troops to EU Battlegroups.

Anyone who thinks Ireland "doesn't take sides" is delusional. We definitely take sides, quite regularly.

As for supporting the death of Bin Laden, of course he should support it. Some people just need to be killed, Bin Laden was one of those people. Why would he not support the death of the figurehead of extremism across the globe?

man.about.town

Knight990 wrote: »

People of that kind of absolutely focused hatred are a danger to every single human being on the planet. Terrorism ultimately knows no borders, madness knows no borders. Bin Laden and his group could have gone on to cause larger, more terrible bombings anywhere in the world.

His death is more a symbolic act than anything else, and so is the act of supporting it. It's not just supporting the death of a man, it's supporting a significant blow against terrorism across the planet.

Keeping our mouths shut and saying nothing may be a good way to stay out of trouble, but all it would take is one misplaced comment, one media mistake, one step in the wrong direction, even by accident, and it would become very much our war.

In my view, it's everyone's war as everyone, everywhere could be targeted. Sure, there are major targets, but victims of terror attacks are never exclusively citizens of that particular country. We're all in it together.

So yes, I do think it is important that Gilmore and Kenny speak out about it.

well said

Wheelie King

Kenny is a bloody disgrace. We are meant to be neutral.

hardCopy

Tayla wrote: »

I think that whole "two wrongs don't make a right' phrase is completely overused. The man deserved to die, no doubt about that.

I always wonder why they bother to mention world news, like the Irish people really care what our 'leader' (ahem) has to say about any world events, I also would be 100% sure that noone else in the world would really care what our politicians have to say.

Yep, it may not undo the first wrong but it can make people feel a hell of a lot better about it

walrusgumble

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Who gives a crap? I much prefer a leader who calls a spade a spade rather then someone like Dev who offered condolences when Hitler died. There is neutral and then there is NEUTRAL. But again, who really cares?

ara sure dev dev was not really really that neutral with helping the yanks & britain.he knew damn well what was going on in europe-not to the same extent until later of course.i doubt he would have done what he did publicly if he knew even for hempel.he played a blinder for ireland though.shame no one listened when he was president at the league of nations.dev did what he did out of a mark of respect for hempel than anything else.very odd though.still,haughey did worse by burning the union jack outside trinity.(obviously not for sadness for germany)

Jim236

Poccington wrote: »

We supported the mandate for ISAF in Afghanistan, we have delpoyed troops(Although a small number) to Afghanistan. We send our troops on Courses with NATO armies, we train soldiers from NATO countries over here in Ireland, we've contributed troops to EU Battlegroups.

Get your facts right here. The 10 army rangers based in Afghanistan are there on a UN mandate, not a NATO one (given that Ireland isn't a NATO member). And they're the only troops based in Afghanistan. As for EU battlegroups, they're only deployed in humanitarian situations, and are just an extension of Ireland's long history of peacekeeping.

As for training troops from other countries and participating in training in other countries, so what? How does expanding the skills of our DF compromise our neutrality?

man.about.town

Wheelie King wrote: »

Kenny is a bloody disgrace. We are meant to be neutral.

no one is neutral when it comes to terrorism. its just a pity america wouldnt send special ops to ireland to rid us of our scumbag cowardly terrorists, the ira

DoesNotCompute

jc84 wrote: »

Think of all the innocent people that died because of that man, he deserved everything he got and more, its just a shame it was so quick

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If we celebrate the death of Bin Laden, we're just as bad as all those who rejoiced when the Twin Towers went down.

Jim236

man.about.town wrote: »

no one is neutral when it comes to terrorism. its just a pity america wouldnt send special ops to ireland to rid us of our scumbag cowardly terrorists, the ira

I guess you believe everything that appears in The Sun and Sky News do ya?

man.about.town

Jim236 wrote: »

I guess you believe everything that appears in The Sun and Sky News do ya?

go on?

Poccington

Jim236 wrote: »

Get your facts right here. The 10 army rangers based in Afghanistan are there on a UN mandate, not a NATO one. And they're the only troops based in Afghanistan. As for EU battlegroups, they're only deployed in humanitarian situations, and are just an extension of Ireland's long history of peacekeeping.

As for training troops from other countries and participating in training in other countries, so what? How does expanding the skills of our DF compromise our neutrality?

Please don't tell me to get my facts right and then tell me we have ten members of the ARW in Afghanistan. The 7 troops over there aren't members of the ARW.

ISAF was established with a UN resolution but it's a NATO led mission. They were deployed the exact same mandate the rest of the troops currently serving with ISAF were/

I never said it compromised our neutrality. I said it shows we pick sides, which we quite blatantly do.

DoesNotCompute

Knight990 wrote: »

Bin Laden and his group could have gone on to cause larger, more terrible bombings anywhere in the world.

So you think that Al-Qaeda are disbanded now because their leader is dead? Murdering Bin Laden does not make the group inactive all of a sudden. They are still around, and more dangerous than ever.

Do you really believe that the world is safer now? If anything, it's more dangerous. Western countries are now expecting retaliation attacks because of Bin Laden's execution.

Best case, Bin Laden's murder has not changed anything, worst case, things are about to get a lot more dangerous.

man.about.town

Poccington wrote: »

Please don't tell me to get my facts right and then tell me we have ten members of the ARW in Afghanistan. The 7 troops over there aren't members of the ARW.

ISAF was established with a UN resolution but it's a NATO led mission. They were deployed the exact same mandate the rest of the troops currently serving with ISAF were/

I never said it compromised our neutrality. I said it shows we pick sides, which we quite blatantly do.

win

dixiefly

We all have been welcome recipients of the efforts of the Allies in the 2nd World War. The U.S. and Britain are our natural allies and bin laden declared open war on the U.S. and Britain. I support the U.S. in their decision to take out Bin Laden and I fully support our Taoiseach in articulating that view.

walrusgumble

Poccington wrote: »

We supported the mandate for ISAF in Afghanistan, we have delpoyed troops(Although a small number) to Afghanistan. We send our troops on Courses with NATO armies, we train soldiers from NATO countries over here in Ireland, we've contributed troops to EU Battlegroups.

Anyone who thinks Ireland "doesn't take sides" is delusional. We definitely take sides, quite regularly.

As for supporting the death of Bin Laden, of course he should support it. Some people just need to be killed, Bin Laden was one of those people. Why would he not support the death of the figurehead of extremism across the globe?

true,hence why i said some in the army are ambitious,sure they need training.shame they send them for training with other armies in wintry sweden yet head places to places like sunny chad for the real thing.some of our soldiers are highly trained &are more than security for the bank transferring men as some think.its best that its kept quite though,bha pesky phoenix magazine

Jim236

Poccington wrote: »

Please don't tell me to get my facts right and then tell me we have ten members of the ARW in Afghanistan. The 7 troops over there aren't members of the ARW.

ISAF was established with a UN resolution but it's a NATO led mission. They were deployed the exact same mandate the rest of the troops currently serving with ISAF were/

I never said it compromised our neutrality. I said it shows we pick sides, which we quite blatantly do.

Whether its NATO-led isn't the point, the point is we're not there as part of NATO. And I'm not trying to defend the mission there either, personally I don't think we should be there at all.

But I'm still waiting to hear how being part of the EU Battlegroups and training other armies/participating in training "shows we pick sides". You seem to be full of facts here, but you know damn well Ireland has also trained and trained with countries that aren't NATO members.

walrusgumble

Wheelie King wrote: »

Kenny is a bloody disgrace. We are meant to be neutral.

we never really were.fine gael have historically been keen on getting stuck in.(no not ww2 sure most bar dillon supported dev) what shannon only what ireland refused to hand over the ports in ww2. its no hidden secret with enda,though he kept that one quietish during the elections.

Jim236

man.about.town wrote: »

go on?

You seem to buy into the propaganda that America's and Britain's war is everyone's war. And your description of the IRA as "scumbag cowardly terrorists" shows you either don't know your history, or you do and also consider the 1916 volunteers to be terrorists as well, but I'm guessing its more likely the first.

Poccington

Jim236 wrote: »

Whether its NATO-led isn't the point, the point is we're not there as part of NATO. And I'm not trying to defend the mission there either, personally I don't think we should be there at all.

But I'm still waiting to hear how being part of the EU Battlegroups and training other armies/participating in training "shows we pick sides". You seem to be full of facts here, but you know damn well Ireland has also trained and trained with countries that aren't NATO members.

The fact it's NATO led is the point. Our very contibution to the mission shows that when it comes down to it, we pick sides. Please explain to me how contributing troops to the ongoing War in Afghanistan isn't picking sides?

How does it not show we pick sides? We're very much on the side of NATO countries and "the West" in general, without having the bottle to join it. I honestly don't know how any could say Ireland doesn't pick sides when it comes to international matters. We definitely do.

When it came to Afghanistan, we chose sides. When it came to Libya, we had troops ready to deploy with the Battlegroup in a conflict that in reality, has nothing to do with Ireland. I've yet to see any Iranian's, Syrian's etc. training in a single military installation in Ireland... Funnily enough, I've seen British, American, French, Danish, Swedish etc. all training over here. I certainly couldn't see us entering any military pacts or Battlegroups with any countries outside of "the West"... Could you?

Ireland picks sides. We're nothing like the peace loving, neutral country some people seem to think we are.

Knight990

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

So you think that Al-Qaeda are disbanded now because their leader is dead? Murdering Bin Laden does not make the group inactive all of a sudden. They are still around, and more dangerous than ever.

Do you really believe that the world is safer now? If anything, it's more dangerous. Western countries are now expecting retaliation attacks because of Bin Laden's execution.

Best case, Bin Laden's murder has not changed anything, worst case, things are about to get a lot more dangerous.

No, in fact, I am entirely in agreement with you. Hence I said his killing was a symbolic act more than anything else, with little tactical or strategic value.

Do I believe it's safer? No, in fact it's even more dangerous now, since the dynamic of the battle has been changed (even more so by the rather unfortunate handling of the situation by the US Government). I'm of the opinion that revenge attacks are not only likely - they are practically a sure thing.

The act of killing him was symbolic in that it showed that he could be killed - that he wasn't some larger than life figure that was above this world. It showed that terrorists can be hunted and can be killed.

Whether this was right or wrong will be debated forever, and whether it was a good or bad idea is something I believe we will find out soon enough.

walrusgumble

man.about.town wrote: »

no one is neutral when it comes to terrorism. its just a pity america wouldnt send special ops to ireland to rid us of our scumbag cowardly terrorists, the ira

no need. you never heard of the old special branch unit in the gardai and special criminal court?they did well stamping them out in the south. if politicans on both sides of the boarder continue to convince the overwhelming majority of civilians to turn away from violence the ira are dead.remember the deaths of that young lad from monaghan armagh because he rubbed people up the wrong way.people came on tv disowning the ira after years of supporting them (shelter,turning the blind eye etc) during the troubles.that would be the irish vote gone in the us then,see how people reacted to the brits.not so long ago we saw brits out on walls round south.

alchemist33

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If we celebrate the death of Bin Laden, we're just as bad as all those who rejoiced when the Twin Towers went down.

Celebrating the murder of 3000 innocent, random people is a hell of a lot different from celebrating the death/assassination/murder of the man who killed them. That doesn't mean I condone the manner of his killing, but the two things are not moral equivalents.

A Dub in Glasgo

It just goes to show that beneath the veneer of democracy and anti-violence talk, most people will gladly support the extra judicial execution of somebody they consider merits it. In the next breath they will then go back to talking about democracy and anti-violence.

The act on Monday was vengeance not justice

caseyann

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It just goes to show that beneath the veneer of democracy and anti-violence talk, most people will gladly support the extra judicial execution of somebody they consider merits it. In the next breath they will then go back to talking about democracy and anti-violence.

The act on Monday was vengeance not justice

Didnt they say they were unarmed and they caught him and shot him afterwards?

Nodin

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It just goes to show that beneath the veneer of democracy and anti-violence talk, most people will gladly support the extra judicial execution of somebody they consider merits it. In the next breath they will then go back to talking about democracy and anti-violence.

True, however.......

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The act on Monday was vengeance not justice

As I put it in another thread on much the same topic

"Apart from the various fundamentalist groups, the whole Al Qaeda thing seems to attract headers from all walks of life. Holding Bin Laden for trial in the US would result in all kinds of hostage taking, no small amount from people who are essentially trying to commit 'suicide by cop' in a more radical form. Trying him in an international court would mean that he'd be facing life, thus extending the whole thing across decades. And of course, regardless of who held him, nationals in the West would occassionally be lifted, to put pressure on the US via their governments.

Given the duty to protect US citizens encumbent on its government, the rational decision was to kill him. "

KeithAFC

At least he has the balls and dignity to say something about it.

walrusgumble

KeithAFC wrote: »

At least he has the balls and dignity to say something about it.

what?what have they to loose,in an climate where all leaders are doing it?loose only a few us multinationals if they did not.i can't take gilmore serious on this one.balls & dignity would be to comment that its now time to sort out the problems in these regions,move out,stop exploiting and allow the rule of law & democracy conclude this mess.they got their pound of flesh and revenge,move on build bridges with victims of their violence and get the people behind the reasonably incorruptable governments of the day and get people to turn there backs on violent groups .get peacekeepers in. but thats too much work lets kill and bomb our way sure.why america didn't directly intervene military wise with palestine iran or tibet?loss interest in somalia?(no the fact 9/11 madrid & london are lost on me & yes people have to stand up to violent regimes with war)why change tact to iraq when they were not involved in 9/11?

KeithAFC

Do you think these people would think twice of getting a bomb to Dublin onto a bus and not detonating it? Dublin..London.. Makes no difference to these people.

walrusgumble

KeithAFC wrote: »

Do you think these people would think twice of getting a bomb to Dublin onto a bus and not detonating it? Dublin..London.. Makes no difference to these people.

i accept what you say but its no isolated coincidence why the countries that were attacked get attack-i mean that without being flippant london was far too close to home it was like the ra all over again ie ringing family members to see if they are ok.but these people have reasons to do what they ,regardless how nuts they are.stay out of it.you really that shocked that america got attacked?-again i really dont mean to be offensive.if it was not ussr, it was iraq,then afghanistan and again iraq.will america learn?its one thing to invade and get rid of a despot its another to profit(i know theres no such thing as a perfect war)but america can be hypocrits,at times.again,i am glad obl is gone though.ireland's role should be to highlight the real problems but this not utopia and no one cares what small nations think

LeixlipRed

If he's having the Queen and Obama over he's hardly likely to say the right thing is he?