Osama Bin Laden Dead
- Thread starter jeffb
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,810
- Points
- 940
Ah yes, by not actively calling you on the absence of real-world logic in your posts, the site's 29,570 other registered members must think you're brilliant -- just not heroic, like you, to speak out.callsign said:
:
Thankfully, I stopped reading the equally non-feasible delusions of Chomsky, Finkelstein et al during my undergrad years -- which I read then, only to refute their tirades with their own words and rationale disconnects.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
According to the LOAC, OSB was an enemy combatant, and unless he unambiguously surrendered, the SEALs were perfectly justified in shooting him (especially if he was making moves which could be interpreted as going for a weapon).
The reason a cruise missile wasn't dispatched had to do with the int value of papers, hard drives and other items of int value which could be recovered from the compound. Since none of us were there, speculating about the motives or actions of the SEALs is pointless, we simply don't have the information.
He's gone and so is a possible rally point for the Al Qeda network, we have a huge amount of new information and demonstrated that no matter how you try to hide the Americans can hunt you down in the end.
Overall a good output.
The reason a cruise missile wasn't dispatched had to do with the int value of papers, hard drives and other items of int value which could be recovered from the compound. Since none of us were there, speculating about the motives or actions of the SEALs is pointless, we simply don't have the information.
He's gone and so is a possible rally point for the Al Qeda network, we have a huge amount of new information and demonstrated that no matter how you try to hide the Americans can hunt you down in the end.
Overall a good output.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,092
- Points
- 1,140
callsign said:
I'm an experienced poster here and I agree with you that it may not have been absolutely necesarry to kill OBL outright.
But that choice was ultimately left in the hands of seasoned, highly trained professional operators who had a spilit second to make a decision that you can take now years to dissect in front of your keyboard. I will not second guess them. And for the myriad of reasons posted already, I think the decision of that one SEAL was the right one at that specific time and place.
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
callsign said:
I'm not even going to address your reading material, BUT how do you suggest we get that info if we'd taken him alive. Do you think he'd just sit there and say ' OK, that was an honest nick, what do you want to know?"
He would give nothing up willingly. We would've likely had to resort to torture, BUT then you'd be arguing for his rights under the law there instead.
This was not in Canada, our laws amount to squat in this situation. The Laws of Armed Conflict apply, he didn't surrender fast enough and was still perceived as an immediate threat, as a combatant, and got shot in the face for his troubles.
Of course, I'm speculating, because none of us, including you were there to state categorically what happened or how things should have been handled. However if you're going to guess, guess in the world where the sky is blue.
As for your friend, sorry for his demise, but it has absolutely nothing, zero, nada to do with this conversation.
Lanes. We have then for a reason. Cross them carelessly, without checking or knowing your limits and horsepower, and you become a wreck on the internet highway for everyone to stare at as they rubberneck by (and some will laugh, point and giggle while they do).
Further to my point, if he had been taken alive and the Americans would probably have been forced to use some " enhanced interrogation methods" on him to get intel and word ever got out about it, you can imagine what kind of treatment any hostages that Al-Queada took in the future might receive. And I have no doubt that they would broadcast that all over the net. As well if he died in custody, convincing the world that he died of natural causes would be a public relations nightmare.
With regard to his surrendering, he had some lead time telling him that they coming for him and who knows what type of device he might have stashed on his person before the Seals got to the third floor. He might have blown himself and half the Seal team to kingdom come before he went.
With regard to his surrendering, he had some lead time telling him that they coming for him and who knows what type of device he might have stashed on his person before the Seals got to the third floor. He might have blown himself and half the Seal team to kingdom come before he went.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Thucydides said:
That, and the fact that they had to make sure it was actually him in that compound (according to the president's interview for CBS' 60 minutes)
--
As for the debate about 'to kill or not to kill', I think it is pointless, at least from the PR side of things. The tinfoil crowd will always find something to doubt or to complain about when it has to do with the actions of the US government (or western interests for that matter). Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and it usually comes from the same people.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Points
- 1,010
callsign,
as far your remark that "many others agree with you but won't say anything because of their reputations".
1. I don't agree with you at all. Thats One (I am being very honest)
2. Most senior Army.ca members are very opionated and outspoken, do you honetsly think they would clam up? Look at 99% of these threads.
3. Stand by your remark, thats fine and it shows you will not back down in what you beleive BUT don't GUESS that other people are on your side. You may find your the only one on the skins side while everybody else is a shirt, follow me?
as far your remark that "many others agree with you but won't say anything because of their reputations".
1. I don't agree with you at all. Thats One (I am being very honest)
2. Most senior Army.ca members are very opionated and outspoken, do you honetsly think they would clam up? Look at 99% of these threads.
3. Stand by your remark, thats fine and it shows you will not back down in what you beleive BUT don't GUESS that other people are on your side. You may find your the only one on the skins side while everybody else is a shirt, follow me?
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
All,
callsign has been counselled via PM's as to where exactly he ran his argument, and subsequent posts, aground here. He tells me that he's seen the error in his posts and is going to work to improve them. I ask that you give him the chance.
Thanks
Scott
Staff
callsign has been counselled via PM's as to where exactly he ran his argument, and subsequent posts, aground here. He tells me that he's seen the error in his posts and is going to work to improve them. I ask that you give him the chance.
Thanks
Scott
Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Generals aren't immune from the consequences of war. Canada has lost a few over time. It is up to the person wishing to surrender to make it as plain as day. Evading or pausing isn't a surrender. From what I read there was a gunfight happening.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Container said:
I like it to think it went more like 2 to 4 sets of "plinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplinkplink........ plinkplink......... plink"
"Clear left"
"Clear right"
"F**k yeah"
That's how it plays in my mind. Maybe it's just me.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
Then back to headquarters for debriefing and cocktails.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
In other news... I shot Qaddafi last weekend, and dropped him in the Med. Sorry I didn't take any pictures, batteries on the camera died, and can't remember exactly where I dumped him, but trust me, he's dead.
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 1,040
callsign said:
You are 100% correct. A murder commited contrary to a civil law is punishable by civil laws. There is also a rule of law for wars. In this case, Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant (armed or not) until such time that he surrendered himself to us (his enemy). It appears that he didn't, therefore, he was legally killed in accordance with the laws of armed conflict, even though at the time of his death he presented no immediate threat.
I would offer that you not blur the line between civil law and the law of armed conflict. The same laws of armed conflict allowed us to shoot soldiers of the Wehrmacht on sight between 1939 and 1945, whether they were armed or not, whether they were awake or not. And the same law allowed members of the Wehrmacht to kill members of the Canadian Forces during the same time frame, whether they were armed or not, whether they were awake or not. This is why members of the Wehrmacht were not tried for warcrimes after the war for killing Canadian Soldiers who hadn't surrendered. (And it's also the reason why members of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS who killed Canadian Soldiers who HAD surrendered were tried for war crimes)
Similar threads
