Split From Corbyn did win/The War On Terrorism

[Darat]

This thread has been split from "Corbyn did win" in order to continue discussion of the war on terror.

Posted By: Loss Leader

Further to that, it's highly likely that Pakistan were well aware of an impending US mission to carry out this raid. It wasn't like these guys suddenly popped up in a foreign country and nobody knew anything about it.

Evidence?

 

[Antony]

It is a bit difficult, yes, because whilst I'm aware that military actions are not sanctioned by jury you appear not to be. Such missions are not covered by domestic law.



Maybe, maybe not, but let's get back to the topic. Is it a tragedy that he was killed rather than face trial, rather than a mistake or a poor decision. No, not for anybody other the likes of Corbyn.



Rubbish. It's men like that who keep you safe in your bed.

Sorry but it really pisses me off to hear this sanctimonious claptrap from people who take full advantage of the security provided by their country and who go on and routinely vilify the people who risk their lives to provide it in to flaunt their holier-than-thou credentials.

Everything you say is pure US exceptionalism. Nobody would ever give, say Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia - or Putin's Russia, come to that - this kind of licence.

You can't value the rule of law much if you believe a fair trial can be achieved in Pakistan.

Well I don't think OBL would have faced a fair trial in the US, either, but at least the case against him would have been made public rather than consisting of rumour and assertions.

I refer you to my earlier posts when I demonstrate that this argument doesn't hold water unless you're willing to redefine the English language around your agenda.

Demonstrate - how? I don't see any specific references, or any conceivable basis for your conclusion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I sill repeat my question question which has been carefully ignored.
Is it ok for the Russians (for example) to send a team of special forces in to the USA to execute someone living there if they consider him a terrorist?

If not then why is it ok for the USA to do the same?

 

[angrysoba]

Rubbish. It's men like that who keep you safe in your bed. Sorry but it really pisses me off to hear this sanctimonious claptrap from people who take full advantage of the security provided by their country and who go on and routinely vilify the people who risk their lives to provide it in to flaunt their holier-than-thou credentials.

"I fought for your freedom in the war. And what do you do with it? You do whatever you damn well please, don't you!"

 

[GlennB]

I sill repeat my question question which has been carefully ignored.
Is it ok for the Russians (for example) to send a team of special forces in to the USA to execute someone living there if they consider him a terrorist?

If not then why is it ok for the USA to do the same?

Well, obviously we're allowed to do it because we're better than the Ruskies. Duh!

 

[baron]

Evidence?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal

(read the article before the protestation addendum, particularly the bits that say 'Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion' and 'The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."'

and contingent

'In August 2008, Gilani reportedly told a US official: "I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."')

 

[Nick Terry]

I sill repeat my question question which has been carefully ignored.
Is it ok for the Russians (for example) to send a team of special forces in to the USA to execute someone living there if they consider him a terrorist?

If not then why is it ok for the USA to do the same?

But the US didn't do the same thing, since it sent special forces to Pakistan, not Russia.

 

[baron]

Everything you say is pure US exceptionalism. Nobody would ever give, say Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia - or Putin's Russia, come to that - this kind of licence.

Nazi Germany doesn't exist and I'd make exactly the same judgement if Putin's forces had killed Bin Laden, so I don't know where you got this from. And for the record I'm not American and have no allegiances thereto.

Well I don't think OBL would have faced a fair trial in the US, either, but at least the case against him would have been made public rather than consisting of rumour and assertions.

But this gets even more bizarre. It's a tragedy that due process was (allegedly!) not followed yet now you're saying he would never have received it anyway. So this word tragedy, already vastly overblown to describe the situation, is even further diminished. Indeed, if Bin Laden had been convicted by a US court he (edited - meaning Corbyn) would likely have described it as a 'tragedy' that he didn't get a fair trial. These terrorist apologists have a way around everything.

Demonstrate - how? I don't see any specific references, or any conceivable basis for your conclusion.

My conceivable basis is that word have specific meanings. If you describe something as a tragedy then it must incorporate elements that are tragic. I've already listed some of the words that would have addressed the issue of the alleged failure of due process quite adequately and explained that 'tragedy' is so far beyond them in terms of strength of meaning that it must be used to communicate something above and beyond or even something completely different.

 

[baron]

"I fought for your freedom in the war. And what do you do with it? You do whatever you damn well please, don't you!"

Nice, but relevance?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But the US didn't do the same thing, since it sent special forces to Pakistan, not Russia.

Dodge noted.

 

[baron]

I sill repeat my question question which has been carefully ignored.
Is it ok for the Russians (for example) to send a team of special forces in to the USA to execute someone living there if they consider him a terrorist?

In the bizarre scenario where the situation was the same, yes. If the UK was harbouring the world's most dangerous terrorist and refused to act against him then I'd positively welcome a few Russians swinging through his windows and blowing the crap out of him, and I'd be utterly embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that made this necessary.

 

[lionking]

In the bizarre scenario where the situation was the same, yes. If the UK was harbouring the world's most dangerous terrorist and refused to act against him then I'd positively welcome a few Russians swinging through his windows and blowing the crap out of him, and I'd be utterly embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that made this necessary.

So would I. I can't see how this position is even arguable.

 

[Nick Terry]

Dodge noted.

On the contrary, it's a reminder that you must strive to compare like with like.

The US was already operating extensively in Pakistan, providing aid, using the country for NATO logistic routes to Afghanistan, trying to seal off the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and mounting repeated drone strikes with on-again, off-again Pakistani cooperation, on the Pakistani side of the border. But parts of Pakistani intelligence leaked like a sieve to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Under the circumstances the US could involve the Pakistanis and risk Bin Laden being tipped off, or act unilaterally.

Russia would undoubtedly act the same way if it found out that a major anti-Russian terrorist mastermind was holed up on the territory of a Russian ally whose intelligence service had mixed loyalties.

 

[Ziggurat]

So how is executing a foreign national in a foreign country without any kind of a trial not a crime? Was it because our aged with it?
How would it be if a team of Russian special forces flew in to the US and executed someone they thought deserved?
By the reasoning in this thread it should be OK.

No, it would be an act of war. Whether that is ok depends on who they killed and why. Some acts of war are good things, some are bad. But criminal law does not address the problem.

 

[Antony]

Nazi Germany doesn't exist and I'd make exactly the same judgement if Putin's forces had killed Bin Laden, so I don't know where you got this from. And for the record I'm not American and have no allegiances thereto.

Interesting, but irrelevant. US exceptionalism contaminates conservative thinking in other countries too.

But this gets even more bizarre. It's a tragedy that due process was (allegedly!) not followed yet now you're saying he would never have received it anyway. So this word tragedy, already vastly overblown to describe the situation, is even further diminished. Indeed, if Bin Laden had been convicted by a US court he (edited - meaning Corbyn) would likely have described it as a 'tragedy' that he didn't get a fair trial. These terrorist apologists have a way around everything.

No, what's bizarre is that you think you can predict the reaction of people you don't like - and then criticise them for the predicted behaviour. It's like you don't even notice you're doing this.

My conceivable basis is that word have specific meanings. If you describe something as a tragedy then it must incorporate elements that are tragic. I've already listed some of the words that would have addressed the issue of the alleged failure of due process quite adequately and explained that 'tragedy' is so far beyond them in terms of strength of meaning that it must be used to communicate something above and beyond or even something completely different.

That's all opinion - not reasoned and factual argument.

 

[baron]

Interesting, but irrelevant. US exceptionalism contaminates conservative thinking in other countries too.

So my thinking is 'contaminated' by US exceptionalism despite me telling you that I wouldn't differentiate between US action and Russian action in this circumstance? Interesting.

No, what's bizarre is that you think you can predict the reaction of people you don't like - and then criticise them for the predicted behaviour. It's like you don't even notice you're doing this.

OK, then, let's just take you as an example. You hold the view that the killing of Bin Laden was wrong, maybe even 'tragic', and you just stated that he wouldn't have got a fair trial had he been taken alive. So, what exactly would satisfy you? It seems the only option left is Bin Laden being left to commit more terrorist atrocities.

That's all opinion - not reasoned and factual argument.

Well, I've just unilaterally redefined the word 'opinion' to mean 'fact', thereby rendering your argument moot. Yeah, I could get used to this.

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, then, let's just take you as an example. You hold the view that the killing of Bin Laden was wrong, maybe even 'tragic', and you just stated that he wouldn't have got a fair trial had he been taken alive. So, what exactly would satisfy you? It seems the only option left is Bin Laden being left to commit more terrorist atrocities.

There's a third option: indefinite detention without trial.

Not that this would have satisfied Antony either, so you point still stands.

 

[Craig B]

But the US didn't do the same thing, since it sent special forces to Pakistan, not Russia.

And who gives a damn about Pakistan, Eh?

 

[Andy_Ross]

And who gives a damn about Pakistan, Eh?

In some respects it's worse. Pakistan is supposedly an ally. Can other US Allies expect their special forces to execute enter the country and execute people when it suits them?

 

[Nick Terry]

And who gives a damn about Pakistan, Eh?

Not the point, as was explained further here.

It's been more than four years since OBL was killed, undoubtedly US-Pakistani relations worsened because of that, along with other issues, but the two states are not at war with each other today, and still maintain diplomatic relations. Not "OK", but not a "tragedy", either.