Bin Laden's Sons Accuse US of Breaking International Law

[Guest fountainhall]

No doubt someone will jump down my throat for this, but the recent comment by Bin Laden

[TotallyOz]

I don't know if the operation was legal or not. But, fuck his sons anyway!

[Gaybutton]

Of course it would never happen, but I would enjoy immensely to see Obama issue a statement or, better still, appear on television and tell them, "Sue me."

[Bob]

But, fuck his sons anyway!

 

My sentiments exactly. When they just happen to fail to mention that this poor victim has been prime mover in the killings of thousands in the US and many more than that in the middle east, their whinny complaints fall on deaf ears.

 

The poor dears ought to come to NYC for the 10th anniversary remembrance activities this September and make their complaint there. Hell, I'm sure the New Yorkers will kindly hear their complaints.....

[KhorTose]

But, fuck his sons anyway!

 

Having seen many good looking Arab men, that might be a good idea. On the other hand I am reminded that Bush let members of the Ben laden family leave the US immediately after 9./11.

Here we are asking to interview his wives and yet Bush let other members of the family go without any interviews. I wonder if any of them where the son or brothers that were killed in the attack on the compound? Yes let them come to the US to file a lawsuit, and while they are here let us hold them for material witnesses and find out what they know.

[Guest]

Who the hell are Al Qaeda to quote the law?

They can't go around killing thousands of innocent people, then expect us to treat them well.

 

If Bin Laden resisted arrest in any way whatsoever, the US did the right thing to shoot him. They should do exactly the same with the rest of the Al Qaeda leaders.

 

Perhaps as a refinement, some more barbaric method of execution should have been used for Bin Laden.

[Guest voldemar]

 

 

If Bin Laden resisted arrest in any way whatsoever, the US did the right thing to shoot him. They should do exactly the same with the rest of the Al Qaeda leaders.

 

 

Bin Laden was unarmed and it is a big question why he was not caught alive. My guess he knew thing or two about current state of his network and this information could have been used to prevent further terrorist attacks...

It seems to me that some people are so brainwashed that they are incapable of asking natural questions especially if they should be addressed to Obama...

[Guest fountainhall]

If he had been captured alive, wherever the US hid him I am certain there would have been massive reprisals against the US and western interests within a matter of days. And don't you think the current state of his network is probably now very well known to all the analysts going through the files and computers they found?

[Guest voldemar]

If he had been captured alive, wherever the US hid him I am certain there would have been massive reprisals against the US and western interests within a matter of days. And don't you think the current state of his network is probably now very well known to all the analysts going through the files and computers they found?

Curious thinking... You would not expect that cold blooded murder and throwing out his body in the sea would bring massive reprisals? Do not you read about "a lot of new information found in compound"? What happened make no sense and does not hold the water unless somebody did not want him to talk...

[Guest fountainhall]

Curious thinking...

Well, it makes sense to me! A 'live' Bin Laden would be an invitation for some fanatics to try and free him by whatever means - wherever he was detained. A dead body in the ground becomes a shrine, a focal point fuelling the anger of his followers.

 

I have no precise knowledge of what happened in that compound, how many booby traps there might have been, how many other potential dangers there were for the Americans. Who knows? If he had been captured alive, what might have happened if the sole helicopter available had also developed a fault - or had been shot down by the Pakistanis in their air space? Would the Pakistanis have done that - or were they in fact in on the mission? Where there's so much doubt, in a situation like this I believe I'd pull the trigger first and get out of there fast.

 

But let's assume he had been captured alive and the Americans then tried to get information out of him. Does anyone seriously believe he would have talked? I certainly don't.

 

Then again, do we really know for sure that he's dead??

[TotallyOz]

Then again, do we really know for sure that he's dead??

 

Interesting. This has not even crossed my mind.

[Bob]

Then again, do we really know for sure that he's dead??

 

Obama affirmatively said he was dead and that's good enough for me. But, I suppose, that won't satisfy the conspiracy nuts that will crop up. Heck, somebody will probably spot Osama eating donuts with Elvis next week in Cleveland!

 

Some have suggested that this was simply an assassination but, again, there's no evidence of that and those that make the accusation aren't stating any available facts but, rather, their personal bias. The President and others have detailed some of the contigency plans had he been captured alive and that would seem to me to support the notion that this was not a targeted killing. Whether the two Seals who entered that room chose to act otherwise will likely never be known but, so far, the official line (being the line from those who are the only people who know for sure) is that he resisted in some manner.

[Rogie]

Then again, do we really know for sure that he's dead??

I read today on another site that Obama's approval rating has shot up. Bin Laden's death is certainly in his interests.

 

Surely Obama's worst nightmare must be that the guy killed in the shoot-out was a double!

[Guest voldemar]

 

 

Then again, do we really know for sure that he's dead??

Are you saying that Obama is lying about major antiterrorist operation?

[Guest fountainhall]

Are you saying that Obama is lying about major antiterrorist operation?

Not saying it, no. But neither am I ruling it out. History is littered with Presidents, Prime Ministers and others in power who deliberately distorted facts when it suited the national interest.

 

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Lies from President Johnson. (One of the best histories of the Vietnam War is Neil Sheehan's stunning book "A Bright Shining Lie"). Remember the pledge of another President about a "new level of political integrity and decency in America?" That was Nixon after he lied about his involvement in the Watergate cover-up. Remember President Reagan and his denials about knowledge of the sales of arms to Iran to fund the Nicaragua contras? (I grant there is no conclusive proof of this last one, but several participants are on record as saying he definitely had such knowledge).

 

Let's not forget Churchill's famous dictum. "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." We are in the midst, we are constantly informed, of a war on terror. Whilst my nature is to trust President Obama, I rule nothing out in this case.

[Guest]

Bin Laden was unarmed and it is a big question why he was not caught alive.

 

The US was carrying out an armed raid. The objectives would include completing that as quickly as possible, in order to minimise risk of total failure.

So if they tried to arrest Bin Laden and he offered any resistance whatsoever, then it makes sense to shoot him to speed up the mission.

After he's killed thousands of people in various countries, death is exactly what he deserves.

[Guest voldemar]

Not saying it, no. But neither am I ruling it out. History is littered with Presidents, Prime Ministers and others in power who deliberately distorted facts when it suited the national interest.

 

Well, you do not need to persuade me that politicians of all persuasions tend to lie.

In this particular case though I do not see how such a lie would serve US national interests. Not to mention that Obama refered to DNA test as a proof that Osama is dead. If it turns out that he lied his political carrier is over. But to tell you the truth the way American system works I do not believe that Obama could order to fake DNA test...

[Guest voldemar]

The US was carrying out an armed raid. The objectives would include completing that as quickly as possible, in order to minimise risk of total failure.

So if they tried to arrest Bin Laden and he offered any resistance whatsoever, then it makes sense to shoot him to speed up the mission.

After he's killed thousands of people in various countries, death is exactly what he deserves.

 

We had a siege at the Iranian Embassy a few years back. Before the SAS went in, Mrs Thatcher apparently advised the SAS she did not want an "ongoing problem". I think about 5 out of 6 were shot dead. That's good leadership.

After all, why should the special forces take the slightest risk when dealing with terrorists?

Because this particular terrorist was in charge of a huge network which terrorized Western world for several decades. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that every bit of information should have been squizzed out of him before he died. And it definitely worth the risk to try to accomplish it.

[Gaybutton]

I believe Bin Laden is dead and I believe killing him was perfectly justified. Even Al Qaeda is acknowledging Bin Laden is dead. If the soldiers had killed the wrong man and Bin Laden wasn't even there in that compound, I can't believe Al Qaeda wouldn't have put out a new video showing him to be alive and well by now. They didn't even use old footage to try to perpetrate a hoax that Bin Laden is alive.

 

I also don't believe Obama would ever have announced the death of Bin Laden to the world if it wasn't an absolute, irrefutable fact. If he lied to the world, he would be risking that sooner or later the lie would be exposed. If that were to happen, Richard Nixon's experience from the Watergate cover-up would have been a cakewalk in comparison, even if it could be shown that Obama had been lied to himself.

 

Also, if Obama lied to the world, why would he do that? Why would he risk the possibility of a hoax eventually being exposed if he knowingly stated Bin Laden is dead, but then at some later date Bin Laden is captured, killed, shows up on a video, or something else occurs to prove he is alive? What would Obama do then, make another speech and say 'whoops!'? I give him credit for being a lot smarter than that.

 

I'm glad Bin Laden was not taken alive. If he had been taken alive he probably would have been shipped off to Guantanamo. A trial for him would have cost millions in addition to what he has already cost. None of us were there to know exactly why he was killed, but whether it was by kill order or not, I'm glad it all went down the way it did.

 

Also, I think George Bush is doing the right thing by keeping his nose out of it.

[Guest fountainhall]

In this particular case though I do not see how such a lie would serve US national interests. Not to mention that Obama refered to DNA test as a proof that Osama is dead. If it turns out that he lied his political carrier is over.

In principle, I totally agree with you. But you and I are mere humble mortals and are not kept up to date with our respective governments' objectives.

 

I agree I can see no reason at this stage for Obama and all who were involved in that operation to lie. There were probably too many of them involved so that the truth will eventually come out if we have been fed a pack of lies so far. But a DNA test surely does not tell the world that Bin Laden is dead - merely that the body killed (or maybe captured) was definitely that of Bin Laden? And did you not read that the Navy Seals team is being placed under even greater protection? Now, some might ask: is that really for their own protection, or perhaps, more sinisterly, to ensure that they do not talk? Merely a hypothetical question.

 

The eminent politician, Ralf Dahrendorf, described as "one of the most influential thinkers of his generation", once wrote, "A leader can tell the truth, nothing but the truth, but less than the whole truth and yet still be trusted. Once a politician has lost trust however, people will no longer believe him even if he tells the truth."

 

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dahrendorf16/English

 

If only for that reason, Obama can not be seen to have lied. But, hypothetically speaking once again, it is surely possible that under the age-old pretext of plausible deniability (a tactic the CIA has often resorted to in its history), the CIA has made sure Obama is unaware that Bin Laden remains alive whilst every bit of information is squeezed out of him before he is then dumped anonymously at sea. Eventually, when the truth eventually comes out (as it surely must), Obama can truthfully deny everything.

 

Far-fetched? Definitely! Impossible? I don't think so!

[Guest voldemar]

In principle, I totally agree with you. But you and I are mere humble mortals and are not kept up to date with our respective governments' objectives.

 

I agree I can see no reason at this stage for Obama and all who were involved in that operation to lie. There were probably too many of them involved so that the truth will eventually come out if we have been fed a pack of lies so far. But a DNA test surely does not tell the world that Bin Laden is dead - merely that the body killed (or maybe captured) was definitely that of Bin Laden? And did you not read that the Navy Seals team is being placed under even greater protection? Now, some might ask: is that really for their own protection, or perhaps, more sinisterly, to ensure that they do not talk? Merely a hypothetical question.

 

The eminent politician, Ralf Dahrendorf, described as "one of the most influential thinkers of his generation", once wrote, "A leader can tell the truth, nothing but the truth, but less than the whole truth and yet still be trusted. Once a politician has lost trust however, people will no longer believe him even if he tells the truth."

 

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dahrendorf16/English

 

If only for that reason, Obama can not be seen to have lied. But, hypothetically speaking once again, it is surely possible that under the age-old pretext of plausible deniability (a tactic the CIA has often resorted to in its history), the CIA has made sure Obama is unaware that Bin Laden remains alive whilst every bit of information is squeezed out of him before he is then dumped anonymously at sea. Eventually, when the truth eventually comes out (as it surely must), Obama can truthfully deny everything.

 

Far-fetched? Definitely! Impossible? I don't think so!

That would mean that photos of shot Bin Laden which presumably were seen by several members of Obama administration including Obama himself (but not released) have been faked... By whom? Leon Panetta? It does not fit to the usual scenario of plausible deniability...Who faked the photos? Leon Panetta publicly talked about pictures of dead Bin Laden and even hinted that they will be released... I do not think that the guy would put his reputation on line in this way...

What about Bin Laden wife who presumable witnessed Bin Laden death, was wounded but not killed and still in Pakistan? Who silence her?

[Guest fountainhall]

I do not think that the guy would put his reputation on line in this way...

As I said, I agree. But you do stress you do not "think", which indicates perhaps just a small element of doubt.

 

I'll leave off my speculation with just one quote from a website dealing with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. It is from a columnist who wrote of the Gulf of Tonkin incident -

 

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

 

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

 

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

[Bob]

If only for that reason, Obama can not be seen to have lied.

 

Well, surprisingly, there just might be another reason....that he didn't lie at all [nor did the myriad of other officials (Gates, Clinton, Biden, Petreus, etc.) that have had a long history of telling it straight to the news media].

 

Given all the reports, photographs, dna evidence, the acknowledgement by al-Qaeda (etc., etc.), you're really stretching here to conjure up a conspiracy theory. I can understand somebody being sceptical of governments but I don't understand suggesting something different might have happened based on no evidence at all.

[Guest]

The secure compound gives a few clues too. After all, most people don't need that level of security.

[Guest voldemar]

As I said, I agree. But you do stress you do not "think", which indicates perhaps just a small element of doubt.

 

 

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

Historically speaking, you have a point. And logically speaking (and that was the premise of my original post), they should have tried to get him alive. The evidence seems to indicate the opposite. But realistically the whole evidence we have is coming from the government and from broader viewpoint I have no trust in current government (and in the past I gave many concrete examples why).

What amazes me though is that almost nobody asks the same question: why he was not captured alive be it in press or among political opposition...(or even among conspiracy theorists)...