Obama announces Bin Laden is dead!

but like alot of people are saying where are the pictures like we had with sadam? Many are claiming he isnt dead but obama did a trade off of some sort. Its all got a bit of a fishy smell to it. If hes dead great another leader down 20 more rise up but if not then who fabricated it all

Islamic law forbids taking photographs of the diseased or at-least publishing them. There was a bit stink about publishing Sadam's photos after he was hung and I think Obama's really trying not to piss off any other Muslims.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Islamic law forbids taking photographs of the descends or at-least publishing them. There was a bit stink about publishing Sadam's photos after he was hung and I think Obama's really trying not to piss of any other Muslims.

Too bad they can't get a Muslim leader to do the Islamic equivalent of a posthumous excommunication so we could do with him and his photos as we please. :p

Well I am REALLY worried about repercussions...I dunno if anyone read this but:

http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/05/wikileaks-a-nuclear-bomb-hidden-in-europe/

AND

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472810/Wikileaks-Al-Qaeda-plotted-chemical-and-nuclear-attack-on-the-West.html

Something else that is quite funny...done by the telegraph again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/4220575/Blackjack.html

Now these all came from a friend who is going a bit cuckoo about conspiracy theories...I just hope he IS wrong :P:ohmy:

I think it's great the Bin Laden has finally been dealt with.

But, I a little surprised no one has touched upon another pretty significant issue that arose from this successful raid.

I'm a little concerned that the United States essentially invaded a sovereign nation (Pakistan) to conduct a military operation without that nations consent.

I find that concept a little disturbing.

Granted the operation was probably successful because of it's secrecy... But does that give the USA the right to do this in any country they want without their consent?

http://www.inewsone.com/2011/05/05/if-sovereignty-is-breached-us-ties-will-be-reviewed-kayani/48471

Food for thought...

Hmmm...he was a terrorist and therefore an enemy of the whole World...I don't think any country would oppose his capture as they'd have more than half the world telling them off...

Sorta like Hitler, but even then he had supporters, Bin Laden was not as lucky.

Did you read the article I pointed to....

Pakistan REALLY objected to the invasion of their sovereignty.

And personally.... I wouldn't blame them....


You wouldn't like it if your neighbor tore down an exterior wall of your house (without your permission) because there was a raccoon the neighborhood that was causing trouble.


The principle is the same.

Is it okay to break the law, and break into your neighbors house to kill the neighborhood pest?

I don't know that answer to that.... But, it raises an ethical question...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd hate it if another country came in a killed the international terrorist that I was protecting.

I mean, god, ruuude!

Exactly my point with a bit of irony...

Right or not, I wouldn't endorse any country protecting a terrorist/criminal. Why do we have the UN again?

I didn't read the article, but I'll try and read it once I'm up...but I think as much as the ethical question you brought up, we need to think of how long Bin Laden has been in Pakistan?
Should we just wait for another attack while Pakistan can't do much?

Didn't England and the allies invade Germany to take out Hitler? Again, was that wrong? I know they're not quite the same, but they were both criminals in some way...

True enough... But the USA, or NATO, nor the UN declared war on Pakistan. Or did I miss something here?

I know Bin Laden deserved it... But...

If someone in some other part of the world considered George W. Bush a war monger would it be okay for another country to invade the USA in a small military operation to kill him with out the USA's consent?

And with the Hitler example that was mentioned, there was a formal declaration of war before German sovereignty was violated. And your right... that action was certainly was justified.

Quote by Rickster

True enough... But the USA, or NATO, nor the UN declared war on Pakistan. Or did I miss something here?

I know Bin Laden deserved it... But...

If someone in some other part of the world considered George W. Bush a war monger would it be okay for another country to invade the USA in a small military operation to kill him with out the USA's consent?

And with the Hitler example that was mentioned, there was a formal declaration of war before German sovereignty was violated. And your right... that action was certainly was justified.

I think there is a HUGE difference. George W. Bush wasn't the brightest of Presidents and most people knew/agreed with it. But still, he didn't throw airplanes at civilian locations or bombed the underground or Piccadilly Circus. He didn't gas people, or again, killed civilians. I think if someone is such a huge security issue worldwide, then yes, anyone should do whatever they could to put the guy down. No one will feel safe otherwise. If you say "Oh please, I don't care don't come into my country...ask, even if to kill a big threat." Aren't you defending a criminal? Of even a tyrant?

I see what you mean, a leader could be annoyed. But I think I'd be more annoyed with myself for not having caught the guy earlier or with my own troops.

I was checking online to see the war against Pakistan you mentioned but couldn't find anything...do you mean Lybia? Because that's a whole different issue to do with civilians being used as targets by their leader...

Quote by Rickster

I think it's great the Bin Laden has finally been dealt with.

But, I a little surprised no one has touched upon another pretty significant issue that arose from this successful raid.

I'm a little concerned that the United States essentially invaded a sovereign nation (Pakistan) to conduct a military operation without that nations consent.

I find that concept a little disturbing.

Granted the operation was probably successful because of it's secrecy... But does that give the USA the right to do this in any country they want without their consent?

http://www.inewsone.com/2011/05/05/if-sovereignty-is-breached-us-ties-will-be-reviewed-kayani/48471

Food for thought...

The idea behind a sneak attack is you tell no one. I guess they know that thee are many leaks in other countries staff so better to take the slamming than not but \i beleive they did know but rather than put pakistan under threat they decided to make a scene of it. They will reduce it down a bit but look at the stats I bet it drops down to what it was a few months ago. Its a ruse to make sure pakistan does get reprisal attacks upon it. If they werre realy pissed they would says hey america get out.

I read a really good BBC news story that touched on several points including the one we are discussing here.

If anyone is really interested in this topic you should check it out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13318372

I find it really interesting watching the world's reaction to this event as more information surfaces about what and how things happened.

P.S.: Andy, I never said anyone declared war on Pakistan. I said the USA/NATO/UN did not declare war or authorize military action on or in Pakistan. ;)

Sorry if I misread that...although I do find that they are being a bit ridiculous about the whole thing. Did they actually expect him to surrender? The President said that they were actually tried to capture but there was no chance to...which is quite "logical". If he has been hiding for so long, he is not just going to come out and say "FINE! I give up...now I count and you hide."

The biggest problem with terrorism is that they can't be taken as prisoners as they have no value or regard to their own lives. They will commit suicide to take someone else with them. Bin Laden was no ordinary criminal, he was an enemy of many, and a commander if anything. I know the lines might seem blurry, and I do agree someone associated with them should be sent to jail, but how do you catch someone who is ready to die?

""Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances."

How can we treat someone with the "right to life", when they are ready to die to kill? It makes no sense...for the average Joe, maybe, but not for someone who is told that by killing others you're granted heaven!

Correct me if I'm wrong...

I suppose what I'm hearing you say is that depending on who you are, what you believe in, and what you've done or do... It is acceptable to have different laws and rules for different groups of people.

In essence, some people are more equal than others... Because the majority says so???

I think the points that these lawyers, and human rights groups bring up are worth learning about even if you disagree with them.

I saw a video clip on CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) where they interview a US law professor on some of these topics.

I pasted the link below if your interested. Approx. 2min 20sec
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=1913444220

Quote by Rickster

Correct me if I'm wrong...

I suppose what I'm hearing you say is that depending on who you are, what you believe in, and what you've done or do... It is acceptable to have different laws and rules for different groups of people.

In essence, some people are more equal than others... Because the majority says so???

I think the points that these lawyers, and human rights groups bring up are worth learning about even if you disagree with them.

I saw a video clip on CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) where they interview a US law professor on some of these topics.

I pasted the link below if your interested. Approx. 2min 20sec
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/1221254309/ID=1913444220

Then I will correct you, no, what I am saying is that rules won't apply to everyone and that has nothing to do with the "majority" but how effective they are.

People surrender because our western civilization is scared of death. We have been for ages, death for us is a mystery and something to be afraid of - so anyone in their right mind would choose to be taken into custody. Now how do you catch someone who sees death as salvation?

It's not about "equality" rights, but culture. These people are trained to die for their cause and they are not scared of death as they see it as the ultimate reward. They are TRAINED for it, they don't think about living a long prosper life, having children and grandchildren. They think their reason to live is to kill even if dying in the process, but killing to be saved and achieve paradise for fighting the holy war (sort of like what we did with the crusades)...which is what makes them dangerous. They are not "evil people" simply, they just weren't told/taught/know any better. They are ready to die AND kill for what they believe in, which is what makes them dangerous. They are different from us, and I am not saying they don't have the right to live, what I am asking is - how do you catch someone who would rather die than being taken into custody?

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Islamic law forbids taking photographs of the diseased or at-least publishing them. There was a bit stink about publishing Sadam's photos after he was hung and I think Obama's really trying not to piss off any other Muslims.

Aside from dying or submitting to Shari'ah, there is NOTHING Wester civilization can do to make the Muslim extremists happy. They've been pissed off at us for all of history. The Crusades happened BECAUSE they were invading, and slaughtering, Christian nations from the Mid-East up through Eastern Europe.

Doing anything "so we don't piss them off" is as absurd in my book as doing something to avoid offending the Neo-Nazis or Westboro Baptists.

On the other hand, the reveling in the streets we saw in the U.S. at the initial announcement was too reminiscent of the Muslims celebrating in the streets when the towers came down. It just left a bitter taste in my mouth about some of my fellow citizens. Justice was done, take solace in that. Don't celebrate it.

EDIT: Just to add, I'm torn on the photograph issue. I personally don't care to see it, but on the other hand, it should be part of the historical record just as the similar photos of JFK, Hitler, Saddam, etc. have been (I don't think I will EVER put JFK in a sentence with those others in any other circumstance).

Quote by MarkNine

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Islamic law forbids taking photographs of the diseased or at-least publishing them. There was a bit stink about publishing Sadam's photos after he was hung and I think Obama's really trying not to piss off any other Muslims.

Aside from dying or submitting to Shari'ah, there is NOTHING Wester civilization can do to make the Muslim extremists happy. They've been pissed off at us for all of history. The Crusades happened BECAUSE they were invading, and slaughtering, Christian nations from the Mid-East up through Eastern Europe.

Doing anything "so we don't piss them off" is as absurd in my book as doing something to avoid offending the Neo-Nazis or Westboro Baptists.

On the other hand, the reveling in the streets we saw in the U.S. at the initial announcement was too reminiscent of the Muslims celebrating in the streets when the towers came down. It just left a bitter taste in my mouth about some of my fellow citizens. Justice was done, take solace in that. Don't celebrate it.

EDIT: Just to add, I'm torn on the photograph issue. I personally don't care to see it, but on the other hand, it should be part of the historical record just as the similar photos of JFK, Hitler, Saddam, etc. have been (I don't think I will EVER put JFK in a sentence with those others in any other circumstance).

It's not just the extremists that have a problem with this. The sunni and shiite sects also have an issue with this.

MOD: I don't want to spoil any open and honest debate, but can I just remind everyone to stay on topic. Straying into general religious debate rarely ends well, as I'm sure you all know, lol. Thanks.