Bin Laden is dead.

"that he himself admitted it does not mean anything"

Don't have the exact answer but I can bet your fortune and my fortune and Pats' (both) fortunes and Obama's fortune that no nation is even close to the US when it comes to having military garrisons in sovereign nations... 

Edited by The T - May 04 2011 at 12:06

^I'm sure you have agreed more than once... she likes some weird music after all

The T wrote: A couple of years ago a group of Colombian soldiers entered Ecuador's (my country of origin) via helicopter and performed a raid where they killed the # 2 of the FARC (the guerrilla group that has brought destruction to Colombia for decades). Of course, Ecuador was outraged at this violation of its sovereignty (the raid was performed without consent or knowledge of the Ecuadorian government). Colombia justified this arguing the need for extreme secrecy, and even saying that there might have been ties between some sectors of the government with the guerrilla. What followed is a crisis in international relations that lasted months...  Of course most of the world was split: many favored Colombia's need to kill this terrorist, but many sided with Ecuador's claim that its sovereignty had been violated.  Curiously, I see some of those that protested against that raid applauding the very similar situation today where the US just invaded Pakistan's territory to kill bin Laden.  In these kind of situations, either all are right, and killing terrorists goes beyond national sovereignty, or all are wrong, and international law is worthless toilet paper to wipe stuff with...  Nationalism always makes logic sink and fade away....

let's face it: what evidence have we ever been shown that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks? none at all; if there was any it was withheld for "reasons of national security". all we have is the allegation of the Bush government, which however has been repeated so often that now everybody believes it has been proven beyond a doubt that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. once again: that he himself admitted it does not mean anything; once he was named to be the scapegoat he might as well boast about it; in extreme Islamic circles he would become THE hero that way, as he indeed did. why aren't we at least now he is dead (or allegedly dead; once again we have no proof at all) shown some facts that show he was the culprit? still the dubious "reasons of national security"?


Edited by BaldJean - May 04 2011 at 12:44

The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Please don't bring idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories into this. If you want to talk about that, make another thread so I don't have to read it and I won't feel compelled to bang my head against the walls of your fantasy land. Can a conspiracy theory ever be true? What is that says that all conspiracy theories are lunacy or bullsh*t? I'm just asking because I think we haven't discussed this on PA (or maybe we have, we have discussed everything). Really, why? I'm notbsaying I believe in bin Laden still being alive or in him having died in 2000, but I still don't see why a conspiracy theory is always so lunatic. Is it just the need of most of society to portray as "abnormal" anything that is outside of the general norm? Adaptation to society's canons is still the measurement of normalcy? Or it theren something more?

A conspiracy theory is invalidated the moment it is referred to as such by the media, or a politician. IMO..

Conspiracy theorists tend to fall into a number of categories, as far as I can see.

1 - Those who blindly believe that everything is a conspiracy, even in the absence of any evidence either way.

2 - Those who believe in selected 'CT's' based on what they believe to be evidence, usually cited by an independent news source, or commentator not linked to government.

3 - Those who believe in a number of 'CT's' but claim they don't for fear of ridicule.

With regard to Bin Laden, it was inevitable that conspiracy theories would erupt the moment his death was announced. For me, I tend to take everything with a small grain of salt. I don't see why I should have blind faith in people who make a career from pathological lying, for that reason I probably fall into the second category. I feel it would be naieve to think that everything that happens in the world, happens exactly as it is reported.

BaldJean wrote: the whole action is very questionable for several reasons:a) just reverse the situation - a Pakistan elite squad invades USA territory and kills a person who is alleged to be a terrorist, without informing the USA government. what would you think of that? would you all applaud it to? I seriously doubt it, and the USA would probably take it as an act of war, and rightly so.b) there has never been any trial against Bin Laden, not even an in effigie trial. you may say that Bin Laden himself confessed to have been behind  the 9/11 terrorist acts. that, however, is no evidence at all; anyone could confess to that; he may just have been bragging about it (interestingly in Talmudic law the accused can't even bear witness against himself, by the way). all we have as proof that he is behind the 9/11 attacks are the allegations of the Bush administration (which were made just a few hours after the 9/11 attacks, by the way - quite miraculous crime solving).get me right: I am not trying to defend a terrorist, I am just questioning the legality of the American actions. what if Bin Laden had hid in your country? would you have wanted an USA elite squad eliminating him, without even telling your government about it? I seriously doubt it

Come on Jean, let's be a little more realistic. Are you suggesting that every military action should require a warrant? We're not talking criminals here but combatants. It would be totally impractical to enforce a legal process for every military action given the time restraint it would impose.

Obama took the right action with this using the SEALS. He mulled over it for months and came to the right decision by not going in bombing and killing bystanders. Would you have rather he had done that?

Because people tend to lie to get you to stop torturing them.

Well yes, the attack technically did violate Pakistani sovereignty, and I'm not a big fan of the Team America World Police approach. But the evidence is mounting that Pakistan was outright harboring him, so asking them first would not exactly be good for actually capturing him.   

rushfan4 wrote: I suspect it would have been better to capture him, waterboard him, and get us much information from him as possible before putting a bullet in his head, but maybe that is just me.

I can almost guarantee you that waterboarding Bin Laden would have produced no useful information. 

It's extremely shady under any kind of rules of engagement...but it pales in comparison to hundreds of other missions performed over the last 10 years.

^ agree with your points, it's been the dirty "24" type of justice, but honestly i can't see any other way how they could have handled the situation
bringing him to court might easily have turned out to be a disastrous thing, like endless battles over which court should treat the case.
With a good lawyer he might have easily won this one on procedure only, as even the way in which they got the info of his whereabouts wasn't legal


Edited by Bonnek - May 04 2011 at 10:33