Osama bin Hadden?
- Thread starter Ballah06
- Start date
emmodg said:
You got it. I'm just extremely impressed by the whole operation. Should expect no less from not just special forces but our servicemen/women as a whole.
1920, You got me wrong. I wasn't complaining about killing him, I'm all for it, but when we sneak into a so called allies soil to kill him without their knowledge it is the definition of Assassination (assassination: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack).
Our morals are screwed up because we allow this on one side then tie our soldiers hands in the War Zone. If we can do this why the hell can't we get our drop ROE and allow our guys on the ground to do their jobs.
I'm sure we aren't getting the whole story, since they keep changing it every day. As far as the soldiers , we are well served by them, more so than those who authorized it.
Our morals are screwed up because we allow this on one side then tie our soldiers hands in the War Zone. If we can do this why the hell can't we get our drop ROE and allow our guys on the ground to do their jobs.
I'm sure we aren't getting the whole story, since they keep changing it every day. As far as the soldiers , we are well served by them, more so than those who authorized it.
Last edited:
sean said:
Sean-
I take issue with the term murder, either as a component of your definition of a politically motivated killing (aka assassination) or as a stand alone descriptor for this incident. Abraham Lincoln was murdered/assassinated. Osama Bin Laden was shot. You're ascribing a value set with the term murder that is improper in context. The fact that we decided to unilaterally conduct operations in a country that we have ties with doesn't have all that much bearing on the legitimacy of the mission.
I assume you are talking about Rules of Engagement (ROE) vice Rules of Warfare (more often called the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)). In time in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and outside/over Libya for that matter) I really haven't seen the ROE be a significant reason for success or failure in anything.
I also don't understand why people think they rate the whole story, the details that were deemed significant were released as they became available. The fact that the first glance has changed with more details is not all that shocking-first reports in combat are always wrong, it's not a big conspiracy theory as the tin foil hat brigade would have folks believe. It's simply the nature of conflict.
r-
Ray
Murder? Assassination? He wasn't resisting? He was unarmed?
What the fuck, people???
This stinking rag-head had a permanent target on his head starting on the morning of September 11, 2001. It took nearly 10 years for his head to appear in one of our guy's crosshairs and now he's dead. Simple enough.
What the fuck, people???
This stinking rag-head had a permanent target on his head starting on the morning of September 11, 2001. It took nearly 10 years for his head to appear in one of our guy's crosshairs and now he's dead. Simple enough.
I think it will be a long time before any more than a select few know what really happened. I do hope the fucker is well-deserved dead, but as far as what happened? Who knows?
Blue said:
No doubt here except when it started. Sept. 11th was the big one however OBL (as I'm sure you're aware of) has been heading up terrorists efforts for some time. The USS Cole hits close to home for me. One of my good friends was a NAVY diver on the closest Frigate. The story he hold me about rescue and recovery operations made me madder than hell. The issue here is that time heals, it's human nature for most. Every Sep. 11 anniversary I will watch the NATGEO series on the Twin Towers and it stirs the emotions every time. People who think this operation should have gone any other way than the way it did need to have a reality check.
Did that come up here yet?
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-h...panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-h...panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/
Blue said:
If he's a target, he's a target. Dead is dead. All that matters is can you walk away without getting hurt or killed yourself.
What are they supposed to do, sit outside and observe till they note that he's got a gun in his hand, then go in to kill him?!
1920SF said:
I never said he was murdered. assassination has a different meaning, like a desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition). Say as to bring up your presidential ratings with proof that he is dead instead of just leaving a smoldering hole. We killed Gaddafi's son and three grandsons as collateral just to disrupt his regime, were we really that worried about casualties of Osamas family we could not just bomb the compound.
Assassination is one of the oldest tools of political power. It referred to the Nizari branch of the Ismā'īlī Shia founded by the Persian Hassan aṣ-Ṣabbaḥ during the Middle Ages. The group killed members of the Muslim Abbasid, Seljuq, and Christian Crusader ?lite for political and religious reasons.
Since he was the head of a religious group and once controlled a country, throw in he was hiding or being hidden on sovereign soil outside of the war zone it seems like a fitting word. Does this set a precedent that now we can go into any country "unilaterally" and "provoke a shoot out" with anybody we term a enemy? If it was anybody else other than the most hated man in America would you call it? If it was Assange in Belgium would it still be a legitimate mission if we deemed him a threat and put a bounty on his head. Who he was should not play a part in how we conduct ourselves as a nation.
Yes ROE, you haven't seen it affect anything? Terrorist can hide in a mosque and shoot our guys but we can't return fire or risk damaging the structure. We have implemented some screwy engagement policies on both war fronts. The russians didn't handle anything PC and still could not win in Afghanistan how are we supposed to is we play by a very strict set of rules that help the enemy. All I'm saying if we can do this in a friendly country why can't we really get down to business in the war zones.
I see the UN is questioning it, they should be told to go fuck themselves, the only people that have a right are the American citizens and we want to know and see the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.
Continuing the semantical debate since I'm stuck on a boat in the Atlantic with precious little else to do:-You did use murder, in the definition you ascribed to assassination, and thus my rejection of it contextually.-The murky origins you point toward also include the original Assassin's not being a nation-state, working for any side as a matter of covienience, etc. All important factors when you start conflating that term with what our Armed Forces just did.sean said:
-Which religious group was UBL the head of? Al Qaida is a militant islamic group-defined by most as a terrorist group-that ascribes to the Salafi school of Sunni Islam, or if you want to argue semantics and really piss them off, the Takfiri school. UBL was not the head of that school of Islam. Nor was he in charge of any country that I'm aware of, if you mean Afghanistan you are doing not doing justice to the Talib and Mullah Omar.
-The mitigating arguement you throw out with Assange is a distractor, so I won't address it.
-ROE are a fact of life, you learn to work within in them. Having been shot at by a mosque (actually having been shot at from mosque(s)) before I can tell you that ROE has an effect-but not much of one, and so does what weapon systems you have, whether you can id the source of fire, etc..it's just a factor-and an M1A1 main gun round works pretty well when the combatant that is using that facility has rendered its protected status irrelevant. The term terrorist isn't something we use very often on the ground, it sounds better on Fox News, as I don't recall running into any terrorist-though I have sat down with plenty of Al-Qaida guys who were insurgents.
-Screwy policies are enacted by the elected leadership-sadly very few of them have any experience with the pointy end of things, so what do you really expect?
-I still offer to you that the American people, as citizens of a Democratic Republic, do not have a right to see everything-there is no need for transparency in such things-if they don't like it, that's what the Freedom of Information Act is all about.
Last edited:
Ok, now I see, thanks. This is the stuff I want to know about but is almost impossible to find in the media, The closest I have come to the war zone is helping out the Wounded Warriors and getting first hand stories and accounts from them.
I'm not trying to use Assange as a distractor but as a example. It would be one thing if we had permission to be there, what gives us the right as a country to go into any county uninvited to take out any target without declaring war. If any country did it on our soil, friends or not we would be up in arms. What do you think would happen if Mexico sent a military team to texas to eliminate a person wanted by their government.
"I still offer to you that the American people, as citizens of a Democratic Republic, do not have a right to see everything-there is no need for transparency in such things-if they don't like it, that's what the Freedom of Information Act is all about."
I think you got that backwards, We do have a right that's why the Act was created. I will concede there are thing that should not be made public that could jeopardize security or public safety, but I don't see this as one of them, the admin deemed it important enough to tell the american people, why not come clean with the whole story if it's on the up and up.
It just seems that just because it's Osama everyone just overlooks that little fact, Does this set a new precedent that we are the world police and the international policies we help create can be put aside if the target is wanted bad enough?
I'm not trying to use Assange as a distractor but as a example. It would be one thing if we had permission to be there, what gives us the right as a country to go into any county uninvited to take out any target without declaring war. If any country did it on our soil, friends or not we would be up in arms. What do you think would happen if Mexico sent a military team to texas to eliminate a person wanted by their government.
"I still offer to you that the American people, as citizens of a Democratic Republic, do not have a right to see everything-there is no need for transparency in such things-if they don't like it, that's what the Freedom of Information Act is all about."
I think you got that backwards, We do have a right that's why the Act was created. I will concede there are thing that should not be made public that could jeopardize security or public safety, but I don't see this as one of them, the admin deemed it important enough to tell the american people, why not come clean with the whole story if it's on the up and up.
It just seems that just because it's Osama everyone just overlooks that little fact, Does this set a new precedent that we are the world police and the international policies we help create can be put aside if the target is wanted bad enough?
I think what we need to focus on a little more is this conspiracy:
http://www.delriomedia.com/questions/things-monkeys-like-not-white-people/
http://www.delriomedia.com/questions/things-monkeys-like-not-white-people/
sean said:
Come on now, if you're going to quote Wikipedia word-for-word, at least attribute the quote instead of passing it off as an original thought.
sean said:
1. Osama bin Laden was never the head of a religious group. al Qaeda (literally, "The Base") was originally a logistics and support organization for the Russian-Afghan war, headquartered in Pakistan. It morphed into a terrorist group after the Gulf War. While it's members are predominately Wahhabi and religious, it is not a religious group.
2. Osama bin Laden never controlled a country. Ever. He was exiled from Saudi Arabia to Sudan, where he was the (paying) guest of the Sudanese government. He fled Sudan for Afghanistan where he was a guest of the Taliban government. He was never part of a government and he certainly never controlled a country.
sean said:
Wrong. If enemy combatants use a mosque to engage our forces, the mosque is no longer protected by the Geneva Convention; we can and will engage enemy in a mosque. Google "Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai Mosque".
sean said:
First you argue that what we did in Abbotobad was unfair and against the law of war. Now you leave the moral high-horse and say that we should be able to take this kind of action in war zones, too. If you want your argument to be effective, you need to take a side: you're either uniformly against these actions on moral and legal grounds or you are completely for them. There's no flip-flopping in debate.
Last edited:
I'm not questioning who or why we killed but how and where. The How only matters if it was for political gain such as needing a trophy as opposed to just leaving a smoking hole with no evidence.
The Where is what I question the most, It was pushing if not overstepping friendly boundaries.
As far as what we should do in war it's simply kill all enemy combatants that don't unconditionally surrender. Not by having stand down orders and trying to wage a PC war trying to respect the same religion that is trying to kill us.
If we had gone after him with this much gusto the first time he may not have made it to Pakistan. So I guess we can blame Bush for this too.
The Where is what I question the most, It was pushing if not overstepping friendly boundaries.
As far as what we should do in war it's simply kill all enemy combatants that don't unconditionally surrender. Not by having stand down orders and trying to wage a PC war trying to respect the same religion that is trying to kill us.
If we had gone after him with this much gusto the first time he may not have made it to Pakistan. So I guess we can blame Bush for this too.