Revenge is a dish best served cold Osama!!!

[Teh Mite]

The problem therein was Al Quieda was painted by the American media to be an organisation of terror (complete with leaders and the like) rather then an idea which it really is.

Bin Laden may have been a prominent leader of a insular sect and well know figure (even respected in certain circles), but he wasn't a kingpin/godfather who keeps the whole operation together. He would do/order things in the name of Al Quieda, but there must've been dozens (nay hundreds) of people who've done something "in the name of Al Quieda" over the past decade or so who didn't necessary have any direct involvement with him.

Hopefully what this will do is remove a major recruitment standpoint from these who wish to sway young and naive minds. As alluded to, he was a "face" for the selfish ******** to bring more to their cause.

Terrorism will sadly never end. It's been part and parcel for 1000's of years whenever there's any form of society and will continue to do so long as there remains more then a single opinion in the world. The best we can hope for is tensions now begin to be eased.

 

[gingergenius]

To your first point, what innocent lives have been taken by capturing Osama Bin Laden? The US government was aided by Afghan and Pakistan intellegence, so there was little difference between this and arresting a criminal on home soil. There are many wars that I don't condone, like USA's involvment in Iraq, however this was handled well diplomatically by Pakistan and the US, and Osama was a fugative in both countries. It's no different to when any criminal is killed in a gun fight.

As for your second point, it's just wrong. The bombing in London were not done as a protest to England's involvement in the Middle East, it was done as a part of a general war on Western society, and burying your head in the sand is not an answer. There are multiple targets world wide that had no involvement in the Middle East, but the bombings were an act of terrorism and a decloration of war on western society.

Seeing as blind passisivism seems to be your approach, what would your action be? It's alright getting rightious and saying "I wash my hands of the whole affair", but what would be your plan of attack? Mediation? Bend over and just let this one slide?

You miss my point. Capturing bin Laden is by the by, fact is that Afghanistan and Iraq were both parts of the 'War on Terror', which was declared as a direct result of 9/11, and as a result of those invasions thousands of innocent people died.

And if the bombing in London wasn't done because of British involvement, why has there been nothing of the sort in France (a country with just as many, if not more Muslims than UK)? Or indeed Holland, Germany, Denmark... ********. For some reason Britain has a pathetic distrust of continental Europe and at the same time panders to the USA. The sooner we realise how much more we have in common with our European brothers (in particular France) then the sooner we'll stop getting involved in things we'd be better off keeping out of. Thank god we had our greatest ever Prime Minister in charge when the Americans wanted someone to go into Vietnam with them...

What would my action be? Well if I were American, I'd use my much vaunted intelligence service and much vaunted special forces to go and chase down the fuckers. Just that I wouldn't bother with the invasions, regime changes and oil-grabbing that had nothing at all to do with al-Qaeda. As a Brit, I'd keep my nose well out of it, and all I'd have had to worry about for the past 10 years would be the bigots in Glasgow and Northern Ireland.

That way, I could have slashed the military budget (why do we need a massive air force/ navy when all we fight against are guys in pyjamas with AKs?), and saved some money there. I could put the remaining troops on UN service in useful places like Darfur and Cote d'Ivoire, and wherever else they're actually needed. And then anyone stupid enough to think that the 'West' is one big homogeneous society might actually realise that there are a number of important differences between the values of the USA and the values of the UK - and I'll just start with capital punishment, healthcare, abortion, religion, patriotism... and so wouldn't think of attacking us anyway.

 

[Charles]

To your first point, what innocent lives have been taken by capturing Osama Bin Laden?The US government was aided by Afghan and Pakistan intellegence, so there was little difference between this and arresting a criminal on home soil. There are many wars that I don't condone, like USA's involvment in Iraq, however this was handled well diplomatically by Pakistan and the US, and Osama was a fugative in both countries. It's no different to when any criminal is killed in a gun fight.

As for your second point, it's just wrong. The bombing in London were not done as a protest to England's involvement in the Middle East, it was done as a part of a general war on Western society, and burying your head in the sand is not an answer. There are multiple targets world wide that had no involvement in the Middle East, but the bombings were an act of terrorism and a decloration of war on western society.

Seeing as blind passisivism seems to be your approach, what would your action be? It's alright getting rightious and saying "I wash my hands of the whole affair", but what would be your plan of attack? Mediation? Bend over and just let this one slide?

Surely, surely you are taking the ****. Why do you think the Us went into Afghanistan in the first place?

The Nuremburg process applied to Nazis AFTER the war was over, not DURING it - many Nazis and Non-Nazis (Germans and Allies) died during the war, because they were combatants.



I'm not Smart Cooky, but I don't think it would make one iota of difference to an Islamic extremist whether he was captured, put on trial at Nuremburg, jailed for life, or sentenced to death, they're going to continue to target westerners regardless - no Westerner is going to change or kill their ideas no matter what the West do, moderate Muslims have to propose the better alternative.

I don't see why moderate Muslims have to propose anything. They're not the ones making war and killing civilians for "Freedom". Don't you realise the message the West is sending to all those moderate/on the fence poor muslims? "We're gonna kill you no matter what, and we'll call it justice, and btw we're the superior guys bringing you freedom."

Yeah, I'm sure that's going on great.

I believe he said "freedoms" specifically referring to the 19 who exploited the freedom that they had to learn to fly and navigate in the US, something that they wouldn't get in their homelands, not "freedom" in their homeland, which is experienced to greater or lesser degrees, depending on where you come from ... so the point is hardly moot.

Do you have any proof that a Westerner would be denied flight lessons in "their homeland" (I still don't know where that is btw).

The "an eye for an eye" logic is not compatible with the pretention of superior moral values, like "Democracy" or "Freedom" that the West is supposedly trying to bring to these countries...

 

[Shaggy]

Surely, surely you are taking the ****. Why do you think the Us went into Afghanistan in the first place?

The US and several other UN countries went in because of a UN resolution to do so (aren't you advocating international courts etc), so a UN resolution should be Okay, yes?), so you also got countries like New Zealand going in also, as opposed to Iraq which was a US lead venture, not sanctioned by the UN, which New Zealand did not join despite US and Australian pressure to do so

I don't see why moderate Muslims have to propose anything. They're not the ones making war and killing civilians for "Freedom". Don't you realise the message the West is sending to all those moderate/on the fence poor muslims? "We're gonna kill you no matter what, and we'll call it justice, and btw we're the superior guys bringing you freedom."

Yeah, I'm sure that's going on great.

Exactly, the moderate Muslims are often the innocent parties that get caught up in the cross fire, many live in the countries that have been invaded, lots live in the western nations that are targeted, and suffer the fallout from the terrorist actions in the countries that they now call home. Moderate Muslims make up the majority of Muslims, and most of them don't favour or condone terrorism, and would like to see and end to war - it seems a no brainer to me that a respected moderate Muslim cleric has more chance of convincing young Muslims not follow the path of terrorism, than any western leader. I can't see why any western leader is going to make peace when they have a holy war declared against them either.

Do you have any proof that a Westerner would be denied flight lessons in "their homeland" (I still don't know where that is btw).

The "an eye for an eye" logic is not compatible with the pretention of superior moral values, like "Democracy" or "Freedom" that the West is supposedly trying to bring to these countries...

Don't quite get where you are coming from with the Westerner being denied flight lesson in the (middle east?), it's not about Westerners being denied flight lessons anywhere, it's about 19 people from the Middle East, taking advantage of the US system, and being trained how to fly - if they are able to get that training in the Middle East, why didn't they?

As for the eye for an eye comment, in the real world, any country regardless of what political system or ideology they have are going to retaliate or seek some form of recourse when their citizens are attacked. The Western nations are trying to extract themselves from the Iraqs and Afganistans of the world and get them back to stable self government ... if you think the average Iraqi or Afgan was better of under Saddam or the Taliban's rule, then you are dreaming

 

[smartcooky]

YAnd if the bombing in London wasn't done because of British involvement, why has there been nothing of the sort in France (a country with just as many, if not more Muslims than UK)? Or indeed Holland, Germany, Denmark...

Or Spain... oh, hang on!!

And as for Denmark....

[TEXTAREA]2008 (June): A car bomb explodes outside the Danish Embassy in Pakistan, killing six people and injuring dozens. Al-Qaeda claims responsibility, saying the attack was retaliation for the 2006 publication of political cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[/TEXTAREA]

So these Islamic nutters go around blowing up places killing people for drawing cartoons!

 

[lucky number 7]

The Islamic extremists will not negotiate ..simple as that , fanatical soldiers with the belief that the more they kill the more they will gain in the next life have nothing to lose on this earth.
Fully believe that the UN should use all of its military power to eliminate the threat to peace and safety posed by fanatical terrorists.

 

[gingergenius]

Or Spain... oh, hang on!!

And as for Denmark....

[TEXTAREA]2008 (June): A car bomb explodes outside the Danish Embassy in Pakistan, killing six people and injuring dozens. Al-Qaeda claims responsibility, saying the attack was retaliation for the 2006 publication of political cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[/TEXTAREA]

So these Islamic nutters go around blowing up places killing people for drawing cartoons!

1. Spain was part of the coalition in Iraq
2. That was the Danish Embassy in Pakistan, not an attack on Danish soil by Danish citizens.

Next.

 

[lucky number 7]

Long live America

 

[smartcooky]

2. That was the Danish Embassy in Pakistan, not an attack on Danish soil by Danish citizens.

Perhaps you are not aware that, under International Law (specifically, Articles 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961) an embassy and the grounds surrounding it are treated as the sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is, not of the country in which it is located.

The Danish Embassy in Pakistan is DANISH sovereign territory, and an attack on it is legally an attack on Denmark. If carried out by a Sovereign State, its an Act of War.

 

[Amobokoboko]

So what's the result. Ten years later, thousands have died, Million dollars have been spent and lots of victims have been made.
Al quaeda will take it's revenge = more victims, this is like a bottomless hole.

 

[lucky number 7]

Ten years
Trillions spent
Thousands dead
25 Million dollar Bounty.

And Osama is found.....in his house....

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Does the guy they leaned on in Guantanamo Bay get the $25m (+$2m from the American Pilots fund) for giving them information "directly leading to" his finding?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Does the guy they leaned on in Guantanamo Bay get the $25m (+$2m from the American Pilots fund) for giving them information "directly leading to" his finding?

Ding Ding Ding ... Winner .. Winner ..

On a sidenote .....

 

[gingergenius]

Perhaps you are not aware that, under International Law (specifically, Articles 22.1, 22.2 and 22.3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961) an embassy and the grounds surrounding it are treated as the sovereign territory of the country whose embassy it is, not of the country in which it is located.

The Danish Embassy in Pakistan is DANISH sovereign territory, and an attack on it is legally an attack on Denmark. If carried out by a Sovereign State, its an Act of War.

Do you really need to read every tiny bit of small print just to try and prove a redundant point? Unless you're a pedant, it is quite obvious that geographically, somewhere in Pakistan is not somewhere in Denmark.

The big thing about 7/7 and most of the other plots that have failed in Britain is that the perpetrators were British people attacking their fellow citizens in Britain. And considering you've put in enough effort to research points to discredit mine, and the above is all you've come up with, then can we agree on the fact that:

The major terrorist attacks to have taken place all occurred in or against belligerents in the Iraq War. Bali against the Australians, Madrid against the Spaniards, London against the British. The point remains that France and Germany are both countries with sizeable muslim populations of their own; countries that aren't hard to enter anyway; countries that live their lives in a very un-Islamic way. But they've been under no threat from terrorism because they wanted nothing to do with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you really need to read every tiny bit of small print just to try and prove a redundant point? Unless you're a pedant, it is quite obvious that geographically, somewhere in Pakistan is not somewhere in Denmark.

The big thing about 7/7 and most of the other plots that have failed in Britain is that the perpetrators were British people attacking their fellow citizens in Britain. And considering you've put in enough effort to research points to discredit mine, and the above is all you've come up with, then can we agree on the fact that:

The major terrorist attacks to have taken place all occurred in or against belligerents in the Iraq War. Bali against the Australians, Madrid against the Spaniards, London against the British. The point remains that France and Germany are both countries with sizeable muslim populations of their own; countries that aren't hard to enter anyway; countries that live their lives in a very un-Islamic way. But they've been under no threat from terrorism because they wanted nothing to do with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

So you therefore believe that this justifies the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorist acts. You believe that Bin Laden and his cronies were wholly justified in planning and carrying out those acts? I hope not.

And what about Somalia, and Tunisia, and Kenya. They weren't part of the Iraq Coalition, yet their citizens were murdered in bomb attacks carried out by Al Queda terrorists. How do you account for that?

 

[candybum]

Hmm so on the news, they said it took about 40ish minutes for the operation to break into his house and kill him. Is it just me, or was that too long to so called capture/kill him before the operation was found out by the Pakistani army or who evers. Considering Osama was not armed.

Also they said they wanted the operation to be discrete and unnoticeable but one of their helicopters crash landed in the complex property?

Can someone verify how gun shots fired for 40 minutes and helicopter crashing wouldn't have signalled to someone, like police and even Osama (i.e to get a F out of there) that some sh*t was going down?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Some sort of facts:

Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot by US forces in Pakistan, but he resisted efforts to capture him alive, US officials say

US forces had faced immediate and sustained resistance from many other people in the compound who were armed, the White House adds

Bin Laden was killed in a raid by US special forces on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, some 100km from Islamabad. His body was buried at sea

The US is hesitating over releasing a picture of Bin Laden's body which is described as "gruesome"

White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan says material seized during the raid in Abbottabad could provide leads to the whereabouts of Ayman al-Zawihiri, thought to be al-Qaeda's deputy leader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330

Also dozen of helicopters get shot down so its not really a thing that might have concerned Bin Laden if he even heard the helicopter go down.

 

[Amobokoboko]

It's all ******** I'm telling you. Obama now is the president who took care of the Osama issue in a time when he and Trump are taking the **** off eachother before elections. ( Politics) We're not even sure it's Osama. In Belgium there are lots of articles about the pictures being photoshoped. On a side note, why would you shoot an unarmed men, just catch him and bring him to court so the entire world can see it instead of acting all suspicous about it.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

It's all ******** I'm telling you. Obama now is the president who took care of the Osama issue in a time when he and Trump are taking the **** off eachother before elections. ( Politics) We're not even sure it's Osama. In Belgium there are lots of articles about the pictures being photoshoped. On a side note, why would you shoot an unarmed men, just catch him and bring him to court so the entire world can see it instead of acting all suspicous about it.

The US have not released any official photos yet. Most doing the rounds are fakes anyway.

Also I eluded to the point earlier about Bin Laden being captured and put on trial in front of the world.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Apparently (though I read this on the day so other information might have been released by now) the helicopter didn't crash, it had a mechanical failure so they had to land it - so it wouldn't have been a crash/explosion, just a helicopter landing nearby