Osama

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zeg

Thanks for your service, but the ethics involved here are not nearly as simple as you seem to be making them out to be. Doing what's right and what's consistent with the ideals that America purports to stand for is important, even when it's difficult or inconvenient. "Kill that @#$ because he killed us" doesn't live up to that ideal in my mind. There's more to defending America than killing her enemies.

This is further complicated by the fact that they were firing on soldiers. Do you know for a fact that the mission was "kill Osama" or was it "capture Osama"? Because if someone's shooting at me and I'm capable of firing back, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to do so... and the soldiers undoubtedly felt the same way. Osama firing upon soldiers brings an entirely different position of morality into the equation.

If the mission was simply "kill Osama" then I think it might have been handled differently. Can you say for certain that the mission was "kill that @#$" and that it wasn't "capture or, if necessary, kill that @#$"?

[Zeph]

According to Obama's speech, the objective of the operation was to get Bin Laden and bring him to justice. If you are shot at you obviously have to fire back, and I'm sure the Seals did not get orders to stand down if they were unable to capture him without violence. There seems to have been a big firefight, which ended with Bin Laden and several others being killed. Some say he was unarmed, critics will probably claim that it was unnecessary to kill him, and we may never know what really happened that day.

In any way, that's for the internal affairs to figure out if they want to. I'm sure most are happy either way, if he was killed or captured. If he was captured, he'd be sentenced to prison for life or to be killed. I don't know which court would responsible for the prosecution. Saddam was senteced to hang in his trial.

[Kieran123]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4964292/Harawira-honours-bin-Laden-as-freedom-fighter

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

This is further complicated by the fact that they were firing on soldiers. Do you know for a fact that the mission was "kill Osama" or was it "capture Osama"? Because if someone's shooting at me and I'm capable of firing back, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to do so... and the soldiers undoubtedly felt the same way. Osama firing upon soldiers brings an entirely different position of morality into the equation.

If the mission was simply "kill Osama" then I think it might have been handled differently. Can you say for certain that the mission was "kill that @#$" and that it wasn't "capture or, if necessary, kill that @#$"?

I don't know for certain, but the reports seem to be tending towards that being the objective (what I read this morning was that his surrender was only to be accepted if, to borrow a term from the rulebook, it was "known or virtually certain" that he did not have an IED on his person---i.e., if he's not standing their naked, shoot him).  So my understanding as of now is that it was basically, kill him and be sure we can verify it (hence troops on the ground instead of an airstrike).

I've tried to be careful not to give the impression that I'm opposed to the outcome, because he (or those around him) certainly seem to have been firing.  He certainly presented himself as a combatant, so treating him as such is fine with me, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone being fired upon (or about to be fired upon) who eliminated the threat.  If he was attempting to surrender or caught unaware, that is where I think things start getting tricky.

I've also tried to be cautious not to condemn the decisions as they were made, because like everyone else here, I don't know and never will know all the facts that led to the decisions that were made and events that occurred.  Still, enemy or not, someone's death is not something I feel comfortable celebrating.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by zeg

I don't know for certain, but the reports seem to be tending towards that being the objective (what I read this morning was that his surrender was only to be accepted if, to borrow a term from the rulebook, it was "known or virtually certain" that he did not have an IED on his person---i.e., if he's not standing their naked, shoot him).  So my understanding as of now is that it was basically, kill him and be sure we can verify it (hence troops on the ground instead of an airstrike).

I've tried to be careful not to give the impression that I'm opposed to the outcome, because he (or those around him) certainly seem to have been firing.  He certainly presented himself as a combatant, so treating him as such is fine with me, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone being fired upon (or about to be fired upon) who eliminated the threat.  If he was attempting to surrender or caught unaware, that is where I think things start getting tricky.

I've also tried to be cautious not to condemn the decisions as they were made, because like everyone else here, I don't know and never will know all the facts that led to the decisions that were made and events that occurred.  Still, enemy or not, someone's death is not something I feel comfortable celebrating.

Actually the soldiers were sent so they could capture him if possible. If it was a kill mission they just would have parked a missile in his living room. My guess is that when the soldiers went under fire that was probably the sign he had no intentions on being captured.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Actually the soldiers were sent so they could capture him if possible. If it was a kill mission they just would have parked a missile in his living room. My guess is that when the soldiers went under fire that was probably the sign he had no intentions on being captured.

Capture being a priority doesn't match with the latest info I've seen out there, e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-us-20110504,0,4195504.story

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by zeg

Capture being a priority doesn't match with the latest info I've seen out there, e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-us-20110504,0,4195504.story

Whether or not that article is true I don't know but what I do know is that I've seen 55 different stories in the last hour. The problem with the media is they twist things to get a story, the military/government uses them to put out whatever message they want the public to know. The only ones that know the real truth will never tell it for a long time.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Whether or not that article is true I don't know but what I do know is that I've seen 55 different stories in the last hour. The problem with the media is they twist things to get a story, the military/government uses them to put out whatever message they want the public to know. The only ones that know the real truth will never tell it for a long time.

Agreed, and to be fair, the pols (Dems and Repubs alike) also twist the truth to sell the story, so from all angles it's hard to divine the truth.  In any case, that's why I try not to speak in absolutes when judging the actions in a situation like this: inserting all the "if this" and "if that" to explain what information one is using gets tedious!

[LankyLefty]

I was born and grew up in Manhattan. I was there that day I was in school about 50 blocks north of the WTC and I watched in horror as 3,000 people three of which I personally knew were killed. I still cringe and look away any time that video is replayed in my presence. You can argue all you want about the morality or immorality of what the US government does to protect and further the freedom of it's citizens. I won't disagree that the USA has done bad things in the name of preserving our way of life. However all of that is beside the point of this conversation. The fact is that a man who is indefensibly bad is dead. There is nothing you can say that has any merit in his defense he was a serverely misguided man who orchestrated the deaths of people of all faiths and backgrounds in the name of a peaceful and accepting religion that now must live the the stigma of terrorism in perpetuity. He put a black stain on the people he was supposedly fighting in the name of. He murdered thousands of people and left countless more with nothing but memories and pictures of loved ones to hold on to. He sent hundreds of emergency personnel who showed up that day into a slow painful death where slowly but surely their body weakens as their organs slowly fail from the poisons they inhaled. He corrupted the minds of countless young people who could have done something with their lives but instead chose to throw them away in his name. So while I may or may not agree that their is blood our hands as a country.

You will have to forgive me if the only emotion I can bring myself to feel at news of his death is elation.

[Lefty-Golfer]

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

I was born and grew up in Manhattan. I was there that day I was in school about 50 blocks north of the WTC and I watched in horror as 3,000 people three of which I personally knew were killed. I still cringe and look away any time that video is replayed in my presence. You can argue all you want about the morality or immorality of what the US government does to protect and further the freedom of it's citizens. I won't disagree that the USA has done bad things in the name of preserving our way of life. However all of that is beside the point of this conversation. The fact is that a man who is indefensibly bad is dead. There is nothing you can say that has any merit in his defense he was a serverely misguided man who orchestrated the deaths of people of all faiths and backgrounds in the name of a peaceful and accepting religion that now must live the the stigma of terrorism in perpetuity. He put a black stain on the people he was supposedly fighting in the name of. He murdered thousands of people and left countless more with nothing but memories and pictures of loved ones to hold on to. He sent hundreds of emergency personnel who showed up that day into a slow painful death where slowly but surely their body weakens as their organs slowly fail from the poisons they inhaled. He corrupted the minds of countless young people who could have done something with their lives but instead chose to throw them away in his name. So while I may or may not agree that their is blood our hands as a country.

You will have to forgive me if the only emotion I can bring myself to feel at news of his death is elation.

i see nothing to forgive...i would have to forgive anyone who thought this was a bad thing or that the US did something wrong in the porcess.

[inthehole]

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

I was born and grew up in Manhattan. I was there that day I was in school about 50 blocks north of the WTC and I watched in horror as 3,000 people three of which I personally knew were killed. I still cringe and look away any time that video is replayed in my presence. You can argue all you want about the morality or immorality of what the US government does to protect and further the freedom of it's citizens. I won't disagree that the USA has done bad things in the name of preserving our way of life. However all of that is beside the point of this conversation. The fact is that a man who is indefensibly bad is dead. There is nothing you can say that has any merit in his defense he was a serverely misguided man who orchestrated the deaths of people of all faiths and backgrounds in the name of a peaceful and accepting religion that now must live the the stigma of terrorism in perpetuity. He put a black stain on the people he was supposedly fighting in the name of. He murdered thousands of people and left countless more with nothing but memories and pictures of loved ones to hold on to. He sent hundreds of emergency personnel who showed up that day into a slow painful death where slowly but surely their body weakens as their organs slowly fail from the poisons they inhaled. He corrupted the minds of countless young people who could have done something with their lives but instead chose to throw them away in his name. So while I may or may not agree that their is blood our hands as a country.

You will have to forgive me if the only emotion I can bring myself to feel at news of his death is elation.

I hear you - I lost 3 co-workers & 1 business associate on 9/11.       When you have  a personal stake in it, we look at it differently.      I think anyone who lost someone there would pull the trigger if given the chance.      It's personal, and I agree, I felt nothing but elation when I heard the news that OBL got what was coming to him ...

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by inthehole

When you have  a personal stake in it, we look at it differently.

^^^ This.

[normdamarine]

Here you go... Maybe you need to watch this if you have not seen it yet as it fits your stance to a T...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY

Originally Posted by zeg

I don't know for certain, but the reports seem to be tending towards that being the objective (what I read this morning was that his surrender was only to be accepted if, to borrow a term from the rulebook, it was "known or virtually certain" that he did not have an IED on his person---i.e., if he's not standing their naked, shoot him).  So my understanding as of now is that it was basically, kill him and be sure we can verify it (hence troops on the ground instead of an airstrike).

I've tried to be careful not to give the impression that I'm opposed to the outcome, because he (or those around him) certainly seem to have been firing.  He certainly presented himself as a combatant, so treating him as such is fine with me, and I wouldn't hold it against anyone being fired upon (or about to be fired upon) who eliminated the threat.  If he was attempting to surrender or caught unaware, that is where I think things start getting tricky.

I've also tried to be cautious not to condemn the decisions as they were made, because like everyone else here, I don't know and never will know all the facts that led to the decisions that were made and events that occurred.  Still, enemy or not, someone's death is not something I feel comfortable celebrating.

[ghalfaire]

I believe the Seal team was sent in with a "capture or kill" order.  Seems reasonable that they killed the fellow if he didn't clearly and immediately give up.  Given these folks propensity to blow things, people and themselves up I surely would not have taken too many chances with him.  So if Obama didn't immediately raise his hands in surrender he got what he deserved.  I don't believe American values include getting yourself killed dealing with a dangerous serial killer and a sworn enemy of the country. The Special Ops guys have a dangerous job and we should all be thankful our guys got back unharmed and Osama is dead.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I believe the Seal team was sent in with a "capture or kill" order.  Seems reasonable that they killed the fellow if he didn't clearly and immediately give up.  Given these folks propensity to blow things, people and themselves up I surely would not have taken too many chances with him.  So if Obama didn't immediately raise his hands in surrender he got what he deserved.  I don't believe American values include getting yourself killed dealing with a dangerous serial killer and a sworn enemy of the country. The Special Ops guys have a dangerous job and we should all be thankful our guys got back unharmed and Obama is dead.

Not unusual to see an American confusing Obama with Osama.  I mean, it's so easy confusing an "s" with a "b" when the two people in questioin are about as opposite in personality as it's possible to be. Imagine if they had to point to Afghanistan on a map.

And... what complete crap to say that Osama (even though you wrote Obama) got what he deserved if he didn't immediately put his hands up. Says who? Ever wondered why the lawmakers, law enforcement and judiciary are kept separate in most civilised societies?

I'm glad Osama is dead, but would you think it fair if a Saudi or Afghan came into your house and shot your father because he didn't "immediately surrender".

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

I was born and grew up in Manhattan. I was there that day I was in school about 50 blocks north of the WTC and I watched in horror as 3,000 people three of which I personally knew were killed. I still cringe and look away any time that video is replayed in my presence. You can argue all you want about the morality or immorality of what the US government does to protect and further the freedom of it's citizens. I won't disagree that the USA has done bad things in the name of preserving our way of life. However all of that is beside the point of this conversation. The fact is that a man who is indefensibly bad is dead. There is nothing you can say that has any merit in his defense he was a serverely misguided man who orchestrated the deaths of people of all faiths and backgrounds in the name of a peaceful and accepting religion that now must live the the stigma of terrorism in perpetuity. He put a black stain on the people he was supposedly fighting in the name of. He murdered thousands of people and left countless more with nothing but memories and pictures of loved ones to hold on to. He sent hundreds of emergency personnel who showed up that day into a slow painful death where slowly but surely their body weakens as their organs slowly fail from the poisons they inhaled. He corrupted the minds of countless young people who could have done something with their lives but instead chose to throw them away in his name. So while I may or may not agree that their is blood our hands as a country.

You will have to forgive me if the only emotion I can bring myself to feel at news of his death is elation.

And you had a President at the time whose reaction was to invade Iraq.  Sending thousands of young American men to kill and be killed in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

How does this "preserve the American way of life"? It is empty and paternalistic rhetoric, swallowed whole by the gullible.

The world wept on 9/11 because of the outrage ordered by Bin Laden, but in the following decade, thanks to a GWB, the reputation of your country suffered greatly.

The things you allude regarding the "bad things" done by the USA  are not about preserving the American way of life, but interfering with other countries' ways of life. Many from other countries and cultures would quite justifiably see Ronald Reagan as a terrorist. He is probably responsible for many more (civilian) lives than Bin Laden.

These issues need to be observed form different perspectives in order to be fully understood and digested.

[ghalfaire]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Not unusual to see an American confusing Obama with Osama.  I mean, it's so easy confusing an "s" with a "b" when the two people in questioin are about as opposite in personality as it's possible to be. Imagine if they had to point to Afghanistan on a map.

And... what complete crap to say that Osama (even though you wrote Obama) got what he deserved if he didn't immediately put his hands up. Says who? Ever wondered why the lawmakers, law enforcement and judiciary are kept separate in most civilised societies?

I'm glad Osama is dead, but would you think it fair if a Saudi or Afghan came into your house and shot your father because he didn't "immediately surrender".

I apologize for the mis-key but if it gave you an opportunity to vent, well you don't owe me anything. Turns out my father is already gone so I guess I don't have to worry about that question.  But if my father had been a mass murder and leader of an organization that had avowed to kill as many American as they can by any means they can I would not find it surprising if someone (an American) shot him and he would have deserved it.  When you make yourself a mortal enemy you can expect your enemy will harm you if they get the chance.  I would have personally preferred to see Osama captured, given a trial by a military tribunal, then hung.  But it didn't turn out that way but I won't be shedding any tears for Osama.  As for President Obama, I am pleased he had the good sense and courage to order this "capture or kill" mission.  I know it couldn't have been and easy decision for him.

[TourSpoon]

One thing for sure is that this mission was 100% successful as not one American lost their life. Our country and the free world is breathing easier as there is less evil in the world. Besides taking so many lives and leaving families and friends devastated, he was responsible for changing our lives economically, taking away some of our freedom, and planting the seed of fear. There was so much that changed that day as the world stood still wondering who would be next. We lost some of our innocence that we can never get back.