And I know someone who died serving in Iraq but I don't take pleasure in hearing about unarmed Iraqis being killed.
I hear you, but also look at it this way. Its better than us bombing the complex and killing perhaps scores of women, children, or others who aren't real threats to us. They still put their lives in danger by carrying out the operation.
they had guns. They were just too slow to pick them up. Not exactly unarmed. The operators were against a clock. Had pakistani army inbound, and were a very small force. They had a helicopter go down, and needed to GTFO. I am frankly surprised they only shot his wife in the leg and didn't kill children. Pretty amazing skill. total professionals.
I don't blame the SEAL team they were doing their job and they did it well. That still doesn't make this more noble.
True and that is a good point. I also appreciate that you understand where I am coming from. My unease doesn't mean that I think this mission shouldn't have been undertaken but it doesn't make me feel better reading about how they shot OBL's son pretty much in cold blood. I will also add that I wasn't thereand might've done exactly the same thing but even if it was needed I don't feel like celebrating a killing like that.
This sounds like a cliche but war isn't noble. If we did find out that in fact The President gave direct orders to kill OBL and not capture, would you have a problem with the President's decision?
Are you surprised? Seriously?... They were going to do everything to not let him get away, including killing him, armed or not armed.... if anything I am stunned that they only shot his wife in the leg and not the chest and forehead. The facts are that he lived a brutal life, and masterminding the death of thousands of people is no joke... his killers were not going to be noble or "fair" when it came to his end... that is not how it works.
No... you are a hypocrite, and always have been on these boards. Had Bush been the President, you would want blood.
No I wouldn't and I completely agree with you that war isn't noble and why it should be avoided at all cost. I was uneasy with the celebrations that broke out about OBL's death and this just reinforces that unease.
I don't like reading these details due to my cowardly aversion from knowing and admitting what makes a hamburger. There will be things I want but disapprove in how it's achieved, and at times, it does force me to think about that contradiction. I'm kind of surprised officials are so casual with details from the beginning especially when they're starting to grasp the consequences of their inaccuracies. I'm not sure if you've read the Greenwald article rhad posted, but this is one of the implications of celebrating this kind of "victory". There are several people on the kill order list who have been murdered by a hellfire missile from a remotely controlled UAV. The details are cut and dried with little human emotion or reaction to the point where it becomes unnoticed by us. Is that much better? It's also perverse that because the SEAL team executed the op so well that there wasn't a firefight, which would've played better with the initial narrative. The potential was there. They were well armed and supplied for it. Yet a more heroic story would mean American casualties and the risk of everything going wrong. So does the gut feeling of honor play well with what we all admittedly want accomplished in war? We want those bastards dead so much that 2 different fronts have been justified in their names and condoned by our elected representatives. Even if we feel like patrons and spectators, the responsibility falls upon us to dictate what's acceptable. If that's the source of your unease, I also share it, even if it's contradictory for me to feel better that that man is dead.
Seriously? It's pretty f'ing noble to go into Al Qaeda's leaders HQ in the first place. So they shot him in cold blood while he was in his pajamas. What's the difference? They were not there to arrest him, we've been hunting him down to eliminate him. War is ugly, and this was hardly that. They went in and killed the sucker. That was the right thing to do.
Would you have rather have captured him, then try to extradite him and put him on trail he in the U.S. where he could call for the destruction of America and potentially unleash any sleeper cells?
I guess you have to consider the possibility that they had explosives wired or something similar...they probably don't want to be taken as prisoners...shooting them immediately makes sure they don't have time to do anything, like push a button or flip a switch. There's really no way for the SEALs to know what was waiting for them in there.
Wasn't the legend always that he would die first... rather than be taken prisoner. Years ago, there was a "rumor" that his own men had orders to kill him rather than let him be taken prisoner. Rumors. Don't know how to confirm.
They had to shoot him dead. If you could take the risk of asking him if he wants to surrender, then he wouldn't be the most wanted person on earth. I wish it wasn't that way, but the reality of it is that it was the correct strategic decision IMO. There were too many variables if they did it any other way. Maybe he knew they were watching him and he had planned totrap them and kill them. Maybe he sets off a bomb. Maybe there is an escape tunnel they don't know about. Just too risky I think.
I know you are probably referencing an older article or something to that sort but is this basically a rehash of what you are referring to... link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/04/osama-bin-laden-s-bodyguard-i-had-orders-to-kill-him-if-the-americans-tried-to-take-him-alive-115875-23105618/
What is this "war isn't noble" nonsense? These guys didn't go in as soldiers they went in as assassins to execute a political killing. It's more akin to Sitting Bull than Normandy. As an American, all those Indians had to go. Likewise as an American Osama had to go. Bottom line however, is that those who have no problems with targeted killings because this guy is a terrorist or "this is war" or w/e should have no problem in the future when our enemies (be it Arabs, Chinese, South Americans w/e) use similar tactics on our own officials and soldiers. Remember that even bombings, torture, and terrorism weren't tools pioneered by the A-rabs. The Jews and Europeans used those tactics first to obtain their objectives pre and post the British Colonial period which the Palestinians and others then adopted. We have moved on to cruise missiles, economic embargo, media propaganda, cultural isolation, enhanced interrogation etc but those sad backward sand people still need their primitive tools which we now abhor. Likewise the horror of scalping was originally a means of confirming Indian kill bounties by the French which the Indians then widely adopted in vengeance when on the warpath. You can't close the door. **** like this is really no problem when we dominate and can project power further than the other guy. But make no mistake that the world is watching and our time on the apex is closing. With China overtaking our economy in the next President's term our actions this entire past decade will surely come to bite us in the ass at some point.
Ouch! You cut me to the quick. But you are right, typically I am a pacifist, but in this instance I am happy this killer is dead. Hell even the Dali Lama agreed his death was justified. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
I think it is understandable that personal experiences and closeness to victims of a crime influences perception and one's opinion on issues.
