world

Bin Laden's sons say U.S. broke international law by killing their father

139 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Compiled from wire reports

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

139 Comments
Login to comment

"by killing an unarmed man,"- This is where the story goes off mark from the beginning. - By shooting a Wanted Dead or Alive terrorist and head of the worlds largest terrorist organization currently at war with the United States and all of the western world as well as the organizer of mass murder upon American soil. That is a far cry form "an unarmed man".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. broke international law...haha that's a good one, who are you going to get to tell the U.S. they can't do whatever the hell they want to do. Al-Qaeda, we just killed your leader, I recommend calling it quits cause you know what will happen to you if you try anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the sons said in a statement that his family was asking why bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, ‘‘was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world,’’ according to the daily’s website.

Simple answer -- the U.S. choose to give him the same due process that he gave the 3,000 folks at the WTC, or the ones at the two U.S. Embassies that got bombed, or the ones on the U.S. Cole... The unmitigated nerve of these guys. Their father created a supposed jihad against the U.S.; slaughtered thousands of people in that effort, including many Muslims; and, the U.S. is just supposed to provide him a forum so he can stir up more hate. Makes me even more happy the SEALS executed him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If OBL had really cared about the well being and reputation of his own family, would he have devoted a good part of his life to directing an international terrorist organization?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The statement was posted Monday on Islamic extremist websites.

Always make me laugh when those people want to live back in bronze age but use the latest Kufar technologies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and somewhere the world's smallest violin played.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Think of all the innocent people all over the world who've been horribly injured and killed by his followers. Poor dad deserved a lot better than them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Officially former president Bush's war on terror was never officially concluded. Also the statement about killing an unarmed man is B.S. Bin laden is/was never "unarmed". He always carried with him a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle with him everywhere which one ca clearly see next to him in just about every video of him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have accused the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an unarmed man,

He was armed with the voice of hate. You do not have to have a physical weapon in your hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know... with the way the legal systems works, these sons might end up getting a huge settlement over this...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is up with you folks trying to change the meaning of the word "unarmed"? Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot. Deal with it. Attempts to change the word or the conditions only point to your own sad denial.

Bin Laden's family have some good points. It does seem that the U.S. completely passed on the chance to take him to trial. Dumping his body at sea was unnecessary and unjustified. Several points of international law were violated.

However, as he was the unrepentent leader of a terrorist organization without even the benefit of any clear or good cause that I can see, I am not especially angry over his execution. I am extremely disappointed in how the U.S. government handled it though. Especially Obama lost a lot of points from me. But it was better to violate Pakistani sovereignty than to declare war on Pakistan, all things considered, and frankly I think international law needs to change on that point.

Where the bin Laden family is dead wrong is in calling all Muslims to "avenge his death". The man was not worth avenging, and its silly to call on all Muslims. There are better reasons to target certain Americans (not non-government civilians) and the U.S. armed forces, and they have nothing to do with religious belief. But that general plea for vengeance will of course be interpreted by a great many idiots as a call for the killing of innocent American civilians whose opinions about bin Laden's execution were only asked after the fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No they won't. If they ever actually showed up to collect... BANG! A countersuit from all the 9/11 victims' families puts a freeze on any assets awarded and drains even more once their personal accounts are rooted out. Meanwhile they rot in jail for harboring their dad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to legal terms if he was unarmed he was not a thread/danger to the armed and ready SEAL's. The SEAL's could have taken him down without killing him. Like they shot the wife in the leg.

Either way he was a wanted man, the invasion into another country is a much more worrying development as it can be now used to justify military actions in other countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahhhh so this is why the Mississippi is overflowing!! That's right cry me a river. I was wondering where all this rain is coming from. Well, why don't you boys come on down to Brooklyn New York and we can talk about this like gentlemen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To paraphrase Pirates of the Carribean: "International law? They're more like guidelines anyway."

Or, to quote from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

Either will do in this case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

throwing his body into the sea in that way, which demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and which challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims.

i guess the kid want to see his papa got head cut of during somebody video tap it and upload to show it world-wild. that should be a respect way for his family, his supporters and his religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like I said before, his weapon was his mind, and they took that out. Good for the seals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I doubt these guys are going to get much sympathy from people, especially when talking about giving Bin Laden a chance to 'tell the truth', but in a way they are correct. The US troops are now making the excuse that they thought he was going for a weapon, and yet they took the utmost care with other people in the compound, using plastic zip wires to 'cuff' their hands behind their backs. No, they wanted to shoot on sight, and they did. And they're rightfully facing a lot of backlash for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, they wanted to shoot on sight, and they did. And they're rightfully facing a lot of backlash for it.

smithinjapan -- as an exception to the norm, I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. If Obama had taken the chicken/Clinton way out, and just sent over a few dozen Tomahawks, we would not even be having this discussion. But because he did it up close and personal, he's "facing a lot of backlash". That's hypocritic. OBL was a cold-blooded terrorist murderer who had no problem killing thousands of innocent people from the safety of his hiding places. He got what he had coming, plain and simple. He deserves no benefit of the doubt/semantic argument -- "Gee, was he really armed"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"OBL was a cold-blooded terrorist murderer who had no problem killing thousands of innocent people from the safety of his hiding places. He got what he had coming, plain and simple" So if an Iraqi went to the US and put a bullet in Bush's head would the same arguement be used to justify that too? I think not... OBL was an evil SOB. BUT when we start allowing countries to assasinate people without question then are we really any better than the terrorist. After all l thought the US worked on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Or doesnt that count.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

herefornow.

Except a problem mentioned often in the news. The Intel was NOT confirmed so there was NO guarantee about accuracy or that Bin Laden would have been there if Missiles were used.

Imagine the fallout if a few cruise-missiles were send in and hurt civilians, etc.

This is the real problem here, the USA does NOT have the power to authorise military strikes, etc in another nations territory that it is NOT at war with. No matter how much people wish to make it so.

Doing a surgical strike was the only realistic option but they local goverment should have been informed earlier.

And I agree with AdamB.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The USA DOES have the power. and it DID. The continuing war on terror puts any country harboring terrorists as an enemy of the State. Its the reason we invaded Afghan and its the reason we went into Pakistan. And we were RIGHT. Bin Laden was there, case closed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai,

"The USA DOES have the power. and it DID. The continuing war on terror puts any country harboring terrorists as an enemy of the State. Its the reason we invaded Afghan and its the reason we went into Pakistan" Thats a bit of a arrogant attitude isnt it? The US has the right to go into any country it wants because of its War on Terror. So can Russia go into the US and kill someone, launch missiles if a Chechen that it claims is a terrorist is found there? Doubt it. Oh and l didnt realise the US was in a declared war with Pakistan, when did that happen???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely no sympathy for these people. Its rich, them bleating about the USA "breaking international law" when their father led an evil terrorist group which did that every day. Where was their concept of "international law" on 9/11 or 7/7?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

no, kaptain, the us doesnt have the power to go into sovereign countries and attack whom it pleases without the proper authorities being notified! maybe in your own little american world and way of brainwashed thinking, but the geneva conventions clearly state that this is unlawful!

this is the pot calling the kettle black. both sides are as extreme as the other. both equally feel they are right for reasons that their leaders feed them healthy doses of every chance they get.

thats why this conflict will never get resolved. wow, congrats america, you got your man. hooray, party in the streets. its just another way for your govt to continue their ongoing war on anything they deem un-american. which seems like a lot these days. well, good luck with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the gullible who right these inane comments, the US had the right to do the mission under UN Article 51.

If the cowardly Osama bin Laden had been hiding for seven long years in a compound in my Country Australia, we would have expected the US to come into our country and get him too. The same apply if another equally bad monster had done the same to another power like China or Russia as bin Laden did to the US. They should come and kill the person themselves for the world's sake. The little bit of Pakistan puffery is childlike. There has to be exceptions for the really bad. Take the monster out and leave us embarrassed that he was living for seven years under our nose. We would expect our Minister for Defence and top Intelligence heads to resign for incompetence.

The guy deserved to die just for those horrible poor quality video's he kept visiting on the world. I thought he was killed in a bombing raid in 2003/4 and effectively he was. He was terrified out of his wits and sneaked away from his forces and hid.

The Navy Seals did the job correctly - there is nothing bin Laden could have said that we would want to hear about. The same applied to Hitler, Stalin, and the rest of the monsters, some of whom are sadly still alive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Sharpie-no, kaptain, the us doesnt have the power to go into sovereign countries and attack whom it pleases without the proper authorities being notified! maybe in your own little american world and way of brainwashed thinking, but the geneva conventions clearly state that this is unlawful!- Wow thats great. Who are you talking to? because I said no such thing. @ Adam B- I have no idea what your ridiculous scenario that is supposed to compare to? OBL was the worlds most wanted criminal. America stated its intentions to apprehend him dead or alive for more than 10 years. We invaded Afghanistan for harboring him and terrorist factions. We gave Pakistan billions of dollars for their help. And OBL was living in a mansion near Pakistans capitol for more than 5 years. We are at war. We did EXACTLY what we said we would. It is crystal clear. As Obama said, anyone who doesnt think Osama got what he deserved should have their "head examined".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai, My ridiulous scenario was in response to your pathetic chest thumping America is the greatest statement "The continuing war on terror puts any country harboring terrorists as an enemy of the State." in which you are effectively saying if we deem you an enemy no matter where you are we will attack you. Correct? My scenario was, and l will repeat it as you seem to have trouble grasping it. What if there was a wanted terrorist (say a Chechen wanted by Russia) in the US. Would all you America lovers support a Russian military attack in the US without prior notice? Its not a difficult question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai,

Oh and as for your statement "We are at war" why would that be and lets delve a little deeper than 911 please. Oh and as l said before l didnt know you where at war with Pakistan!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adam b- what are you talking about? chest thumping? your comparison was ridiculous and I am only stating the facts. The USA IS at war. The rules stated by the past and the present ARE thusly. Harboring terrorists makes you an enemy. If you want to make a beef of it, talk to the 2 commander in chiefs. It is the situation. Disagrreing with it doesnt change the facts. OBL was the most wanted terrorist, Pakistan was harboring him. The USA kept their word and did what was necessary. Complain all you want, but this type of action is what keeps a world power just that. Sorry if the truth offends you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama had taken the chicken/Clinton way out, and just sent over a few dozen Tomahawks, we would not even be having this discussion. But because he did it up close and personal, he's "facing a lot of backlash". That's hypocritic.

I think you are way off. If it were possible to kill bin Laden with a missle (and politically it wasn't because of location) it is true there would be less criticism. But the reason is not because OBL would be just as dead. The reason is because it looks like the U.S. had every opportunity to take him alive, but just didn't.

I much prefer the raiding party to the missle because it allowed for all those other lives to be spared. All things considered, the raiding party was the prefered option. But it does look they executed OBL and had no intention of taking him alive. And that is just wrong. Its as wrong as killing him with a missle.

They really tarnished what should have been a shining point for just about everybody. Then they really ruined it by dumping his body at sea and not releasing details or pictures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And to Adam, the question has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this situation. But if AMERICA WAS harboring a terrorist that had murdered thousands of innocent Russians, and the Russians had been searching for him/her for 10 years and given billions of dollars to aid them in that endeavor, and come to find out said terrorist was living in a mansion 30 miles outside of D.C in Virginia. Then YES! America would and should support the capture and/or termination of this fugitive terrorist by specially trained Russian assault teams. Now do you see how different and ridiculous your irrelevant scenario is? Can YOU grasp it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't blame the children for being sad about their fathers death but others cannot forget the thousands of children whose innocent parents were murdered by OBL. And the possibly thousands more people that he could have killed yet - as he repeatedly said he and his terrorist gang would do. And isn't it ironic to say the US violated international law? What do they think their father did? Having been attacked and thus at war, the US had every right to kill OBL in that war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama had taken the chicken/Clinton way out, and just sent over a few dozen Tomahawks, we would not even be having this discussion.

Gotta stand up for Bill here. He knew OBL was a threat. To quote Associated Content:

What we do know is that after Osama Bin Ladin bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Bill Clinton personally ordered simultaneous military strike camps in Afghanistan, and was roundly criticized by Republicans for "Wagging the Dog" to distract from his Monica Lewinsky scandal.

We also know that President Clinton sent strong Memoranda to the CIA reiterating that they were authorized to use tribal assets or other means to hunt down Osama Bin Ladin, and kill him if necessary. And we know that President Clinton personally negotiated with the leader of Pakistan and secured a joint plan to capture Bin Ladin - plans that evaporated when Mr. Sharif was violently overthrown by General Pervez Musharraf.

We also know that President Clinton demanded daily intelligence reports about Bin Ladin after 1998 and that his administration successfully thwarted a Millenium Attack - with connections to what we would eventually understand to be Al Qaeda - by arresting an Algerian Jihadist smuggling a load of explosives into the U.S.

And finally, we also know that when the Bush Administration transitioned into power, they did not agree with Clinton officials that terrorism should be the major priority of their administration until after September 11, 2001.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bin laden was scum and so are his followers anyone who cries foul over what the U.S did is either a sympathiser or a bleeding heart Left wing looney !

You choose which one you are if you are upset about what happened to the terroist bin laden.

Anyone who supports this type of scum should expect the same treatment as what laden got and those in Pakistan that were complicite in supporting / hiding bin laden should watch their backs too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai,

Ok let me ask you the question this way. Say Iraq in a couple of years turns around and says G Bush is a criminal that through his directions (as commander in chief) led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's. Say they even tried him in absentia and found him guilty. If the US didnt hand him over (as we all know they wouldnt) would you then support an Iraqi military strike on US soil to remove him. Of course not, no one would but when the US declares a war on a country or person it thinks it has free reign to go where ever it likes and take whatever action it likes in the name of the US war on whatever. They did it here, they did it in Vietnam, the fact is the US did not respect the sovereignty of a nation and has illegally used military force in that nation all in the name of US national security. Can you see that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: And they're rightfully facing a lot of backlash for it.

Oh, I wouldn't say they're facing "a lot" of backlash. Seems that most people really don't care. Naturally this means we're all just one notch below you....or is it that you're one notch above us? Not really sure. Either way you're special and better.

Zenny11: the USA does NOT have the power to authorise military strikes, etc in another nations territory that it is NOT at war with.

And on a nice, clean sheet of paper devoid of all context your words make perfect sense. But in the complicated relationship between Pakistan and the US your words don't quite have the same impact. We're talking about a government that feeds intel to the US then "condemns" the resulting drone strike to placate the radicals with a wink.

AdamB: My ridiulous scenario was in response to your pathetic chest thumping America

Ah, so that's up with all of your ridiculous statements. I thought there had to be something behind them since logic got crossed off the list a long time ago.

I think HomeRun2 sums it up best:

Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot. Deal with it.

I think most people are dealing with it fine, thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Omar's statement is a big joke! One sided justice must run in the family. He serious thinks his Daddy should have been captured and brought to justice in a court of law, what a nut.

I saw an interview on him a few years ago on Youtube and he seemed like a nice guy distancing himself from his father and evil ways. But this statement is just plain stupid.

America had every right to go after Bin laden and take him out in such a secretive stealth type of operation. They did the job amazingly well!

One thing though, 9/11 and 7/7 is mentioned all the time. Is it just me or just that lot's of people forget about what happened in Tanzania and Kenya ?

Done by the same bunch of evil people in horrific ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

For the record, l do not care that OBL is dead his murderous lifestyle was bound to catch up with him eventually. The point l am trying to make is this, the US launched military action inside a sovereign nation (an ally at that) they did not even inform the government of that nation. Now taking aside the fact that they killed OBL my question is how would the US feel if another nation did that in America. Im tipping there would be all sorts of repercussions. Now just because the US has its little war on terror going on does that give it the right to launch military action anywhere on the planet just because someone it is chasing may be there? Does this mean any other country can do the same? The US has by this raid opened a big issue. If another country now does it what will happen? the US cant complain afterall they have done it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB, I appreciate both your sentiment and your legal logic, but unfortunately the world does not work that way. Extra-legal actions should be minimized and should not be celebrated but should not be written off out-of-hand. If Pakistan had a functioning legal system, the US would not have had to resort to this action.

That said, the US abuses its ability to perform extra-legal action. Guantanamo is a disgrace; GWB should rightly fear to travel abroad. I just hope the need for extra-legal action decreases in proportion to America's tendency to resort to it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna,

Completely agree with you, on all points. But if you suggest that you are instantly labelled as a OBL sympathiser or left wing looney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

.

But it does look they executed OBL and had no intention of taking him alive. And that is just wrong. Its as wrong as killing him with a missle

Homerun2 -- we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I will never support your line of thinking. IMO celebrating his death is wrong. Causing it is justice -- plain and simple. And completely in keeping with the rules of engagement/war. No different than the U.S. shooting down Yamamoto's plane during WWII.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB: The point l am trying to make is this, the US launched military action inside a sovereign nation (an ally at that) they did not even inform the government of that nation.

Again, zero context. Your argument exists in a vacuum where you have to pretend to be daft for it to make sense. You know why the operation was conducted in secrecy. You know why it was done. But talking to those points erodes your case so you stick to generalities that remove any situational evidence from the conversation.

how would the US feel if another nation did that in America.

Please don't drag that utterly silly argument into the discussion. You don't just swap out the names of the counties and pretend all things are equal.

Now just because the US has its little war on terror going on does that give it the right to launch military action anywhere on the planet just because someone it is chasing may be there?

Ah, I see. You're worried that stealth Blackhawks are going to be touching down in dozens of cities on a daily basis. Again, an argument that only exists when you ignore the specific circumstances under which this raid too place. And you're an ace at that.

Why not just really dumb things down and ask questions like, "Does one human being have the right to kill another human being? Imagine if someone just walked up and killed you. How would you like it?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smells like they want some settlement money or compensation or something... thats not smart because the families that have been victimized by their father can turn right back around and demand that "compensation" right back from them. Those men had better get that scenario to sink in their heads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think most people are dealing with it fine, thank you.

I was not talking to you at all, but rather the posters here who are clearly not dealing with it. Go to the start of the thread and read.

And completely in keeping with the rules of engagement/war.

This is like tackling someone at random on the street and saying its consistent with the rules of football. You can tackle someone after a game of football has been declared and not before. Well, football has not been declared and neither has war.

No different than the U.S. shooting down Yamamoto's plane during WWII.

Its 236 percent different! War was declared and raging, Yamamoto was a uniformed serviceman aka a legit target in war time, he was over territory occupied by his own country, he was not wanted for crimes, there was no way to capture him alive and last but not least, he literally died with a katana in his hand!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people really are special and have insight at a level that is obviously well beyond ours. And it's a shame that they are in the minority. But it doesn't make them any less special.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, "Some people really are special and have insight at a level that is obviously well beyond ours. And it's a shame that they are in the minority. But it doesn't make them any less special."

And the sarcasm keeps a rolling!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: "Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot. Deal with it."

This poster has the amusing habit of imitating the many, many people here who have bested him in debate over the years.

International law? Who enforces it? Without enforcement the term is meaningless.At worst, once out of office Obama will be unable land in Belgium! or Quebec! or the handful of predictably silly places that would support the likes of bin Laden's sons with the threat of "arrest."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can tackle someone after a game of football has been declared and not before. Well, football has not been declared and neither has war.

"Football" was declared on 18 Sept 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Joint Resolution passed by Congress:

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Pretty much covers it all regarding the legality under which President Obama was authorized to do and offing him in Pakistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, at least bin Laden's sons are alive to air their grievances. Canadian-led NATO forces killed Kahadaffi's son, and a few of his grandchildren - though they can't seem to get the Colonel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

One question about the resolution that you posted has me curious. Given that the resolution is aimed at destroying Al Quada and OBL. And given that they are a non state sponsored terror group that could potentially operate anywhere in the world isnt that really a blank page to attack any country that may be harbouring potential or real terrorists?

And for the record war (or as you say "football") was not declared on 18 Sept 2001. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This was later changed by the US Supreme court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Haven't the sons got any assets that can be seized and given to a worldwide terror victim funds?

Bn Laden was a mass-murder of muslims foremost, and many Americans too.

Let the radical left whine. In fact, I never give the radical rights' argument about the left being terrorist huggers back in the days of the Bush Doctrine, but the fact that some show sympathy or even argue a case for this man's "rights" is ridiculous. Has anyone heard noise from the family of a paltry convicted serial-killer?

A grudge against America is all these people have. Take a tissue and wipe up the drivel. The world's a better place without this scumbag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Qaeda and other groups that have international scope have changed the meaning of "war" and "combatant." Wars are no longer simply nation state against nation state. Bin Laden was a combatant at war with the United States. He declared his war on the U.S. twenty years ago and has killed thousands of Americans, not to mention many Muslims and others from various countries. I suppose Obama could have called the Pakistani police chief and asked him to arrest Bin Laden instead. Or maybe sent Bin Laden a card urging him to see the error of his ways and turn himself in. Pakistan was harbouring him. The raid was necessary and it worked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nobody follows international law because nobody enforces it. If France or the U.K did I doubt you'd see anybody ready to send troops or invade. It really is just a set of guidelines and I don't particularly like several of the laws anyway especially when a particularly nasty war could be ended with a few well placed shots and a million dollar bounty.

However, I don't believe that international law was violated in any case. This happens often enough in drug busts involving SWAT teams. They go in to apprehend, one of them resists and he gets shot. With a person like OBL even if he weren't reaching for a weapon he could have been wearing a bomb vest, setting off an IED, or any number of less obvious but no less deadly. The soldiers were doing their job and looking out for their own saftey, do the people on this site expect soldier to tackle terrorists that may very well be loaded down with bombs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Osama bin Laden's body was offered to his home country, Saudia Arabia, but they refused to take it or participate in an Islamic burial ceremony. The US still gave him a dignified Islamic send off, in the sea off Saudi Arabia from one of its greatest warships. That was decent!

I didn't like the look of the creep when he was alive, and certainly aren't interested to see his face after a bullet has modified it. Let him rest in peace as the guy was insane. It is over! Let those who love him grieve as is their right. Find something else to write about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and while the spoiled rich kids of the world debate the legalities of killing a confessed mass murderer, in other countries people are being pounded by artillery in their homes by government forces. In the end maybe I should just consider myself lucky to be able to hear the kids whine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree COMPLETELY with these guys that their father was ILLEGALLY Killed. They should be allowed to file a suit for compensation. Just make them come IN PERSON, to New York City, and file the papers at the Federal Court House....then they can have ALL the MONEY they want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I shall venture to guess that Omar bin Laden never questioned his father's killings of many innocent people (Muslim or non-Muslim) around the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boo hoo hoo. Osama had it coming. It was authorized by congress. Obama made the right choice to send in troops rather than cruise missiles. Now Osama sleeps with the fishes. Good riddance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NOW the oil-moneyed sons of a murderous hypocrite are concerned about paying attention to the very important legalities of the matter. Because if there's one thing Osama Bin Laden was all about, it was following the both the letter and spirit of international law.

One thing Bin Laden obviously hoped to achieve with 9/11 was to get the United States to abandon the principles it claimed to live by and lure it into ruining its economy by waging multiple ill-advised full-scale wars. Congratulations, you got exactly what you wanted. Don't forget to pick up your your prize: a bullet to the temple and a fun slide into the briny depths. Enjoy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's all take a moment to remember that killing is never 100% justified. It is bad to kill people. I feel so sad for those young men right now. They are wandering hopelessly without the strong guidance of a warm a loving father. I would type more, but the tears streaming down my face at the realization of this tragic injustice are endangering my keyboard. Think of the children, people! Think of the children...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, so unfair that a model law abiding citizen like Bin Laden is killed! His sons can't even deny that their father admitted on camera to 911, so it's not like they can dispute that he's a mass murderer. Hitler would be proud - who by the way is totally innocent since he was never put to trial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"killing an unarmed man"

Well, he should have armed himself if he was going to kill 3,000 people in NY, Wash D.C. and Pennsylvania.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with AdamB. No reasonable man is going to feel sad or guilty for the death of this terrorist who killed thousands of innocent people. However, the fact remains that U.S. violated both the International Law and the sovereignty of a state, something that quite reminds me of the U.S. invasion of Panama and the deposition of Manuel Noriega in 1989 (not to mention the 100% illegal war on Iraq).

According to the U.N. Charter, the war on Afghanistan was perfectly legal since it was an act of self-defense following 9/11. It is also well-known that Al Qaida members have been sheltered in Pakistan but NOT by the official Pakistani government. Therefore, even though it is morally justified to send troops in order to assassinate the world's number 1 wanted man, it is legally unjustified. Of course everybody knows that international law is applied only to the weak (Pinochet, Milosevic, Hussein, etc) and there is no way any U.S. President would ever held responsible for international crimes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US broke international law but that Oosama and those Eye-raqis did it first, and as every flag wavin' hootin' an' a hollerin' red blooded patriot knows, 2 wrongs make a right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look, to all you haters of the U.S. Some line on a map sets the parameters of what is right and wrong in life then you are very twisted. You say the things you say from the 4th or 5th person perspective. You've got no part in this.

A man decides his own fate for the most part. When pushed to the edge we discover who we really are and what we believe in. A man brutally rapes your daughter to the point where she can no longer bear children. Then you find out that monster is living well, with impunity. He draws a line in the dirt..in the DIRT and says you can't cross this line. I call it my country. No, no, no....you can't cross the line.

What do you do? Sorry, Miho-chan, daddy can't cross that line to get that monster who ravaged you for hours. This is where you are.

This is how America will respond. War is ugly. You can't referee that.

We said it. We will not negotiate with terrorists. You are part of the solution or part of the problem. You pick a fight with us, you better be ready. I'm not trying to be mean but Japan can tell you. Japan dragged us into the war, tested our resolve. It's not gonna be pretty.

So haters tell your friends. Advise them well before they come over to the U.S starting some madness.

You tell em: Batman has no jurisdiction. He'll find him and make him squeal. I know the squealers when I see em!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1) you're assuming that Osama actually died in the raid and not sometime in the years before (i.e. you're buying one of the confused alternate versions the white house has put out) 2) The peacenik Barack Obama lovers are suddenly foaming at the mouth at how wonderful it is that Obama supposedly "ordered" someone's death. 3) International law means nothing. It's a farce. Does not exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"2 wrongs make a right"

Um, it wasn't wrong to take out the world's most wanted terrorist who was responsible for killing thousands of people, many of them non-Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WOW some set of balls on those kids. Maybe if they told their pops to chill out and take it easy they wouldn't be so upset now. Personally, SCREW THEM!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not not too sure but I guess US Navy SEALS already have their snipers aimed at the future generations of Osama bin laden Jrs, and I can not blame the USA for having to kill this dude, he was responsible for not just the September 11 NYC terrorist attacks but many other terrorist attacks so he got what he deserved and his kids should learn a lesson from their crazy terrorist acts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Might is right. 'nuff said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After all l thought the US worked on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Or doesn't that count.

I suppose that's true of course - but when you release statements and videos proudly stating that you and your cause carried out these acts against the 'evil USA' aren't you pretty much confessing? Hard to convince with the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing when the killer confesses and hides out for almost a decade.

Funny, if this were 65 years ago or so and the OSS managed to get a team in to kill Hitler, there would be world celebration and medals for all. I seriously doubt whether anyone would give two hoots whether or not he was holding a Luger when they kicked down the door and put a round right in that ridiculous mustache.

The squeamish need to make a choice here. Modern technology has allowed radical extremist groups - specifically Muslim in this case - the ability to strike throughout the world basically at their discretion, and the targets are every-day folks like you and me. The history and root causes of it all are interesting study, but irrelevant to a large degree in practicality. [and by that I mean as example other than slight association with corporate America and the 'Capitalist West' the workers in the Twin Towers for instance had little to do with actively oppressing Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians - whatever the pet gripe. An immigrant mopping the men's room on the upper floors of Tower 1 for example is hardly a worthy example of American imperialism].

If you are Western - you're a target whether you like it or not. And whether or not you believe that George Bush, big oil or the British Empire is root cause if it all, it matters little. The radical Muslim Jihadist does not think like you - accept that. Whether or not you think 'we're unfair to them and I can understand their cause and sympathize' - they hate you because you're western. There was a recent report on a small neighborhood school in Afghanistan; the Imam was teaching the kids to hate America and American, and Westerners in general. He freely admitted it - and the kids all hated the west and firmly believed in death to every American and westerner. This wasn't some special school, but rather typical in such neighborhoods. They will indiscriminately blow you up and kill you, whether or not your some liberal type who claims to 'understand'.

My point. Well, you either understand the above and realize that things like putting a bullet between Osama's eyes and throwing his corpse in the sea was a necessary step in showing radical Islam that if you screw with us we will hunt you down and kill you, and dismantle your organizations - and you actually do this in practice without whining about American civil law applied to international terrorists, or you ask for their list of demands and fulfill them all, turn in your Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whatever 'card', and get out your bikes because we might run out of oil.

I do find it amusing that since the US has tried to be a 'true' democracy (impossible I think) the rest of the world tries to hold us firmly to that and criticizes at every point when we react out of necessity, yet holds no such standards to those who transgress against us. They ultimately become the victims in the world's eye and we the evil empire. Oh but the hands go out for foreign aid from the evil west, don't they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NBC Weekend Update with Seth Myers reported on Saturday that Bin Laden was killed while holding a 'bunny'.

The news anchor said, "So what?" A poll showed Americans in the center and to the right of center agreed with this assessment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We said it. We will not negotiate with terrorists. You are part of the solution or part of the problem. You pick a fight with us, you better be ready. I'm not trying to be mean but Japan can tell you. Japan dragged us into the war, tested our resolve. It's not gonna be pretty.

Too much arrogance and less rational thinking leads to an unavoidable catastrophe, my friend. Any superpower state in the world MUST remember this, either being the U.S. of the '90s or the China of the 2020s. Athens, Rome, Germany, Empire of Japan, Soviet Union....all of them paid the heavy price of arrogance. And no....it's not gonna be pretty.

International law means nothing. It's a farce. Does not exist.

Oh, yeah? Then why did the U.S. sign the ICC treaty and remains just to be ratified? Why do states (including the U.S.) devote so much amount of time AND money (and we are talking about billions of dollars) to negotiating new legal regimes and augmenting existing ones? Isn't this a paradox?

The answer is: International law is the world politics of the future. The states that realize this assumption quickly enough are the ones that are going to lead the future generations. The ones that assume it is a farce...they are going to face deep consequences.

This of course does not mean that i agree with the notion of International law. But it's a different thing to agree and a different to believe that it is a farce and does not exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth,

"There was a recent report on a small neighborhood school in Afghanistan; the Imam was teaching the kids to hate America and American, and Westerners in general. He freely admitted it - and the kids all hated the west and firmly believed in death to every American and westerner." Ok but lets look at why this is happening. Could it have something to do with the US approach to dealing with the terrorist issue. How many civilians has the US and its western allies killed in the pursuit of their war on terrorism and even before that (Iraq, Somalia, support of Israel etc). How many houses and lively hoods destroyed. Unfortunately this is not new, during the Vietnam war the US managed to get the very people it was protecting offside and had them helping the enemy by forced relocations, bombing villages, indiscriminant killing etc. And it seems they never learnt from that. The US military is the US militaries worst enemy when it comes to winning over the population and people wonder why they loose the support of the population and end up with these extremest views flourishing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bin Laden and others were terrorists and teaching others to become terrorists before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are some people you can reason with and some you can't.

@Tiger Moth - exactly! Thanks for saying all I wanted to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yasukuni,

"Bin Laden and others were terrorists and teaching others to become terrorists before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan" yeah thats right and the US had a large military presence in the Mid east before both of these events which was one of OBL stated aims (to get them out of Saudi). This didnt begin with the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. But those two events certainly drew more supporters to the anti US cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting that for all the bashing of Bush, even a super peace-loving, Nobel Peace Prize winning, respecter of all countries and faiths, all-round nice guy President like Obama ordered the attack on Bin Laden, and even he isn't saying sorry for it for his death.

But still some people don't get it.

So even with Obama as President, the US is still the bad guy...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bin Laden's sons say U.S. broke international law by killing their father"

In other news, Charles Manson's mother said that the handcuffs used on her son were too tight, and Hitler's niece complained that derogatory comments were made in British news reports about her kind Uncle.

Yes, it's a nasty world we live in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yasukuni,

"In other news, Charles Manson's mother said that the handcuffs used on her son were too tight, and Hitler's niece complained that derogatory comments were made in British news reports about her kind Uncle. Yes, it's a nasty world we live in."

And in other news US drones kill another couple of civilians in Pakistan, oh well all for the greater good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adam B-"because the US has its 'little' war on terror going on " LOL that pretty much says it all about your opinion and the state of your mind on this subject. "left wing looney"- your words exactly hit the nail on the head.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai,

So because l disagree with the US methods of waging this war makes me a left wing looney. Well l guess your stance makes you a right wing war monger then.

And for your information while l didnt support Bush's war on Iraq l actually do support the war on terror. And yes its little, its being fought on a limited scale with limited resources that by definition makes it little. Oh and just because one doesnt support the methods employed doesnt make them a looney. But supporting war at any cost without regard for international law well that is an interesting one, guess theres only one term for that blood thursty warmonger.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bin Laden's sons say U.S. broke international law by killing their father

Are you serious? So killing 3000 people in the World Trade Center is not breaking the law?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bin Laden's sons are idiots, 100% certified loons. First of all, who cares what they think, seems to me, that they hold their father in high regard, even though he killed 3000 people, its OK! He's our dad and the U.S had no right to take out our father. How about a real Journalist asking the sons, what about what their father did, that he was responsible for so much pain and tragedy, wonder what they would say to that?

But supporting war at any cost without regard for international law well that is an interesting one, guess theres only one term for that blood thursty warmonger.....

That is also becoming a very weak argument. At this point and time, I think most Americans care about being protected and even more so, now that OBL is dead. IMO being liked by the world is NOT my first priority and if people out there don't like that point of view, it is alright to disagree, but when you have a high target such as Bin Laden that wants to kill most Americans and I realize, for most liberals 9/11 is a distant memory, but the truth is, the man was the biggest danger and after what he did, needed to be taken out, not arrested or tried in a civilian court and the trial becoming a mockery like Milosevic! What a circus that turned out to be or the Lockerbie bombers, now one of them is living in a mansion???! No, OBL got what he deserved, when more like him come out of the shadows, they need to suffer the same fate, if they want to become martyrs, then why wait? Bring the fight to them, screw the UN. I just really had enough of Liberals and some Europeans preaching about international law, while having problems with their own Muslim community, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France, Russia etc. and we have to be lectured about international law while radical islam is strangling most of Western Europe?! They should get their problems under control first, get the UN in order, clean it out and I mean, clean it out, sunlight is the best disinfectant! Once they have all that under control, yeah, maybe we can chat a bit....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk

Bin Laden's sons are idiots, 100% certified loons.

Right, and how do you think you'd have turned out if you'd been raised in their circumstances?

radical islam is strangling most of Western Europe

How, exactly? It's having a lot less effect than the lunatic Christian Right in your wonderful "Land of the Free".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk,

"But supporting war at any cost without regard for international law well that is an interesting one, guess theres only one term for that blood thursty warmonger....." this arguement was used because in the eyes of some posters here if you do not support 100% what the US is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philipines, and various other places (in the name of the War on terror) then you must be a left wing looney. Let me just say this, OBL was an evil sob, yes the US was right to get rid of him. Did they go about it the right way? No, they have created an issue that may have huge ramifacations. As Pakistani government officials have said in the media what if India now enters their territory to get a target. This sort of action could lead to much worse. How honestly would you feel if this story went along the lines of Pakistan shot down x amount of US helicopters killing x amount of US servicemen. How would that feel? By all means go after your target but think through the consequences first.

You say "IMO being liked by the world is NOT my first priority and if people out there don't like that point of view, it is alright to disagree" thats right people can disagree but remember for everyone that disagrees some will disagree violently and a new terrorist is born. It has long been a fault with the US, who cares what the world thinks were doing it. Maybe just maybe that is why a good portion of the world dislikes the US and maybe just maybe out of that some people can become violently opposed to the US has that occured to you.

No country is perfect but the more enemies you make the more risk you are in. Remember each action has repercussions, by all means the Taliban needed to go, OBL needed to go. But how you do it is the key, killing civilians as collateral damage that makes enemies and the cycle continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thats a JOKE!! unarmed? So wasn't the people in planes & in the Buildings! its Brainless to think that "its OK to kill" in the name of Religion. Many Muslims also Hate since they are Dragging the name of Islam Through the MUD!! Many are afraid to speak out since they themsleves might be killed. Thankfully theres MANY countries who have the GUTS to Fight Terrorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you kidding me? Directing terrorists to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon is mass murder on a heinous scale. The US was responding with justice. Bin Laden deserved to pay for his crimes against humanity, and now he has. Thanks, Navy SEAL Team 6!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@AdamB,

If there were a way to stop terrorism and and get rid of those responsible and have zero civilian casualties, I would be all for it.

Clinton, Bush, Obama. None of them have been able to do it. If you think you can, then send your ideas to the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama was so desperate to polish his hero image for the election campaign so he jumped the gun and used gangsta style. Imagine if a group of army from another country secretly enters the US to kill some guy. That wouldn't be too nice. I don't even know if they had any concrete evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with the the attack. There are too many stories floating around. But whatever, the whole thing was just like a badly written Hollywood script.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

genkimark at 10:38 AM JST - 13th May Are you kidding me? Directing terrorists to crash planes into the WTC and Pentagon is mass murder on a heinous scale. The US was responding with justice. Bin Laden deserved to pay for his crimes against humanity, and now he has. Thanks, Navy SEAL Team 6!!

The sons' objection is legal, not about justice. The law isn't actually about justice, it's about the law. The two may occassionally coincide, but in this case they don't. Strictly speaking the U.S.'s action was illegal, regardless of how just it may have been.

Personally Bin Laden has a horrible track record even before Sept. 11, a lot of it financed by the U.S. back when they were buddies, so I don't find myself feeling at all bad about Bin Laden's death, however to call it justice is pushing it a little far since the U.S. to a large degree "created" Bin Laden.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe just maybe that is why a good portion of the world dislikes the US and maybe just maybe out of that some people can become violently opposed to the US has that occured to you. No country is perfect but the more enemies you make the more risk you are in. Remember each action has repercussions, by all means the Taliban needed to go, OBL needed to go. But how you do it is the key, killing civilians as collateral damage that makes enemies and the cycle continues.

It doesn't matter what the US does, there will always be people that don't like us because of who we are or jealous or hating our values, so it's not that you can make it worst. The people that hate us, hate us. The people that love us, love us and there are the ones in between, but if the US is so despised as you put it, why are we still having thousands of people flocking into the US, why not Canada or Australia, they have enough land. They can immigrate to those countries, but they are not. All I am saying is that the US will always be the country to stick its neck out no matter what and there will be people that really appreciate it and then there will be some that will do anything to kill us. So I and millions of Americans know what you are saying is somewhat true. But it doesn't matter and most Americans I know at this time and point, really don't care what the world thinks. But hey, when the world that hates us is in trouble, boy they have no problem taking our money, that is never, ever a problem or when there is a natural disaster or our resources, food or would you rather buy food from China or do you think Russia, France, Japan, Germany, Spain or Canada will come to the rescue? Hmmmmm....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I needed a laugh today.... Good story. Ha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok but lets look at why this is happening. Could it have something to do with the US approach to dealing with the terrorist issue. How many civilians has the US and its western allies killed in the pursuit of their war on terrorism and even before that (Iraq, Somalia, support of Israel etc). How many houses and lively hoods destroyed. Unfortunately this is not new, during the Vietnam war the US managed to get the very people it was protecting offside and had them helping the enemy by forced relocations, bombing villages, indiscriminant killing etc. And it seems they never learnt from that. The US military is the US militaries worst enemy when it comes to winning over the population and people wonder why they loose the support of the population and end up with these extremest views flourishing.

AdamB - Yes, we should have learned well after Vietnam that 'winning the hearts and minds' of the people isn't really practical. The promise of democracy is not a war winner when the nation in conflict doesn't really understand or want this necessarily. Killing civilians is bad mojo - well, killing anyone is - unless they openly deserve it (OSB, Hitler, Stalin, et al).

The problem that you do not address here is that prior to 9/11 extremist efforts - while yes often directed at the innocent rather than the military - were small enough in scale to warrant limited response. When thousands of innocent US civilians were killed in attacks on NY, and then with the attacks elsewhere, these extremists had to know and understand they were taking the game to a new level; they chose this path. Osama chose this path and helped lead them happily down it, Kalashnikovs blazing away happily into the air at the news of it. If their aims were to get the US and the west out of Arab/Muslim affairs - and out of their countries - how did they reason that attacking NY and civilians in other cities might achieve this goal? It didn't take genius to figure US response.

Just as winning the hearts and minds doesn't work, neither does terrorism, and history has pretty much proven this.

I'm not certain I even understand the argument that these terrorists want the west out of their countries - except for religious purposes of course. I don't know family history, but isn't OBL's family rich from the oil industry (i.e. selling to the west)? Why don't they target and kill the oil sheiks who make untold fortunes off selling oil to the west while the rest of the population lives in third world poverty? And conversely to that, if the US and the west did indeed find another source of energy and leave the middle east to its own devices, it would be nothing but a backward third world shite-hole (except Israel because they make it all work with their 'evil' western ways - and possibly a few other nations who can make it work). They would still hate us likely, but without western investment and assistance, where would they be? Would it be a peaceful utopia and Muslim heaven of the warm desert sands, nomadic herdsmen, exotic oasis of Arabian elegance that supposedly existed before western interference? I doubt it.

And besides all that, you seem to excuse away terrorist action because of US and western action. We interfered in Palestine, so therefore it's justified to bring Jihad on the evil west and kill civilians. You say the US shouldn't do what the terrorists do, but it seems somehow okay that they do the same thing. A confusing and viscous cycle. I would counter that there was trouble in the middle east well before western imperialism came to play, and there would be trouble if we left.

My point with the school thing was to illustrate that in too many areas hate is being taught as doctrine, not learned from experience. How do we peacefully combat that - and with no civilian casualties? Do you put your head in the sand and hope it all goes away? Children taught to hate America and taught how to serve Allah and Islam with a suicide vest full of TNT is a real and tangible threat. Whether this was created by US action now becomes not the immediate issue - dealing with the danger and action created by this hate fostered by radical Islam becomes the immediate concern. Killing the symbolic head is a first step in removing the cancer.

In the end, it's easy to just say that 'if the US abandons its policies in the ME and stops its horrible invasions and war on terrorism, then the terrorism itself will lose cause and momentum'. But your confusing rationalism and natural cause and effect with radical religious fervor which has no rationality or logic. How do you logically stop a thought process that firmly believes that killing is their god's will? You ask us to combat insanity with rational logic, and that's as futile as the 'hearts and minds' theory. It's not pretty, PC or a benchmark of humanity to say that sometime logic comes from the barrel of a gun - but as long has humanity is flawed, it does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so i guess OBL didn't break Intl law I know, two wrongs don't make a right I think no-one really cares about Intl law on this issue, on either side, now it is just scoring political points

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Make no sense since these OBL's sons belong to the cells of a rouge terrorist network that ignores the international law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If he cared so much about the law, why didn't he turn his father in. He never cooperated in that aspect, but now he's talking about the law.

OBL launched attacks in a war. He was a military commander, and nobody not even Al Qaeda ever disputed this. Not even Al Qaeda says it was unfair to kill OBL because they know this is a war - it's just pussies like OBL's son that whine about it. At least Al Qaeda gets it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bass4funk

It doesn't matter what the US does, there will always be people that don't like us because of who we are or jealous or hating our values, so it's not that you can make it worst. The people that hate us, hate us.

This seems to be a common line of 'reasoning' that has appeared of late from Americans, and it is both historically ignorant, and disingenuous. Anti-US sentiment and the rise of terrorism against the US is as a direct result of what the US has DONE in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1(as well as other parts of the world) by way of political manipulation, meddling, covert financial, intelligence and military support of groups seen to be useful to US interests - which includes Saddam Hussein and his Baath party, Osama Bin Laden and early incarnations of the Taliban (you can see the irony here, right?), and of course direct military action. So the idea that 'they just don't like us' is a kind of schoolyard logic that is complete rubbish. Unfortunately, if you actually spend your time reading history books, you will find that many people have very good and long established reasons for disliking the US and your continued interference in their part of the world.

but if the US is so despised as you put it, why are we still having thousands of people flocking into the US, why not Canada or Australia, they have enough land. They can immigrate to those countries, but they are not.

Again, do your homework. Australia took 208921 people in 09/10, about 25,000 of whom were humanitarian refugees from places like Afghanistan. Canada planned to take 265,000 people in 2010, and in fact, all 3 countries you mentioned make the list of the top 10 recieving countries of immigrants in the world.

All I am saying is that the US will always be the country to stick its neck out no matter what and there will be people that really appreciate it and then there will be some that will do anything to kill us

Don't be so naive. If the US ever sticks it's neck out, it stands to gain in some way from the exercise, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Captain America is a comic book hero, not a modern state the rest of the world adores.

@Tigermoth Your post illustrates exactly why the anti US sentiment is so high in the Middle East, and why people are driven to extreme acts of terrorism. Your post is basically a racist tirade accusing the Middle East of being full of imbecillic, backwards people who do not have the ability to 'run' things properly themselves, and therefore require an Imperialistic overlord (The US) to ensure they do. As a member of the country that purports to be 'freedom loving' and the greatest democracy in the world, you can see the irony of this, right? It's the old Orwellian notion that all men are equal, but some men are more equal that others. Right? It is exactly this attitude, and subsequent behaviour, that people quite rightly take extreme exception to.

My point with the school thing was to illustrate that in too many areas hate is being taught as doctrine, not learned from experience.

I agree, and I think you are a victim of it also, though I doubt you will be able to see it. Have you been to any parts of the Middle East? Have you researched the history of US involvement in the ME? Have you ever talked to the people of this region? Yet you seem to have this vitriolic hatred of the people of this part of the world. Why is that? To me you are both on opposite sides of an argument, but you aren't all that different to those you despise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some situations create the need for certain laws to be broken. This situation is among those.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NBC Weekend Update with Seth Myers reported on Saturday that Bin Laden was killed while holding a 'bunny'.

The news anchor said, "So what?" A poll showed Americans in the center and to the right of center agreed with this assessment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, Bin Ladin Jr. is right, actually. While islamist terrorist in Holder`s USA get miranda rights and civil courts, in faraway countries Obama is killing whoever he suspects of something by remote control and without question. And illegally.

It is a pretty bizarre situation. But don´t expect the Obama sycophant press to question it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WillB, this is not President Obama's fault. GDubya is channelin' thru 'The One'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This seems to be a common line of 'reasoning' that has appeared of late from Americans, and it is both historically ignorant, and disingenuous. Anti-US sentiment and the rise of terrorism against the US is as a direct result of what the US has DONE in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1(as well as other parts of the world) by way of political manipulation, meddling, covert financial, intelligence and military support of groups seen to be useful to US interests - which includes Saddam Hussein and his Baath party, Osama Bin Laden and early incarnations of the Taliban (you can see the irony here, right?), and of course direct military action. So the idea that 'they just don't like us' is a kind of schoolyard logic that is complete rubbish. Unfortunately, if you actually spend your time reading history books, you will find that many people have very good and long established reasons for disliking the US and your continued interference in their part of the world.

That is your point of view and you are titled to have that point of view. When pointing out historical facts what are you basing them on, the victor or the victim? So what is your overall point? As I said before, many Americans are fed up with fanatical Islamo-faciscts and if you would study history, you would see the importance of America and what America has been doing, are we a perfect nation, no one is stating that, personally, I have never met a single American that thought like that, maybe some Europeans think that we think like that, but I never heard it. Again, some people long to be liked, but most Americans I know couldn't care less and?

Again, do your homework. Australia took 208921 people in 09/10, about 25,000 of whom were humanitarian refugees from places like Afghanistan. Canada planned to take 265,000 people in 2010, and in fact, all 3 countries you mentioned make the list of the top 10 recieving countries of immigrants in the world.

Yes and we took in 2009 documented about 280.000 and undocumented in California alone is around by best estimates 2.5 million and yet still more are coming from Russia, Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia and more, not including the fastest growing segment which is the Hispanic community, I don't see and end coming.

I agree, and I think you are a victim of it also, though I doubt you will be able to see it. Have you been to any parts of the Middle East? Have you researched the history of US involvement in the ME? Have you ever talked to the people of this region? Yet you seem to have this vitriolic hatred of the people of this part of the world. Why is that? To me you are both on opposite sides of an argument, but you aren't all that different to those you despise.

You have no idea as to what I have seen or if I know anything about ME culture. For you to insinuate that on your part is totally irresponsible. Also, you cannot lecture me or other Americans about hate. We have a very distinct and accurate view of what hate is. If you have to ask that kind of a question, then I can't help you. Personally, I have no hate for ANYONE except for the people that are trying to kill us and I would like to ask you a question, do you think many people in the ME study or know anything about America or our culture? So do these fanatical manics think that in the future if we are attacked like 9/11 again that we will not respond or just forget about it. That will never happen, but if you would really learn and understand ME culture, the sentiment started not only about the Ottoman empire, but fundamentally what we stand for as a nation. We want peace, but we will respond when a person like OBL thinks that he can shake our foundation and that we will scurry with our tails between our legs, that will never, ever happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bass4funk

. When pointing out historical facts what are you basing them on, the victor or the victim? So what is your overall point?

When pointing out historical facts I try to look at them objectively and impartially. I am neither American, nor Muslim, and I would be very careful about the origin of a biased account if it emenated form either of those two sources. Are you not aware of the facts I quoted, Bass4funk? Perhaps you should do some research of your own. You will find somewhat of a Pandoras Box open up in front of you. As for my overall point, I thought that was pretty clear, but I will restate it for you. You suggested that;

'It doesn't matter what the US does, there will always be people that don't like us because of who we are or jealous or hating our values'

I am saying it is rediculous to think that people don't like you just because you are American. I am saying that the people of the Middle East have very good and well founded historical reasons to dislike the US, and that it is not just a whim of fancy, as you seem to suggest. If you do some real homework, you will find this to be true. Osama Bin Laden got what was coming to him, in my humble opinon, legally or otherwise, but his death will not see the end of the anti US sentiment or terrorism against the US, because the operation itself is just a very small example of the kind of thing that the US has been involved in for many, many years in the Middle East, and guess what? The people of the ME don't like it at all. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a rambling affair, and not all that coherent to be honest, but you will find that what you responded to was directed at comments made by Tigermoth, not yourself. Check it carefully next time. I will say this though - I am not attempting to lecture anyone, I am just participating in a public discussion, as are you, and I am entitled to take exception to comments I think are misguided and innacurate. We can have a discussion without it turning into a slanging match, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NBC Weekend Update with Seth Myers reported on Saturday that Bin Laden was killed while holding a 'bunny'.

The news anchor said, "So what?" A poll showed Americans in the center and to the right of center agreed with this assessment.

Questions regarding this win are counter-productive unless you're rootin' for the other team. In that case, you can't help yourself and we umderstand... as usual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin "NBC Weekend Update with Seth Myers reported on Saturday that Bin Laden was killed while holding a 'bunny'.

The news anchor said, "So what?" A poll showed Americans in the center and to the right of center agreed with this assessment." this is the third time you trotted out this tired silly statement. we heard you the first 2 times and it wasn't funny then either. what are you trying to say? it really makes no sense. let it rest

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bdiego:

" OBL launched attacks in a war. He was a military commander, "

Did he now? Last time I looked, he was a radical salafist cleric, a religious man and preacher. Like Ayatollah Khomeini, who brought us the glorious Iranian revolution and Sharia with stoning of homosexual and all its other niceties. Or the blink Sheik Omar Abdul Raman, whose followers tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 (remember that one?), or Yussuf Al Qaradafi, head cleric of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring CAIR, who is preaching violent jihad against Israel and says it is legal to kill Jewish women and children.

All these people are allowed to spew their hate teachings, in some cases on religious visas and with public support, and nobody is sending Seals to kill them.

Find any smidgen of inconsistency here? Remind us what exactly is so different about Sheikh Bin Ladin. He never piloted any plane, he was sitting in Afghanistan and preaching theology when 9/11 happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OBL might destroyed the WTC and deserved to die, but Bush burned the entire Iraq & Afghanistan you believed ONLY Iraqis soldiers were killed/ harmed?

looking at the big picture, i simply think that both sides are extremist. be it the terrorist whatever their names or the US & its allies. the only difference is that the terrorist does not have legal govt while the allies formed govt in many countries. furthermore they have huge influence in the Utd Nation thus having the final say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

michaelwhite:

" OBL might destroyed the WTC and deserved to die, but Bush burned the entire Iraq & Afghanistan "

How many wrong statements can you cramp into one sentence? OBL destroyed nothing. He was in his comfortable house in Afghanistan when 9/11 happened. He motivated others to do it, that is all.

And GWB "destroyed entire Iray and Afghanistan"? What kind of bizarre statement is that? If you care to look, Iraq and Afghanistan are still there, and bigger messes than ever.

What Bush did is he tried to "liberate" these pathetic places in the misguided belief that they would turn into Western democracies. That is the same stupid misconception that Obama is following. The pointless obsession about GWB among some is really getting old.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

What Bush did is he tried to "liberate" these pathetic places in the misguided belief that they would turn into Western democracies.

George Bush and the US's interest in the Middle East has far less to do with democracy and liberation than it does securing reliable and cheap oil supplies through sympathetic regimes there. It is far more about hegemony, than freedom and fairness for all. There are many, many corrupt despots and regimes around the world the US scarcely pay any attention to, because they don't need the oil under their feet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tamara:

" George Bush and the US's interest in the Middle East has far less to do with democracy and liberation than it does securing reliable and cheap oil supplies through sympathetic regimes there "

Nonsensical theory. If all you want is oil, you simply buy it from whatever dictator sells it to you. Look at how China does it.

No, Bush`s and the neo-cons "democratic domino theory" is widely documented in speeches and policy documents. And the liberal hero Obama has bought into it, hook line, and sinker.

The only difference is that now there is a sympathetic press, and the leftist activists keep both eyes firmly closed. Hypocrits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tamarama:

" oil under their feet. "

...and lest we forget, there is no oil under anybody`s feet in Afghanistan. So what is Obama doing there?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let the sons sue for wrongful death.

It would provide good comedy relief.

2 funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

And GWB "destroyed entire Iray and Afghanistan"? What kind of bizarre statement is that? If you care to look, Iraq and Afghanistan are still there, and bigger messes than ever.

of course they don't destroy all the mountains, rivers etc.. but how about houses & hospitals & buildings just in the name of war on terrorism or misfiring. thousands died because of that, even small children & women. of coz if you hear from CNN & BBC, they wouldn't show it.

What Bush did is he tried to "liberate" these pathetic places in the misguided belief that they would turn into Western democracies.

by the same token, we can't blame bin laden or alqaeda if they also tried & will try to "liberate" pathetic US. And I agree with Tamarama. bush wants the oil reserve. just that he don't want to pay. look at who are benefited from the oil contracts after the invasion-exxonmobil, halliburton, chevron etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB

..and lest we forget, there is no oil under anybody`s feet in Afghanistan. So what is Obama doing there

True my friend, but there is oil and gas in Turkmenistan to Afghanistan's north, and as early as '96 the Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL)were negotiating with the Taliban to build a pipeline to transport it through Afghanistan to Pakistan where it could be shipped to Western markets. These days it is called the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, and it is due to go into service in 2014. And a former employee of UNOCAL, Hamid Karzai, was the chap the US put into power in Afghanistan after they invaded in 2001. And he is still there.

Nonsensical theory. If all you want is oil, you simply buy it from whatever dictator sells it to you.

Not if said dictator suddenly decides to skyrocket his prices, or stop supply to you altogether if he doesn't like you anymore. Which is what Saddam Hussein did. Now the US takes 45% of all the Oil Iraq exports. Funny that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These awful Bin Laden creeps should just shut the hell up - the rest of us couldn't care less about their outrageous claims. Go back to your caves, boys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like these silly terrorists gloat when they do the damage, but start crying like babies when we hit back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, the mods are on to me about staying on topic, so I have to word this delicately.

.and lest we forget, there is no oil under anybody`s feet in Afghanistan. So what is Obama doing there?

President Obama, who authorised the legally questionable assasination of Osama BL, by launching troops from Afghanistan, which the US has occupied since 2001 under the pretext of a war against the Taliban, who, as you rightly point out, live in a country with no oil. But President Obama and the late Osama would be well aware of the oil and natural gas in Turkmenistan, to Afghanistan's north, and the negotiations in '96 by a Californian Oil company called UNOCAL (initially with the Taliban)to develop a pipeline to deliver the oil and gas accross Afghanistan into Pakistan, where it could be shipped to western markets. That pipeline project these days is called the Trans Afghanistan pipeline, has big US backing, and is due to come on line in 2014. And the man the US installed as the leader of Afghanistan in about 2004, Harmid Karzai, used to work for UNOCAL.

Moderator: Oil has nothing to do with this story. Please read it again before posting a comment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is amusing to see people talking nonsense & silly when they know they can't beat the facts. for me, i'm against any war/killing. and that's it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These awful Bin Laden creeps should just shut the hell up - the rest of us couldn't care less about their outrageous claims. Go back to your caves, boys.

No doubt!! I read that one of the sons say that the way their father was killed was so violently brutal. Brutal...? So I guess when they beheaded NIck Berg and Daniel Pearl it was OK, No outcry, huh? Hypocrites! At least Bin Laden didn't suffer, just got a bullet in the head and that was it. Nick and Daniel suffered enormously, horribly by comparison. The Bin Laden family are the lowest life form and should crawl back to the deepest Abyss from where they came from, unbelievable!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who really cares if OBL was aremed or not. He was taken out with a bullet to the head. Whoever takes the top spot for those idiots after OBL, better where a bullit proof helmet. We're gonna get him too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

benhur.

The "eye for an eye" I can sort of live with but when they make up excuses and say US laws overwrites International law, the end justifies the means, etc is where we part ways as do most logically thinking people including americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is what happened when someone trying to promote pure peace. fortunately world is not full of these pathetic gloats. otherwise 9 out of 10 man need to join army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny

but when they make up excuses and say US laws overwrites International law,

US law DOES override international law. So-called "International law" means nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, if you scratch the surface, you will find there is a very good ulterior motive to the US occupation of Afghanistan.

US law DOES override international law. So-called "International law" means nothing.

Wow, the arrogance. Exactly the kind of attitude that has fostered anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, and reprisal terrorist attacks against your country. If you want to continue to believe that, you'd better have a stomach for the conflict that follows it. For a long, long time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica,

"US law DOES override international law. So-called "International law" means nothing." I love it!!!! This is the exact reason why the US is one of the most HATED countries in the world. Guess what US law doesnt override International law, you may think it does but that kind of thinking is why your country is where it is now. The once mighty US, broke, decaying and trapped in a war it cant win. Creating a new class of enemy that wants to see it destroyed and you wonder why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica,

One more thing, when your country finally wises up to the fact that a good portion of the world hates them dont come crawling to other nations for help like you did with Iraq, Afghanistan etc. The US seems to pick these fights then drag other nations in on them.

I say you want to have the attitude then deal with the consequences alone, one would hope that you eventually learn the folly of your ways but l cant see that happening unfortunately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US of A should have taken out Bin Laden much earlier. But Better be late than.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB,

Spare us the anti-American speech. It's so easy to jump on that bandwagon. I can only assume that you come from a country that also sent troops to Afghanistan (and maybe even Iraq), so what room do you really have to talk? Besides, saying that international law doesn't mean anything, and that the US does what it wants is not up for debate. manfromamerica is closer to being right than you seem to be. If international law held any sway at all, Bush would probably be on trial as a war criminal, and Obama would not have been able to openly proclaim that we had conducted an assassination operation on Bin Laden without the consent of Pakistan or the international community. Like it or not, there's nothing the international community can or wants to do to stop the US from imposing its will, because the powerful countries benefit from these actions as well. I wish the world ran on peace and love, but it doesn't. Threats to the system of international trade cannot be tolerated. Not by the US, and not by any other government invested in its survival. You don't like America? Big surprise. America is openly hated on TV so that the other developed nations don't have to hate themselves. Some of the same countries that criticize us also continue to buy our government debt, which allows us to continue fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. So, not only is the international community not stopping us, but it's actually paying for us to continue. At what point is "international law" intervening to stop it? It does not exist. At least not in the way you imagine it. If anything, the American military is the muscle enforcing the will of multinational corporations and G20 countries, and the only "law" is making money, bullying weaker nations out of position, and dividing up the remaining resources. If you're a country who is not at the table, then I understand why you would hate America. However, in that case, you should hate all the other countries as well, including your own. It's not like anyone's hands are clean, but it seems everyone's only looking at America's. Believe what you want, but America won't need to "crawl" to other nations to ask for help. Look at Libya. Europe wants to get in the game now too!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

kansaichris,

Interesting post, so basically what you are saying is it is ok for people to get on here and post things like "US law DOES override international law. So-called "International law" means nothing.", and even your "and that the US does what it wants is not up for debate". But when someone dares to question this and point out some home truths you are anti american and told to be quiet, guess what you dont like it stiff.

For the record yes l am from a country that sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. And no l did not support the government decision to send them to Iraq however l do support the mission in Afghanistan. What l dont like and never have is the way the US military conducts its operations. Its not that l do not like the US as l have said before on many occasions as a nation it is ok but when you here statements like "US law overrides international law" l laugh. Obviously the rednecks cant see that its this thinking that gets you so hated around the world. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the US is heading the way of the USSR it to was once a great super power but is no more. The US is fast approaching the end of its reign as global superpower whether you like it or not. And what will happen when the countries that take its mantel start behaving like the US does?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We don't fight with the neighboring group to the point of bloodshed and inability to govern. - I said that above, which should be qualified with something like 'in the main'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eh.. I'm Amerikajin and this is all pretty ignorant. America as well as many other countries have been fighting terrorism and all searching for OBL for years. Amerika isn't the only one. Many countries have been targeted by terrorist attacks by the diff arms of his evil group. As a terrorist #1 target for years he's a shoot on sight target. no one has to have an excuse to kill him. We don't have to have permission from anyone. No one had to have permission. You find him. You kill him. Doesn't matter if he's armed, doesn't matter if he's babysitting his son. Doesn't matter if he's having a sunday picknic, you kill him. I don't think anyone would say the world is better off with OBL still in it. He's murdered hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, so if you want to sit and argue a moot point or the way the US went about it or whatever, you're wasting your time, go ahead, but it stands beside the fact that the US, any country, has had the OK for years to kill this guy. It makes me sick to think anyone would want him still alive or defend him knowing what a cruel human .. what a demon he was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For most Americans, we want to take care of ourselves, or family, and our country. That's enough, and all that needs to be said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kansaichris,

I must say very good post and l do agree with you mostly. Thank you for the level headedness of your response. But l want to assure you that my dislike of some parts of American culture i.e. statements like "US law superseeds international law" is in no way a hatred of the US as a whole. I disagree with things done in my home country and am equally critical, as l am of some aspects of my temporary home here. Just because someone is critical of a certain aspect doesnt make them hate the whole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adam, I am subject to American laws when I live in the USA, not "international law". It is the US governments responsibility to act in the best interests of the AMERICAN people, not in the best interest of the UN, the Pakistani people, or anyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica,

" am subject to American laws when I live in the USA, not "international law"." REALLY!!!! Wow. Considering the comment im refering to you made about Pakistan and that in regards to that country US law is more important than International law. In fact didnt you say International law means nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica,

"It is the US governments responsibility to act in the best interests of the AMERICAN people, not in the best interest of the UN, the Pakistani people, or anyone else." Just so l get this right, you are saying that the US government can do whatever it wants where ever it wants in the world with no respect to sovereign nations or the UN? is that what your saying

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder how many of the mods on this site are American? Seems to me, that Pro American posters are allowed to post pretty much anything here at present, including blatantly racist, bigoted and woefully ignorant comments about the Middle East, but the minute a counter argument is offered, it is heavily censored, or removed. You can’t have a forum open to all comers that sifts out views you don’t personally like. You can’t allow people to post completely biased trash, and not expect people to take exception to it. Japan Today isn’t becoming some Pro-American, CIA backed, jingoistic big brother state is it? It’s sure starting to feel like it. Go on, remove this post mods. You know you want to. Prove me right. It’s high time you took more care in allowing more balanced discussion here – after all, we come here because we enjoy it, we like the exchange of opinions and viewpoints on offer (even if some run counter to our own) and we like the healthy debate. But the moderation on this site at present is overdone, intrusive and way too heavy handed.

Moderator: Balanced discussion and healthy debate start with you, the reader, observing the rules of the discussion board.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB

"It is the US governments responsibility to act in the best interests of the AMERICAN people, not in the best interest of the UN, the Pakistani people, or anyone else." Just so l get this right, you are saying that the US government can do whatever it wants where ever it wants in the world with no respect to sovereign nations or the UN? is that what your saying

just so..

I can't be grateful enough for coming from a country that has no direct influence (good or bad after effects) from the murdering of Bin Laden (at least up to now since the 9/11).

Reading from the comments, I can just assume that for the 'peoples playing the game at the top', peace & justice should only accounted for their own sake. So much for the survival of the fittest. Retaliations will go on. As much as Al-Qaeda to be blamed, US are complicit as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites