Goodbye Bin Laden

[antony1969]

Well said Francis , I am with you that I think the real gripe one or two have is a deep dislike of the Americans and whatever they had done they will damn em if they do and damn em if they dont .

[flicka]

My ONLY regret regarding Bin Laden's death, is that he didn't have to suffer.

2 bullets in the Head, much too quick.

 

Wish they had emptied their magazines into him, starting at his feet & moving up a few inches every 5 minutes.

 

Wonder where the Parkistani Armed forces hid, a 40 minute firefight only around 120m from one of their Military bases & it didn't wake them, YEAH.

 

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

francisgraham - 2011-05-05 9:46 PM

 

nowtelse2do - 2011-05-05 9:35 PM

 

 

And the question now is. Who will replace him? Someone will....!! and so it goes on.

 

Dave

 

Actually, it doesn't. The organisation has been dramatically weakened by the killing of many of its senior commanders and many experts now consider that al Qaeda is fast becoming a spent force, loathed by the majority of moderate Muslims who abhor its murderous policies, which kills far more of them than it does us.

 

Every time one of its top men is killed it dissuades others from filling the gap. Muslim terrorist leaders boast about how they are unafraid of death but then spend six years never leaving their bedrooms to avoid capture.

 

They'll send twelve-year-old girls with suicide vests to blow up Pakistani market places but when they're threatened they'll scurry off to hide in a cave.

 

Make no mistake, the death of Bin Laden has dealt a huge psychological blow to Islamist terrorists and we and the USA must continue this policy of killing as many of them as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

It may have been weakened but it is still not finished yet and if it does end, do you think that the remainder of his followers are going to go home and put their feet up in front of the fire, I don't think so. It will go on in some shape or form.

Just to make myself clear where my thoughts are. He didn't care how or where or who he killed and I have no problems about how he died whether legal or illegal.

 

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

 

Dave

 

Sorry, can't reply to anymore post's I'm off to bed, holiday's tomorrow for 3 week's. By and take care.

[MandyAndy]

Thanks Francis :-D excellently put and very readable.

 

Mandy

[MandyAndy]

Thanks Francis :-D excellently put and very readable.

 

Mandy

[donna miller]

Guess who's on the cover of this months Scuba Diver magazine........................

[Porky]

Donna you are a hoot. Nice one. As I am here I would say I agree with what has been said about the actions of the Special Forces. Even Paddy Ashdown acknowledged tthe difficulty in such an operation. But let's get one thing straight IT WAS NOT ASSASINATION. Yes he was killed but as had been said very eloquantly the man who pulled the trigger had no way of knowing what the next two seconds would bring. Pontificating (as I am afraid to say is what you have been doing Brian) from the comfort of your home is so much easier than flying in a helicoptor in the dead of night into a hostile environment wondering if it is your last few minutes. I am uncomfortable with it but I will not agonise over it, neither will I condemn.

 

Roy Fuller

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2011-05-05 9:28 PM ..............Once again, a totally over-the-top reaction with phrases such as 'dumping him in the drink' outlining what appears to be the writer's deep-rooted antipathy to the USA. In case you haven't read about what actually happened he was buried at sea, within the time-frame for Muslim sensibilities and he was shown more reverence than he ever deserved. As for the assault itself, I love how armchair liberals can gainsay the actions of the troops who risked their lives so as to minimise other innocent lives. Why didn't the USA simply bomb the entire compound using a drone? As you sit in your comfy chair worrying about 'moral scruples' think on this - as the noisy helicopters landed there was every chance that Bin Laden could have picked up his remote suicide control and blown them all to bits. But what the hell does it matter if a few troops die as long as the 'moral scruples' of the liberal-left can be upheld? I love even more the oft-repeated claim that his death will provoke even more terrorist atrocities whilst quietly side-stepping the inevitable attempts that there would be to free him by taking hostages. And when he was found guilty, which he would have been, what would have been the reaction to his even more ignominious death by lethal injection or hanging? But, what the hell! Do a few thousand more deaths matter if the 'moral scruples' of the left can be maintained? There are more Middle-East experts, and I mean real experts, who are convinced that this has dealt a mortal blow to al Qaeda. It has demoralised them and demonstrated that however long it takes, they will be brought to justice. And as for the West always having to occupy the higher moral ground, whatever the cost or loss of life, this is a typical liberal reaction by those unwilling or unable to understand that these people do not think like us. What they see is weakness and, in their bazaars,they marvel at us because when they kill thousands of us in the most diabolical way all we can do is lock them up in a prison that, to them, boasts a higher standard of living than anywhere in their homeland. But what disgusts me, is the total disregard for the victims, and the families of the victims, of the atrocities committed by these animals and in particular the Americans on 9/11 and our own citizens on 7/7. You never read about them in these outpourings about 'moral scruples'. Some people complained about how appalling it is that Americans danced in the streets of New York and in front of the White House when they learned of Bin Laden's death. That's like chastising the Jews for celebrating the capture of Adolf Eichmann! And the final totally over-the-top comment must be, that this justified wartime killing could now become the norm in civil policing is just laughable and if that's the best that you can do in an argument about the merits or otherwise of this exercise then it shows you grasping at the thinnest of straws to justify your stance. It is sad that, when an event such as this happens, there are those whose only thoughts are for the most vile creatures that ever lived and that feeling good about their own so-called liberal values and moral scruples blinds them to the victims and to the real morality of what has happened. Killing Bin Laden in these circumstances was justified, was legal and was necessary. I would not risk one more American or British life in an attempt to capture him alive. The lives of these soldiers, who are the ones who really stand between us and the barbarians at the gate are worth far more to me than the posturing moral scruples of any of the liberal left.

Calm down Dear!  :-D  I understand that you wish to say you disagree with me?  That is fine.  I understand.  Your rant merely illustrates the reason I have reservations over the way the US has handled this.  I think history will show they have scored an own-goal: you do not.  Time will tell.

Sorry if "dumping in the drink" offended you, it was meant to illustrate they way I fear many will interpret the act, not necessarily my own view of it.  For the record, I have no "deep-seated antipathy to the USA", though you wish one on me.  I don't agree with many things they do, this being one, but in other ways I greatly admire them.

I haven't seen/heard any reports of Bin Laden's remote suicide control, clearly it would justify the killing as an act of self-defence, but it seem odd he was then reported as unarmed.  Where have you found this reported, please?

Does it matter if troops die?  Of course it matters, which is why I think our troops should never have been committed into Iraq by Blair/Bush.

Regarding hostage taking, of course it is a risk.  But tell me, would more hostages have been taken had he been captured, than may yet die in revenge attacks?  Do you have some special insights?  Had he been properly tried and sentenced it would have demonstrated strength of purpose and resolve.  I think that a far more powerful deterrent message than mere assassination.  Instead, we have descended to the level of the terrorist.  Not, in my view, very clever.

I was unaware this particular concern was one of the political "left", I had thought it one of long-term strategy.

As to middle-east experts, they have many and varied opinions but, in the end, they are but opinions, albeit better informed opinions than mine.  However, I seem to have heard a number of eminent experts and political advisers from outside the US voice reservations similar to my own, and even a few from within the US.

Our collective problem with occupying the high ground, is that we do rather preach from it.  But then, what would you prefer us to do instead?  You seem rather to prefer the idea of all out war against a largely invisible enemy.  How would that work?  How many would die?  Would it ever bring peace?

Why bring Bin Laden's victims into this?  Do you mean you think their deaths justify the manner of Bin Laden's killing, so that those poor hapless souls become fair gain to pray in aid of his killing?  Bit cheap, I think.  Besides which, what do you presume gives you the right to portray my feelings for Bin Laden's victims as any less worthy than yours?

As to portraying this as a wartime killing, it is not.  With which state, exactly, are we at war?  Pakistan, because that is where he was found and killed?

With respect, I think it is you who needs to understand more of the nature of terrorism, of the way al Qaeda and its followers think and act, and of the root causes of this conflict.  IMO, it can not be ended militarily, nor by trials or assassinations.  Our best chance of it ending will be a just and honest peace in the middle-east.  But note: just, and honest.  To break a feud of such bitterness and long standing, one side has to break the cycle of killing, having confidence the other side will reciprocate, assisted by a trusted intermediary acting as honest broker and go-between.  It seems we wish to contribute to that role, for which we need all sides to believe in the value of our justice systems, and of our honesty.  I simply do not see how extra judicial killings of whoever can bring about that degree of confidence.  This is a far bigger game than mere revenge for an act of brutal infamy.  That is the element I think you are missing. 

[Brian Kirby]

Porky - 2011-05-06 2:27 PM ............ But let's get one thing straight IT WAS NOT ASSASINATION. Yes he was killed but as had been said very eloquantly the man who pulled the trigger had no way of knowing what the next two seconds would bring.

Roy, I have no problem whatsoever with that.  But it was the state that sent the men (presumably) to kill him.  That would be an assassination, as I understand the definition.  If they were sent to capture him and not to kill him, it is for the US to say, but so far they have not.  What the troops knew, or did not know, seems unimportant.  They were at that moment carrying out (I think dodgy) orders.  I assume they will have been volunteers.  I don't doubt their courage, or their commitment to their task, just their (apparent) orders.

Pontificating (as I am afraid to say is what you have been doing Brian) from the comfort of your home is so much easier than flying in a helicoptor in the dead of night into a hostile environment wondering if it is your last few minutes.

I am not intending to pontificate - so I hope I do not seem "pompous or dogmatic" - just to express my views, as do others.  However, as above, I do not accept that criticism of their orders, implies criticism of the men.  If I disagree with what was done, it should not translate into pontifying, just disagreement.  Surely folk can disagree without mud-slinging?

[francisgraham]

Using the Quote facility would make this response two feet long. My replies to Brian Kirby's comments are in bold.

I haven't seen/heard any reports of Bin Laden's remote suicide control, clearly it would justify the killing as an act of self-defence,but it seem odd he was then reported as unarmed.  Where have you foundthis reported, please?

I thought that you would have understood my meaning about the remote control suicide device. The US Seals had no idea what Bin Laden may have done. This was a man so prepared for flight that he had money and telephone numbers sewn into his underpants! For all they knew he had a remote control device, or a Kalashnikov under the bed. I would not presume to gainsay the actions of the troops when faced by a man like Bin Laden.

Regarding hostage taking, of course it is a risk. But tell me, would more hostages have been taken had he been captured, than mayyet die in revenge attacks?  Do you have some special insights? 

If he had been put on trial it would have dragged on for years and his freedom would have been the number one goal for every Islamist lunatic in the world,with the obvious consequences. I believe that this will blow over quite quickly. The people of Pakistan will not rise up as demanded today by al Qaeda and its authority will be even more diminished.

Had he been properly tried and sentenced it would have demonstrated strength of purpose and resolve.  I think that a far more powerful deterrent message than mere assassination.  Instead, we have descended to the level of the terrorist.  Not, in my view, very clever.

That’s because you believe that Muslim terrorists think like we do. I don’t believe that they do. They see our liberal views as a weakness to be exploited and not as strength of purpose and resolve. Your policy is like trying to reason with a rabid dog.

Our collective problem with occupying the high ground, is that we do rather preach from it.  But then, what would you prefer us to do instead?  You seem rather to prefer the idea of all out war against a largely invisible enemy.  How would that work?  How many would die?  Would it ever bring peace?

We are at war! The war against terrorism goes on every day. Our security services and those of the USA continually seek out the terrorists to bring them to trial or kill them. Will it ever bring peace? I don’t know, but it’s the only way to stop the endless murders of innocent people of all races and religions.

Why bring Bin Laden's victims into this?  Do you mean you think their deaths justify the manner of Bin Laden's killing, so that those poor hapless souls become fair gain to pray in aid of his killing?  Bit cheap, I think.  Besides which, what do you presume gives you the right to portray my feelings for Bin Laden's victims as any less worthy than yours?

Because the liberal left, and those worrying about their moral scruples never seem to give a damn about the victims or the families of the victims. Of course the victims can get no satisfaction from the death of Bin Laden, but those who watched their children and spouses perish in the Twin Towers will, and this has been evident. Of course you probably think it unimportant that they have some kind of closure and satisfaction from the death of the man responsible for their agonies if it means offending a few people’s liberal sensitivities.

As to portraying this as a wartime killing, it is not.  With which state, exactly, are we at war?  Pakistan, because that is where he was found and killed?

We are at war with Islamist terrorists. Why do we have to have a state to be at war with? Things have changed in the last few years and our enemy is a real as any state.

With respect, I think it is you who needs to understand more of the nature of terrorism, of the way al Qaeda and its followers think and act, and of the root causes of this conflict.  IMO, it can not be ended militarily, nor by trials or assassinations.  Our best chance of it ending will be a just and honest peace in the middle-east.  But note: just, and honest.  To break a feud of such bitterness and long standing, one side has to break the cycle of killing, having confidence the other side will reciprocate, assisted by a trusted intermediary acting as honest broker and go-between.  It seems we wish to contribute to that role, for which we need all sides to believe in the value of our justice systems, and of our honesty.  I simply do not see how extra judicial killings of whoever can bring about that degree ofconfidence.  This is a far bigger game than mere revenge for an act of brutal infamy.  That is the element I think you are missing. 

This is where we can never agree and if anyone misunderstands the nature of fundamentalist Islam it is you. These people will not rest until the entire world is governed by Sharia Law. They will not rest until there is a world-wide caliphate. Yes, we can talk to Muslim countries but they aren’t our problem. Our problem is with Islamists and the only way to defeat them is to continue the fight against them, killing as many as possible until they finally understand that we will never kowtow to their barbaric creed. 

 

You ought to have a look at a couple of Islamist websites. To these people we are unclean pigs, fit only for death.

The conflict in the Middle-East is just one of their excuses for their infamy. Bin Laden started his murderous activities well before the Iraq conflict. Any one who thinks that pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan will stop Jihad is living in cloud cuckoo land. 

 

As for the wisdom of the killing of Bin Laden and the way it was done, do you not think that Barak Obama, hardly a right-wing or racist fanatic, did not explore every avenue and consider very deeply the consequences and benefits of his decision? He is advised by real experts in this subject and with their help he came to what I believe was the right decision.

Was snatching Eichmann from Argentina the right thing to do? I believe that it was. I’ve no doubt that you think differently but if you were a Jew, whose parents perished in the gas chambers, or if you were the widow of a simple clerk, forced to choose between being burnt alive or jumping to your death from a skyscraper, I think that knowing that the man responsible is now dead, would give you great satisfaction. And this is what liberals can never understand. A nation and its people need to know that such evil men have been punished. This does not make us uncivilised, it makes us human and this catharsis is a welcome and necessary emotion.

[francisgraham]

This will be my last word on this subject. Some of us are never going to agree and I see no point in further rehashing of this subject from me.

It is however, apposite that this debate has carried over into today. This morning saw the conclusion of the inquest into the bombing of the London transport system, when four Muslim men in pursuit of their perverted ideology, killed dozens of innocent men and women of all races and religions. 

The longer that Bin Laden, the inspiration for these atrocities, remained free  was an affront to the victims and their families. But who amongst the unedifying and hateful anti-American left-wing liberals cares one jot about them? And I do not include Brian Kirby in this description by the way. 

What matters to them is that their liberal moral scruples should not be offended as they sit in their armchairs criticising the soldiers who put their lives on the line in order to minimise the risk to innocents. Anyone who thinks that Bin Laden did not have a weapon within arm’s reach is deluded. This is man who had money and emergency telephone numbers sewn into his underpants! 

President Obama need not apologise for confronting a terrorist evil and for doing the right thing and I am even more convinced that he was right by the intervention from the UK’s most woolliest (and hairiest) of liberals, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Some I agree with, Francis, but much I do not.  Far too long to go through piece by piece, we've both set out our respecive stalls, and I suspect everyone else is by now bored to death, so I'll only add that the middle-east conflict I have in mind, that influences so much of what happens in the world, is neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq, but that between Israel and Palestine. 

Oh yes, and that I can assure you - though God alone knows why I should need to - that my feelings for those who died in the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, the four aircraft, and all their friends and relatives, are no less acute then yours.  You may feel you need crude, imaginary, one dimensional effigies of your opponents to argue with, but please don't confuse them for real people!  They are not, they are just figments of your own imagination.

[flicka]

I'm with Francis on this,

 

Brian - "As to portraying this as a wartime killing, it is not. With which state, exactly, are we at war? Pakistan, because that is where he was found and killed?"

 

I fai lto see how can you can state that we are not at War - Bin Laden as representing al-Qaeda, himself declared War on the West .

 

 

"With respect, I think it is you who needs to understand more of the nature of terrorism, of the way al Qaeda and its followers think and act, and of the root causes of this conflict. IMO, it can not be ended militarily, nor by trials or assassinations. Our best chance of it ending will be a just and honest peace in the middle-east. But note: just, and honest. To break a feud of such bitterness and long standing, one side has to break the cycle of killing, having confidence the other side will reciprocate, assisted by a trusted intermediary acting as honest broker and go-between. It seems we wish to contribute to that role, for which we need all sides to believe in the value of our justice systems, and of our honesty. I simply do not see how extra judicial killings of whoever can bring about that degree of confidence. This is a far bigger game than mere revenge for an act of brutal infamy. That is the element I think you are missing. "

 

We only have to look in our own back yard to see this method has NO chance of success - NORTHERN IRELAND & personally I don't see the IRA as radical or dangerous as al-Qaeda.

 

Hopefully the ALL members of the UN will now join forces and ensure Bin Laden's estate can not be accessable to al-Qaeda.

But I still don't expect Parkistan to sign up. Cynical YES !!!!!!

 

Well done those SEALS, I hope you will get out there & eradicate more al-Qaeda leaders.

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

To your first point, because it is not really a war.  It is a far reaching struggle of ideologies being conducted via on the one side acts of terrorism, and on the other (mainly) by uniformed soldiers acting within strict conditions of engagement, in conjunction with the intelligence services.  The enemy is very small but omni-present, dedicated, intelligent, dispersed across continents and, in military terms, impossible to conquer.  We can kill the odd one or two here and there, usually either through luck or through remote drones, often (though not in the case of bin Laden) with considerable additional deaths and injuries to uninvolved others.  They do not adhere to the Geneva convention, they parade their prisoners in public, they cut off their heads.  They are taught, in the corrupted form of Islam that they are fed (the so-called radicalisation) that only the followers of their teachers are the true followers of Muhammad, that all others are apostate, and in terms, that western countries are the home of Satan and must be destroyed.  They are thinking, deadly, barbarians who have been brought up on, and believe, primitive concepts of an afterlife that persuade them, via corrupt mullahs, that if they lose their lives in their struggle that they will enter paradise.  They espouse death as their reward.  It is a medieval set of views and concepts that is 1,000 years out of date and yet is supported by weapons and technologies of the present.  The fact that they use the developments of the apostates, and the 1,000 years that separate their thinking, and knowledge, from ours, causes them no uncertainty.  Finally, because they have no uniform, they are invisible, even more so when challenged on their home ground.  To invade their territory with an army was an act of foolishness in too many ways to enumerate.  To portray this a war, therefore, is blind, in my opinion, to the facts.

To defeat terrorists, as I believe history teaches us - if only folk would take the trouble to look -  you have to deny them support.  To achieve that you need to do two things.  First, understand the essence of their grievance.  Second, to defuse the grievance, and so deny them the street level support without which they cannot survive.  I think, as it seems do many others, that the root cause of their grievance lies in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and the manner in which the western powers have dealt with both countries, basically since the formation of the United Nations.  Until that conflict reaches a settlement that is transparently fair and just, this particular terrorist conflict will continue.  From time to time it will subside, from time to time it will flare up, driven by events elsewhere.  But, IMO, it will not be defeated, and it will not go away.

The IRA is a good case in point.  It was never, in its own terms, defeated.  Gradually, opinions changed, people became sickened by the continual killing, too many were the victims of "collateral damage", on both sides, and that caused support, on both sides, to wane.  The main factor, however, seems to me to have been that the Republic of Ireland had a (sadly, relatively short lived) economic boom, so that it became a place of envy for many in the north, rather than a place to despise.  The lull arrived after one or two singularly ill judged IRA bombings lost them much sympathy, and the nominally protestant population started to lose their fear that unification would be terrible, because it would take them back economically to the dark ages.  Reason broke in.  Politicians saw an opportunity and judged it right.  The trusted broker was brought in, agreements made, and you now have once active members (whatever they may now protest) of the IRA sitting in government with once active members (ditto! :-)) of the UDA or the UFF and worrying about schools, health, pensions and all the things "normal" governments worry about.  Even Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley eventually learnt to swap jokes instead of bullets.  So, I don't see how that (still not entirely secure) settlement can be advanced as evidence of a military solution to terrorism.  The solution has to be political: all a military can ever try to achieve is hold the fort, to create the space for the politics to inch forward to the point at which agreement is possible, and (relative) peace can prevail.

IMO, the biggest distinction between the IRA and the Islamists is that the IRA were fighting over local issues, came from a familiar culture, (mostly) spoke our language, and valued their own lives, whereas the Islamists are fighting over distant issues, come from a radically different (and widely misunderstood) culture, speak many unfamiliar languages, and see their own deaths as the path to paradise.  Of these, IMO, it is the latter that changes the nature of this struggle into something that challenges the fundamentals of western value systems.  If your opponent is content to die for their cause, what kind of force can be used to coerce them into stopping?  That is why I think reference to war silly in this context, the idea of military victory wishful nonsense, and the fact of military invasion and occupation a tragic waste of lives and money.  Do I wish its end?  Do we not all?

[Porky]

Brian Kirby - 2011-05-06 6:22 PM

Porky - 2011-05-06 2:27 PM ............ But let's get one thing straight IT WAS NOT ASSASINATION. Yes he was killed but as had been said very eloquantly the man who pulled the trigger had no way of knowing what the next two seconds would bring.

Roy, I have no problem whatsoever with that.  But it was the state that sent the men (presumably) to kill him.  That would be an assassination, as I understand the definition.  If they were sent to capture him and not to kill him, it is for the US to say, but so far they have not.  .

Brian my disquiet is based very much on some of your comments, however, I really take issue with the use of the word ASSASINATION. You say "if they were sent in to capture him" well OK what if they were, but that proved impossible for some reason? Are you really telling us that you, and the rest of the world would believe it if the USA said as much. I don't think so. Roy Fuller

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination, and it was entirely legal.

 

Assassinations of enemy personnel are legal in wartime.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

He, nor his successor Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will fight Al-Qaeda wherever and whenever necessary; I have no doubt about their resolve.

 

It was just a shame he died so quickly...

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination, and it was entirely legal.

 

Assassinations of enemy personnel are legal in wartime.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

He, nor his successor Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will fight Al-Qaeda wherever and whenever necessary; I have no doubt about their resolve.

 

It was just a shame he died so quickly...

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination, and it was entirely legal.

 

Assassinations of enemy personnel are legal in wartime.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

He, nor his successor Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will fight Al-Qaeda wherever and whenever necessary; I have no doubt about their resolve.

 

It was just a shame he died so quickly...

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination, and it was entirely legal.

 

Assassinations of enemy personnel are legal in wartime.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

He, nor his successor Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will fight Al-Qaeda wherever and whenever necessary; I have no doubt about their resolve.

 

It was just a shame he died so quickly...

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination, and it was entirely legal.

 

Assassinations of enemy personnel are legal in wartime.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

He, nor his successor Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will fight Al-Qaeda wherever and whenever necessary; I have no doubt about their resolve.

 

It was just a shame he died so quickly...

[oldlowie]

The eradication of Bin Laden WAS an assassination.

 

Assassination in wartime is entirely legal.

 

On 11th September 2001, in a moving and statesmanlike speech (yes, really) to the world, President George W Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda.

 

Neither he, nor his successor, President Obama, has ever rescinded this declaration.

 

The USA will continue to avenge the deaths of Americans wherever and whenever the opportunity arises.

 

Wouldn't it be great if we could say the same about Great Britain (?)

[Syd]

I fully realise that there are some quiet deep issues concerning the death of this man but it seems to me that the old saying

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" would fit this matter and so that makes me happy with the event.

There is always the inevitable inquest with the doubts taking precedence over all other considerations but in the main the man got his just deserts

[flicka]

Hi Brian,

Let's agree to disagree, as we are both fundamentally at opposing ends of the spectrum on this issue.

Each of us can keep putting forward counter arguements for our individual perspective & obviously neither of us, will influence the others viewpoint.

 

Bin Laden's gone & nothing we say or do will change that fact.

 

[flicka]

Duplicate due to Server Error 500 >:-(

[Brian Kirby]

Porky - 2011-05-07 4:15 PM .............. Are you really telling us that you, and the rest of the world would believe it if the USA said as much. I don't think so. Roy Fuller

They have all the knowledge, and the evidence, of their instructions to their men, and of what actually happened.  Had they set out to capture him, and it had turned out impossible to take him alive, I can't see why they would not reveal that.  What would there be to lose in a noble intention thwarted by fate?  They have not, so I assume the intention must always have been to kill.  At least that is honest, though it would be more so were it stated. 

If they were to declare now that had been their intention it would strike me as a somewhat expedient attempt to duck criticism, but I think I would, with considerable reservations, accept that version.  Most of the rest of the world seem quite happy with what was done, so I assume they would be more so with the alternative version of events.  But hey, this is just me, not the rest of the world, so who knows!  :-)