Diuretic wrote:
Given the nature of the operation I don't think sending in an SAS patrol with orders to find and arrest bin Laden and his gang was feasible, the operation wasn't one where the police turn up at someone's house at 5 am and go through the front door to make an arrest. So it was necessary to send in a strong military force that would be in anticipation of fierce resistance from AQ and the Afghanistan Government. Again it was morally right to do so.
Then you wait until you have sufficient intelegence to know exactly where he is and the strength of arms required for a smash and grab - not "he's in therew somewhere we'll blunder round until we find him and then chase his sat-phone whilst he runs away"
I cannot and will not accept is as justification for destroying the country.
The Fall out
The Fall out
I'm sure that if Bin Laden was caught and executed in a state that does such things the terrorist organizations would persist. This isn't some small cult with a leader who's body will crumble when the head is cut off.
It all begs the question of why do they hate the west so much? And are we doing anything to end the reasons for their hate? Yes, they kill each other too, but so do we on the streets of New York or (we so love to imitate) Toronto. There are gang killings in Western society all the time they just don't wear turbans. So if we focus on foreign policy issues, often the best way to ease a symptom is to remove the cause.
It all begs the question of why do they hate the west so much? And are we doing anything to end the reasons for their hate? Yes, they kill each other too, but so do we on the streets of New York or (we so love to imitate) Toronto. There are gang killings in Western society all the time they just don't wear turbans. So if we focus on foreign policy issues, often the best way to ease a symptom is to remove the cause.
The Fall out
this links straight to the Muslim's mouth.
Bin Laden transcript
It's a transcript of what Bin Laden wants and why he is violent. Maybe we can look at the statements for analysis one bit at a time? It's quite lengthy.
[preamble]
[preamble]
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden?
[postamble about wishing the dead terrorists well]
That's a good point, actually. Why don't they attack Sweden? There must be a reason.
Bin Laden transcript
It's a transcript of what Bin Laden wants and why he is violent. Maybe we can look at the statements for analysis one bit at a time? It's quite lengthy.
[preamble]
[preamble]
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden?
[postamble about wishing the dead terrorists well]
That's a good point, actually. Why don't they attack Sweden? There must be a reason.
The Fall out
oh, right. Here's the reason
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
Obviously Bin Laden feels oppressed by someone. He says the sense of security that free men are meant to enjoy has been taken from his people.
I hope he explains further. Because there is a lot of confusion over historical events here. I'd like to know his version. It may be important.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
Obviously Bin Laden feels oppressed by someone. He says the sense of security that free men are meant to enjoy has been taken from his people.
I hope he explains further. Because there is a lot of confusion over historical events here. I'd like to know his version. It may be important.
The Fall out
Next Bin Laden expresses wonder at the remaining confusion as to why this is happening
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
He rather clumsily tries to assert that his is the true story, though we have no reason to believe that.
Edit to add: I'm out of smokes so I'm going to bed. I read ahead so I know how the rest goes.
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
He rather clumsily tries to assert that his is the true story, though we have no reason to believe that.
Edit to add: I'm out of smokes so I'm going to bed. I read ahead so I know how the rest goes.
The Fall out
This part sums up the main cause of Bin Laden's determination
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
It's fairly specific. Gives us a time and a place. Then he goes on to mention the apathy of the rest of the world towards their situation. He seems pretty lucid to me. I'll skip the part where he goes on about his feelings, I might be more empathetic if he were not a killer himself.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Have to admit he makes some pretty good points here. I'd like to hear an answer to his question at the end. Self defence is a legitimate reason for killing according to US law.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
It's fairly specific. Gives us a time and a place. Then he goes on to mention the apathy of the rest of the world towards their situation. He seems pretty lucid to me. I'll skip the part where he goes on about his feelings, I might be more empathetic if he were not a killer himself.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Have to admit he makes some pretty good points here. I'd like to hear an answer to his question at the end. Self defence is a legitimate reason for killing according to US law.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
The Fall out
Bryn Mawr wrote: As I said previously, the Afghan government did not have Bin Laden and therefore could not hand him over. Going in with guns blazing was not right and proper - Afghanistan is a soverign nation state and invasion is not legal at the best of times.
If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in, picked him up and left immediately then very few eyebrows would have been raised but that was never the intention.
"Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and invasion is not legal", yet "If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in". well which is it? are they sovereign or not? or only 'a little' sovereign, kind of like 'a little pregnant'?
If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in, picked him up and left immediately then very few eyebrows would have been raised but that was never the intention.
"Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and invasion is not legal", yet "If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in". well which is it? are they sovereign or not? or only 'a little' sovereign, kind of like 'a little pregnant'?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
The Fall out
Diuretic wrote: Self-defence tends to be tightly defined in most common law jurisdictions. It wouldn't be available to bin Laden.
We are talking on a national level not that of individuals.
Perhaps you could better explain what "pre-emptive war" is all about.
Preemptive War and International Law
Steven C. Welsh, CDI Research Analyst
For cases where force is used outside of the Security Council framework, it is not definitively clear whether under the UN Charter a state retains a traditional right of self-defense, including a right of anticipatory self-defense against an imminent threat, or if that right is curtailed to not include anticipatory self-defense.
If that is legal and justified than how is it not justified when Bin Laden claims his people were already under attack? I'm not talking morals, I'm talking legal definitions.
We are talking on a national level not that of individuals.
Perhaps you could better explain what "pre-emptive war" is all about.
Preemptive War and International Law
Steven C. Welsh, CDI Research Analyst
For cases where force is used outside of the Security Council framework, it is not definitively clear whether under the UN Charter a state retains a traditional right of self-defense, including a right of anticipatory self-defense against an imminent threat, or if that right is curtailed to not include anticipatory self-defense.
If that is legal and justified than how is it not justified when Bin Laden claims his people were already under attack? I'm not talking morals, I'm talking legal definitions.
The Fall out
anastrophe wrote: "Afghanistan is a sovereign nation and invasion is not legal", yet "If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in". well which is it? are they sovereign or not? or only 'a little' sovereign, kind of like 'a little pregnant'?
Definitely not legal but I was talking about the effect on world sentiment and the radicalisation of the muslim peoples
Definitely not legal but I was talking about the effect on world sentiment and the radicalisation of the muslim peoples