Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Shea O'Meara · 03-05-2011 01:37AM

*screwed the time line up a little. I deleted this post and added it to another follow up, once I saw your follow up to your own post*

Laminations wrote: »

Agree on the celebrating part but the events are not comparable. Did you mourn the deaths on 9/11? Did YOU think those innocent people got 'just desserts'? Did you feel bad for them?

Now do you feel bad for Bin Laden? Do you mourn him? Do YOU think he got his 'just desserts'?

I feel bad for any innocent party in any part of the world who gets killed, so of course, yes. And the scale made it more so.
I do not morn the loss of Bin Laden. I didn't know the man and do not consider him an innocent.
I have however, no idea where you are going with this in relation to my earlier point and your disagreeing with it.

Laminations · 03-05-2011 01:41AM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I was comparing the 'we're number one' flag wavers to those who celebrated the twin towers. Both are of the exact same mentality, in my view.

Both are not the same. To draw that conclusion you'd have to have Americans filling the streets punching the air after their military purposely bombed civilians. Americans for the most part regret civilian casualties. I did not see street celebrations for any American bombing of civilians, that's what those who celebrated 9/11 were celebrating. The American celebrations now, while I agree are not in good taste, are celebrating the targeting and killing of a terrorist - a man who claimed responsibility for terror attacks.

Knight990 · 03-05-2011 01:44AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Ah bollocks. Why am I in mainland europe? And ffs a helicoper is just after flying over my roof....

Reporting from Dresden, I just feel a little less safe now, thank you!

Laminations · 03-05-2011 01:44AM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

*screwed the time line up a little. I deleted this post and added it to another follow up, once I saw your follow up to your own post*

I feel bad for any innocent party in any part of the world who gets killed, so of course, yes. And the scale made it more so.
I do not morn the loss of Bin Laden. I didn't know the man and do not consider him an innocent.
I have however, no idea where you are going with this in relation to my earlier point and your disagreeing with it.

You (and I) have different reactions to both (we mourn one but not the other) because both are different. If both are different then you can't exactly say celebrations for both are in the same vein

Yitzhak Rabin · 03-05-2011 02:38AM

If you'll excuse the pun, the whole buried at see thing definitely seems fishy.

In my opinion Bin Laden probably died years ago:

-There were various different reports from various sources that he was seriously ill to gravely ill, and that AQ operatives had tried to secure a dialysis machine for him.

-He wouldn't have access to the care he would need in the Afghan/Pakistani border mountains.

-He hasn't made a video since 2001, a few recordings, but I wouldn't consider that to be proof of life.

-He was found hiding in a compound with 14ft walls, security cameras, barbed wire, satellite dishes, in an area used by the Pakistani military and 2 miles from the Pakistani officer training school where there are regular military patrols and checkpoints, and no one copped he was there til now.

-He's had a 25 million dollar bounty on his head for 10 years and no one betrayed him. His mates have been having the sh1t waterboarded out of them in Gitmo, giving away terrorists plots and names and locations, but kept quiet about OBL.

-But most importantly, I haven't accepted the official version, at least yet, because they haven't released any evidence of it, and decided to fcuk his body off the side of a boat.

If OBL didn't die in around 2001/2002, then he's definitely been sheltered by someone like the ISI, otherwise he would have been found sooner

Exile 1798 · 03-05-2011 05:25AM

yekahS wrote: »

If you'll excuse the pun, the whole buried at see thing definitely seems fishy.

In my opinion Bin Laden probably died years ago:

-There were various different reports from various sources that he was seriously ill to gravely ill, and that AQ operatives had tried to secure a dialysis machine for him.

-He wouldn't have access to the care he would need in the Afghan/Pakistani border mountains.

-He hasn't made a video since 2001, a few recordings, but I wouldn't consider that to be proof of life.

-He was found hiding in a compound with 14ft walls, security cameras, barbed wire, satellite dishes, in an area used by the Pakistani military and 2 miles from the Pakistani officer training school where there are regular military patrols and checkpoints, and no one copped he was there til now.

-He's had a 25 million dollar bounty on his head for 10 years and no one betrayed him. His mates have been having the sh1t waterboarded out of them in Gitmo, giving away terrorists plots and names and locations, but kept quiet about OBL.

-But most importantly, I haven't accepted the official version, at least yet, because they haven't released any evidence of it, and decided to fcuk his body off the side of a boat.

If OBL didn't die in around 2001/2002, then he's definitely been sheltered by someone like the ISI, otherwise he would have been found sooner

I don't know why this "he hasn't released any video's since 2001" falsehood is so widely held.

There were Bin Laden videos released in 2004, 2006 and 2007. All referenced current events and prove that he survived Tora Bora and hadn't died unknown in some cave.

Manic Moran · 03-05-2011 06:06AM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

My view is that celebrating death/s, which ever side of the fence you find yourself, is at best uncomfortable to me. You can't have one rule for some, another rule for others as it suits. That's not how justice or fair play works. I'm sure his supporters saw people outside the Whitehouse and thought, 'Fair enough'.
I know I am not alone in feeling, as I did seeing the celebrations on 9/11, a little disgusted.

The slight difference is that in the one case, it's the death of someone who in effect publicly declared war on the US and had it coming, and in the other case it's the deaths of people who went to work one morning in New York/Washington.

I doubt a 'dignified response' would have changed the minds of people who would be inclined to attack the US on the basis of 'Oh, they're happy they killed UBL, are they?'

NTM

Chuck Stone · 03-05-2011 06:47AM

Here's one take.

jank · 03-05-2011 07:42AM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

The clever thing to have done would have been to put him on trial, a real non-military trial. Carrying out a clandestine assasination to protect your democratic freedoms is just hypocritical.
Waving the US flag and chanting, 'We're number one!' is exactly the same as the footage we saw of people in some nations cheering as the twin towers fell.
Movements do not require a figurehead in the generic political party sense. Nothing has changed except possibly a slight rise in the polls for Obama.

Christ, where do I start with this.

First of, a non-military trial? There is no way in hell that would have happened. Get your head out of the sand, this is the real world. If you are foolish enough to believe that OBL would have gotten a trial in a civilian court in say NY or Washington then it shows your utter naivety here.

As over the top the celebrations were there is nothing "exactly" similar to this incident and the destruction of the twin towers. Here a mass murderer responsible for the death of countless tens of thousands mostly Muslim people was killed. 9/11 almost 3,000 people died as they sat in their offices earning their crust for themselves and their families. Your comment is actually disgraceful when describing it as "exactly the same"!

Also, since when is Al Queda a "generic political party"!!

Your last line is the most relevant of your post but its still wrong!

A lot has changed because of this. It marks the end of Al Qaeda as we know it. Yes there are still nut cases out there, yes there will still be bombings, shootings and the like but as a movement and ideology it is going the way of the dinosaurs. All you have to do is see what is going on in Syria and Egypt to see that radical Islam has been utterly rejected by the main populous as liberal freedoms and democracy is something they crave not some Islamic caliphate where an extreme version of sharia law is some sort of Islamic paradise where a few Imams can perform a circle jerk.

See more
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/al-qaeda-is-dead/?hpt=T2

Jonny7 · 03-05-2011 07:52AM

yekahS wrote: »

If you'll excuse the pun, the whole buried at see thing definitely seems fishy.

In my opinion Bin Laden probably died years ago:

-There were various different reports from various sources that he was seriously ill to gravely ill, and that AQ operatives had tried to secure a dialysis machine for him.

-He wouldn't have access to the care he would need in the Afghan/Pakistani border mountains.

-He hasn't made a video since 2001, a few recordings, but I wouldn't consider that to be proof of life.

-He was found hiding in a compound with 14ft walls, security cameras, barbed wire, satellite dishes, in an area used by the Pakistani military and 2 miles from the Pakistani officer training school where there are regular military patrols and checkpoints, and no one copped he was there til now.

-He's had a 25 million dollar bounty on his head for 10 years and no one betrayed him. His mates have been having the sh1t waterboarded out of them in Gitmo, giving away terrorists plots and names and locations, but kept quiet about OBL.

-But most importantly, I haven't accepted the official version, at least yet, because they haven't released any evidence of it, and decided to fcuk his body off the side of a boat.

If OBL didn't die in around 2001/2002, then he's definitely been sheltered by someone like the ISI, otherwise he would have been found sooner

There weren't 'solid' reports.. just pure and utter speculation and rumours - no one really knew.

I haven't read any confirmation of the dialysis machine story ever, but its taken root, much like the Richard Gere hamster story

He has released multiple video and audio since 2001, one particularily timed one just in time for Bush's reelection in 2004

He could've been living in the suspiciously large house with guard dogs down the road from me

They said the burial at sea was because the Muslim custom is th bury the body asap and they didn't want anywhere in the world to become a shrine to him

However, if they don't produce the photos, then in my mind they are just being stupid and fermenting these conspiracy theories

JustinDee · 03-05-2011 08:15AM

I think his whereabouts have been known for the past few years. For the same reason that the ladarse wally who doesn't get arrested in Derry for incitement, he doesn't get taken in as he and any cohort comumnication can be observed and tapped into.

However, he could have been so close to his last legs that he was about to die. US chiefs of staff weren't having anything like him getting the easy way out (natural death) so promptly delivered his dues and riddled him on his deathbed.

Not quite as whacky as some of the bilge that has been posted around the web but plausible nonetheless, I'd say.

Jonny7 · 03-05-2011 10:23AM

More interesting random facts..

The special forces built a mock-up of the house to practice the assault

The Pakistanis have some people from the house in custody!! I'm just getting this off the news now, apparently his daughter is one of them?

Everyone was in plastic zipties but since one chopper crashed/had difficulty (jesus christ every op this seems to happen) the yanks couldn't talk all the occupants with them

Apparently they took Bin Laden body and one son alive.

Again, this is just cropping up in interviews, waiting for it to be a bit more solid in print

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 12:48PM

Is it not incredible that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan a few hundred metres from a Military Academy under the noses of the Pakistani authorities and nobody knew???, he probably even popped down to the local markets occasionally. He was supposed to need regular dialysis as he was seriously ill even back in 2001. The Americans just go in and take him out and the Pakistanis knew nothing about it. Its like a Dan Brown novel the more that emerges about the event? It defies belief. Pakistan looks bad now no matter what it says, bought and paid for with no sovereignty or integrity where its people have no security It looks like The US rules Pakistan as well or so it appears? The whole thing stinks, and we may never know the truth now especially if we expect it to come from the Yanks.

invinciblePRSTV · 03-05-2011 12:52PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are not serious? I am curious do you tie in British imperialism in India with the current situation in Afghanistan?

Why are you talking about the British in India ffs?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Your view is that the US is there, killing locals, calling them 'terrorists' just to prolong it so that they can stay there longer. I am counting boots on the ground here, just like the Brits, and the French and the Poles.

Look you can spin it to suggest theres's a coalition of countries there but foreign intervention in Afghanistan in the 21st Century began under and remains under American direction and control, they are the primary instigators in foreign forces being there.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but the Americans want to keep their forces in Afghanistan as much as they wanted to keep forces in Vietnam

As i said, i'm quite certain the Americans will use any pretext necessary to keep a military presence their for the long term. Examples from history bears this out.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Next you're going to tell us NATO wants a long drawn out conflict in Libya, because UK and France have a history of colonialism, am I right?

What is colonialism but the opening of new avenues of economic exploitation via military activities?

What that in mind, like Iraq, the prospect of opening up Libya's remaining state owned oil assets i'm sure is whetting the appetites of Euro oil executives from the countries you mentioned. You can be sure if/when Kaddafi is eliminated then these interests will figure strongly in any negotiations between NATO countries and the new regime in place.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Or is your beef just with the US.. whats it to be

This is the second time in this thread you've hinted at a prospect that i'm somehow biased against the US. Is this your standard debating tactic? get hammered on the nitty gritty details so you resort to darkly hinting i'm somehow anti something?

nacho libre · 03-05-2011 01:30PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Why are you talking about the British in India ffs?

Look you can spin it to suggest theres's a coalition of countries there but foreign intervention in Afghanistan in the 21st Century began under and remains under American direction and control, they are the primary instigators in foreign forces being there.

As i said, i'm quite certain the Americans will use any pretext necessary to keep a military presence their for the long term. Examples from history bears this out.

What that in mind, like Iraq, the prospect of opening up Libya's remaining state owned oil assets i'm sure is whetting the appetites of Euro oil executives from the countries you mentioned. You can be sure if/when Kaddafi is eliminated then these interests will figure strongly in any negotiations between NATO countries and the new regime in place.

?

i'm not a defender of the Iraq war by any means, but the argument the Iraq War was purely about oil does seems hollow, when you consider many of the oil contracts didn't go to American companies.
A stronger argument might be Saddam was trading oil in dollars and as we all know America likes oil to be traded in Dollars.

Now in the case of Libya, there maybe an argument that long term the West might secure cheaper oil with the break up of nationalised companies, but there is no guarantee they'd get all the lucrative contracts if they were to be open tender
With this in mind BP, among others, had cushy contracts with Gadaffi's regime. So i really don't see why it would be in their interest to push for his removal.
If we are looking for motivation, it could be America and Britain saw what was going on in Eastern Libya as an opportunity to finally get rid of someone who has been a thorn in their side- The fact that the Lockerbie bomber is still alive must be very embarrassing for Britain in particular.

Laminations · 03-05-2011 02:06PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Pakistan looks bad now no matter what it says, bought and paid for with no sovereignty or integrity where its people have no security It looks like The US rules Pakistan as well or so it appears?

What? Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is one of Pakistan's people, and deserved the protection of the Pakistani authorities? Are you recommending countries harbour and protect known terrorists? I'd be fine if bin Laden was in Ireland for the Americans to come in and take him out without a word of warning to the government and I wouldn't feel any less secure or any more worried that they'd be coming to shoot me next. And I wouldn't feel like they bought the government or rule Ireland

djpbarry · 03-05-2011 02:17PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Is it not incredible that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan a few hundred metres from a Military Academy under the noses of the Pakistani authorities and nobody knew???

It does seem odd. But then, it’s not uncommon for private residences in Pakistan to resemble fortifications (although this particular residence does seem like an extreme case).

Mr.Micro wrote: »

...It looks like The US rules Pakistan as well or so it appears.

The US has had considerable influence in Pakistan since the Afghan-Soviet conflict in the 80’s – if they’re not with the US, they’re against them.

Personally, I don’t know what to make of the whole thing. The secretive nature of such operations makes it very difficult to form a conclusion. However, I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference to the world (outside the US) whether Bin Laden is dead or alive – I find it very hard to believe that a global terrorist ring would suddenly collapse because the “face” of the organisation is removed.

Laminations · 03-05-2011 02:24PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that a global terrorist ring would suddenly collapse because the “face” of the organisation is removed.

Who is saying that it will? Cite one source of someone who thinks this is the end of Al Queda or Islamist terror groups.
I find it hard to believe that organised crime will stop with the arrest of John Gilligan.
I find it hard to believe that Limerick fueds will stop with the arrest of some Dundons.

Just because the activity these individuals are involved in will not stop when they do does not mean they should not be stopped.

seamus · 03-05-2011 02:32PM

Very hard to say what the outcome of this will be. If it is like the media are portraying him as a "figurehead" of Al-Queda but without any major involvement, then his death is likely to do nothing more than strengthen the organisation's resolve.

However, if he still had an active hand in directing parts of the organisation, then there's a vacuum there which will have to be filled, and this typically results in instability and sometimes fracturing of allegiances.

It's something which will have to be followed up with continued captures and/or sieges against the other major power holders in the organisation. There's always another nutter waiting to fill a nutter's shoes, but the more key players you take out of the organisation, the more fractured and disorganised it becomes as internal struggles for power take place. It's all to do with power in the end and nothing to do with religion.

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 03:03PM

Laminations wrote: »

What? Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden is one of Pakistan's people, and deserved the protection of the Pakistani authorities? Are you recommending countries harbour and protect known terrorists? I'd be fine if bin Laden was in Ireland for the Americans to come in and take him out without a word of warning to the government and I wouldn't feel any less secure or any more worried that they'd be coming to shoot me next. And I wouldn't feel like they bought the government or rule Ireland

Firstly Ireland is no saint when it comes to harbouring terrorists......indeed we have a history of it.

My point with security for the people of Pakistan is that the US could come at will and take any citizen of that country at any time and not just Bin Laden. There appears to be no protocol or legal niceties the US just does as it wants and the Pakistani Government just takes the money. Bin Laden was entitled to a fair trial no matter what he was accused of and a case still would have to be proven against him in court no matter what many people think. That is a fundamental of a democracy.

Laminations · 03-05-2011 03:07PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Firstly Ireland is no saint when it comes to harbouring terrorists......indeed we have a history of it.

My point with security for the people of Pakistan is that the US could come at will and take any citizen of that country at any time and not just Bin Laden. There appears to be no protocol or legal niceties the US just does as it wants and the Pakistani Government just takes the money. Bin Laden was entitled to a fair trial no matter what he was accused of and a case still would have to be proven against him in court no matter what many people think. That is a fundamental of a democracy.

Are the soldiers shot on the front lines in any/every war entitled to a fair trial? There was a gunfight, he got killed.

Where would this fair trial have taken place?
Did Saddam get a fair trial?
I'd imagine people would complain regardless of what actions America took simply because it is America - you yourself seem quite biased

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The whole thing stinks, and we may never know the truth now especially if we expect it to come from the Yanks.

JustinDee · 03-05-2011 03:45PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

My point with security for the people of Pakistan is that the US could come at will and take any citizen of that country at any time and not just Bin Laden. There appears to be no protocol or legal niceties the US just does as it wants and the Pakistani Government just takes the money

An intelligence service or operative doesn't adhere to the laws of the country it is operating in. Thats how it works. There's no protocol to an intelligence operation. Just pros and cons.
This applies to any nation's intelligence service, not just that of the US, who as you are no doubt aware are just one of many nations with operations in other people's countries.

RDM_83 again · 03-05-2011 03:48PM

Does anybody else think that the burial at sea would be the perfect cover for the fact that they did take him into custody to be interrogated and killed at a later date outside of world scrutiny. I mean though Bin Ladin was only a figurehead he probably had a vast amount of useful knowledge about the top level operational AQ members and not setting out to make capturing him their focus would appear extremely short sited, I mean look at the level of people they took to GITMO and subjected them to extreme interrogation, kids and the mentally ill*, imagine how more ruthless they would be with some one that 'deserves' it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison?INTCMP=SRCH

seamus · 03-05-2011 03:52PM

JustinDee wrote: »

An intelligence service or operative doesn't adhere to the laws of the country it is operating in. Thats how it works. There's no protocol to an intelligence operation. Just pros and cons.

In this specific case I imagine they had to weigh up the potential to cause offence to Pakistan versus the potential to lose Osama.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions here that if they'd attempted to go the diplomatic route and arrange for Pakistani forces to arrest Osama, he would have mysteriously disappeared before they got to him.

So from their POV, they had him and the best way to guarantee that they could hold onto him was to go in themselves. The intention of the op was probably to detain him, but as is the standard across US security forces, if you pull a weapon to avoid being arrested, you will be shot.

How strict the order to take him "alive if possible" was, we will never know.

Does anybody else think that the burial at sea would be the perfect cover for the fact that they did take him into custody to be interrogated and killed at a later date outside of world scrutiny.

Of course. But then if they already had him, then swooping down on a building in Pakistan, crashing a helicopter into it and burning everything seems like a lot of trouble and risk to go to, for what? If they had him, they would say they had him and they would love nothing more than to parade pictures of Osama in a big orange uniform and shackles.

It seems to me that if the US government wanted to build patriotism and homeland support, then having him in custody is the ideal objective because you can fan the flames for much longer.

Mr.Micro · 03-05-2011 05:03PM

Laminations wrote: »

Are the soldiers shot on the front lines in any/every war entitled to a fair trial? There was a gunfight, he got killed.

Alleged gunfight uncorroborated by other sources as far as I know. only the US word on that.

Where would this fair trial have taken place?
Did Saddam get a fair trial?

Where is irrelevant, as it is he got no trial at all. If the case against him was so strong then the US would have had no bother proving a case and convicting him in a country with a death sentence. It might prove embarrassing for the US to actually have to prove a case so just kill him.

I'd imagine people would complain regardless of what actions America took simply because it is America - you yourself seem quite biased

If bias is objecting to assassination without a trial then I am bias and objecting to US foreign policy from a country that calls itself a democracy that practices rendition and torture, then I am bias again, and for wanting to respect human rights then I am bias again.

I don't believe everything the Americans say or simply believe that they are always the good guys. Its good to question things and not go along like all the other lemmings looking the other way. Bin Laden knew too much and it could have proven embarrassing for the US to allow him to talk. I suspect he may have been in custody since last year and tortured for that time, his body a mess so buried at sea. I will never support a nation that endorses torture and murder in the name of the phony war on terror.

dan_d · 03-05-2011 05:15PM

It would seem that a lot of people are reserving judgement on this one.

Conspiracy theories are one thing, but the news seems to have been greeted with a very muted response on this side of the Atlantic. I, for one, am extremely uncomfortable with the jumping-up-and-down-with-delight attitude that Americans are going for. I'm not the only one either - I've heard numerous people (from friends/relatives/aquaintances to radio/tv DJ's and random interviewers on the street) say the same thing. Suppose it's good that he's dead, but not happy with how the American public are behaving - it's a bit...something. Crass.Premature.Pride before a fall.I don't know...

As to what happened and how it happened, the reaction seems to have been the same. Odd that he was buried at sea. I suppose they covered themselves from all angles in ensuring that it was actually him.If the helicopter broke down, how'd they get him out of there? They hardly just walked down the street carrying a body.....did they?

Again, I'm not too concerned with the details, but I'm quite concerned about the outcome. I'm not sure this is as much of a victory as the Americans like to think it is. I don't know that they're seeing the bigger picture here at all. Well, maybe Obama and co. are, but for the general American people, I just don't think they are. And my geography's not great, but last I checked Pakistan/Afghanistan and the Taliban are physically a hell of a lot closer to central Europe than America....further cause for concern.

General consensus? Unsure and very uneasy about the whole thing.

seamus · 03-05-2011 05:21PM

dan_d wrote: »

If the helicopter broke down, how'd they get him out of there? They hardly just walked down the street carrying a body.....did they?

There was more than one helicopter.

Reports at the moment are that one heli developed mechanical problems and had to be ditched on the roof (though not crash landed). As it was US military tech, they destroyed it when they left, which is probably the main cause of the reported fire.
Other reports suggest that they planned to take more people from the compound, but had to leave them due to being one heli down and instead left them for the Pakistani forces to arrest.

Manic Moran · 03-05-2011 05:39PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Is it not incredible that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan a few hundred metres from a Military Academy under the noses of the Pakistani authorities and nobody knew???, he probably even popped down to the local markets occasionally.

In fairness, as a place to hide it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

You think he should have stayed in a cave? Can you imagine what the satellite imagery would show? "Why are there all those supply runs going up that trail to that mountain? There's nothing visible up there. Might be worth checking out".

Similarly, if he had to move in a hurry, it wouldn't take too long for him to get lost in the crowd, as it were, in the middle of a city. As opposed to hiking for a day in the mountains in full view of God and Predator drones.

It was ballsy, but the best moves usually are.

NTM

djpbarry · 03-05-2011 05:45PM

Laminations wrote: »

Who is saying that it will? Cite one source of someone who thinks this is the end of Al Queda or Islamist terror groups.

I didn’t mean literally collapse overnight, but the question of the effect of Bin Laden’s removal is obviously being asked in the media.

Laminations wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that organised crime will stop with the arrest of John Gilligan.
I find it hard to believe that Limerick fueds will stop with the arrest of some Dundons.
Just because the activity these individuals are involved in will not stop when they do does not mean they should not be stopped.

Sure, but the arrest of John Gilligan didn’t involve a “coalition” of international forces blowing the bejesus out of Limerick.

Laminations wrote: »

I'd imagine people would complain regardless of what actions America took simply because it is America - you yourself seem quite biased

People are quite entitled to judge the US based on its actions. The Americans went into Afghanistan with the stated aim of dismantling Al Qaeda in order to protect civilians from future terrorist attacks. But thousands of Afghani civilians have been killed during the 10-year conflict. This will inevitably lead to mistrust and questioning of American motives.

Laminations · 03-05-2011 05:53PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

It might prove embarrassing for the US to actually have to prove a case so just kill him.
AND
Bin Laden knew too much and it could have proven embarrassing for the US to allow him to talk.

What? Knew what? You seem to be skeptical about 9/11 being orchestrated by bin Laden. Sounds like conspiracy forum stuff.

I suspect he may have been in custody since last year and tortured for that time, his body a mess so buried at sea. I will never support a nation that endorses torture and murder in the name of the phony war on terror.

Yep, conspiracy forum.
DNA tests confirmed it was him
Obama confirmed his death
Pakistani officials confirmed his death
Yourself and the Taliban are waiting for more confirmation but their sources "have not confirmed or denied the news."

In other news the mission seems to have also yielded useful info for counter terrorist organisations

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments