Jump to content
  • entries
    19
  • comments
    375
  • views
    3,651

American Vaudeville


Xiphosis

360 views

 Share

Bin Laden deserved to die. He deserved no trial, nor anything else. He invoked war to describe his struggle with the West and he was treated as a combatant; which is to say, he was shot in the head. On this point, I don't think many will disagree. But our reaction here in the U.S. last night left me with some serious disquiet, watching the crowds grow in DC, NYC and elsewhere.

The cheering and chanting didn't inspire me, it reminded me of Damascus, Tripoli, Kabul and the countless rallies since the US invasion of Afghanistan wherein crowds in cities such as those burned American flags and chanted Death to America. All the people in DC and NYC were missing were some Pakistani flags, and it would've been a scene familiar to most of us.

When it mattered, we were no better. We showed no more dignity, nothing. We stooped and we cheered as we heard that our soldiers had shot an unarmed man. And tomorrow, if there are celebrations at the death of American soldiers, we will watch in annoyance and incomprehension.

Murder should not be greeted with celebration; regardless of who or where it's done. It should be treated with seriousness and sobriety. Osama deserved the bullet he got; murder can be justified, I'll never argue otherwise, but if you're going to do it - show a little class. Respect the gravity of what you're doing. Understand that you are destroying an immensely valuable, and to some family somewhere, beloved person forever. And pull the trigger. And let that be the end of it.

It's an animal that rejoices in the slaughter of another, and yesterday my nation shamed generations. It isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

 Share

44 Comments


Recommended Comments



Like it or not there are international rules of warfare.

Since when was Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group considered a nation?

They don't play by any "rules", and so they don't get treated with the level of consideration that soliders and civilians get in more formalised conflicts.

I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.

Link to comment

Since when was Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group considered a nation?

They don't play by any "rules", and so they don't get treated with the level of consideration that soliders and civilians get in more formalised conflicts.

I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.

That is the problem, The Rebel expects there to be a two-tiered set of rules for warfare. One that applies to Al Qaeda and one that applies to the US and any other Western nation that finds itself in combat against Al Qaeda.

For the purposes of treatment of their fighters, The Rebel expects those fighters to be treated as though they fight for a sovereign state and therefore says that the US is obliged to treat them as per the Geneva Convention which covers wars between sovereign states.

On the other hand he does not expect Al Qaeda to treat their enemies as per the Geneva Convention as he now classifies Al Qaeda as not a sovereign state to support his argument. The result of this is a belief that the US and Western nations in general are to engage Al Qaeda in conflict hamstrung by rules that he believes Al Qaeda have no requirement to abide by in the same conflict.

Complete nonsense.

As far as animals enjoying killing, I have seen cats toy with their prey before killing them and leaving what's left on the doorstep as a trophy. I don't think the people celebrating the death of bin Laden were taking joy in killing but celebrating what the death of bin Laden symbolises for the nation and more specifically for the people who lost friends, relatives and/or work colleagues in attacks planned and sponsored by bin Laden.

A significant difference, in my opinion and therefore a completely understandable and justified reaction. For that matter, I don't think many humans take joy in killing otherwise we'd be living in a very different society.

Link to comment
Understand that you are destroying an immensely valuable, and to some family somewhere, beloved person forever.

What I am doing is removing a threat to the existence of what I value. If your moral code says it is wrong to celebrate human accomplishment, there is something wrong in your moral code, not mine.

Link to comment
Understand that you are destroying an immensely valuable, and to some family somewhere, beloved person forever.
What I am doing is removing a threat to the existence of what I value. If your moral code says it is wrong to celebrate human accomplishment, there is something wrong in your moral code, not mine.

It's not a matter of morals, it's class. I find it classless to publicly celebrate when you kill someone. I don't care if you do it in your head, but it really is unbecoming-as-hell of someone if you're literally throwing parties.

Link to comment

It's not a matter of morals, it's class. I find it classless to publicly celebrate when you kill someone. I don't care if you do it in your head, but it really is unbecoming-as-hell of someone if you're literally throwing parties.

I don't think the people who celebrated publicly killed bin Laden. They were celebrating what his demise represented. That being some closure on the 9/11 attacks. You may find it classless but I find it to be a normal reaction to such an event.

Link to comment

That is the problem, The Rebel expects there to be a two-tiered set of rules for warfare. One that applies to Al Qaeda and one that applies to the US and any other Western nation that finds itself in combat against Al Qaeda.

For the purposes of treatment of their fighters, The Rebel expects those fighters to be treated as though they fight for a sovereign state and therefore says that the US is obliged to treat them as per the Geneva Convention which covers wars between sovereign states.

On the other hand he does not expect Al Qaeda to treat their enemies as per the Geneva Convention as he now classifies Al Qaeda as not a sovereign state to support his argument. The result of this is a belief that the US and Western nations in general are to engage Al Qaeda in conflict hamstrung by rules that he believes Al Qaeda have no requirement to abide by in the same conflict.Complete nonsense.

No i dont believe in one set of rules for "them" and another for "us" just because america are dealing with a terrorist organisation doesnt mean every international law is worthless, since every country including america signed and agrees with those laws means they must follow them and not when it suits them.

Just because a terrorist organisation dont follow the rules doesnt mean they escape the laws.

And Tyga the Geneva conventions does cover the war with Al Qaeda and both should follow those rules; look at Common Article 3...

Link to comment
I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.

I was going to point out the exact same thing. Well said.

Link to comment

And Tyga the Geneva conventions does cover the war with Al Qaeda and both should follow those rules; look at Common Article 3...

No, it doesn't. It applies only to wars between two or more sovereign states. The US is a nation state, they were declared on by bin Laden who leads Al Qaeda which is not a nation state.

It also expands further, in Article 4 to describe combatants are required to do in order to be covered by the PoW aspect of the Geneva Convention. They are:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

At a stretch you can say Al Qaeda met the first requirement, although it is fairly vague but they definitely fail on the last three.

That you acknowledge that Al Qaeda do not follow the laws and customs of war is an admission by your own words that bin Laden was not required to be treated as per the Geneva Convention. This is ignoring the fact that knowledge of what happened at the time he was killed is still largely speculative.

He was the leader of a group that regularly hid amongst and killed civilians. He was the leader of a group that war no uniform and carried no identifying sign. He was the leader of a group that hid their weapons from view when attacking civilian targets. He was a leader that was inside a compound surrounded by armed guards who fired on troops when they stormed the compound.

How you can possibly argue that, one, the troops involved in the operation were not within their rights to kill bin Laden when confronted by him and, two, that the US are required to treat Al Qaeda as a sovereign state with all the trimmings that come with it when they are clearly not a sovereign state is mindboggling.

Link to comment

-snip-

Tyga nice try but Art. 4 - Prisoners of war, has nothing to do with what you're arguing about which is Art. 3 - Conflicts not of an international character.

Google it as even the supreme court says that Art. 3 covers this war, but i guess you know more than the judges who know and understand international laws :rolleyes:

Link to comment

-snip-

Tyga nice try but Art. 4 - Prisoners of war, has nothing to do with what you're arguing about which is Art. 3 - Conflicts not of an international character.

Google it as even the supreme court says that Art. 3 covers this war, but i guess you know more than the judges who know and understand international laws :rolleyes:

You are trying to tell me that when bin Laden was discovered the PoW clause is not activated? It is the entire topic. Under that clause he does not qualify as a PoW and therefore his shooting was entirely legal and justified.

You cannot ignore things because it doesn't fit your mantra, As for the supreme court, the US supreme court also determined carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

Link to comment

I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.

That is an interesting take. Emotional experience and expression is obviously most advanced in humans, and we do have a hard time communicating with other animals so we can't unequivocally say that the emotional spectrum of animals is limited to experiencing joy in none killing situations, if they experience joy at all. but.... oh, who am I kidding, that wasn't an interesting point you made, just mindboggling naive.

Link to comment
I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.
I was going to point out the exact same thing. Well said.

Animals do act in such a way when they kill. Haven't you ever watched a cat kill a mouse or bird to then watch it prance away with it's victim in it's mouth. The cat is proud to of killed the mouse and takes joy in the fact that it did kill it. Besides that I have never seen a cat just kill anything swiftly, most of the time they toy with the poor thing then kill it.

It annoys me when the people use "humans are the only ones that kill or war" argument when in fact many animals kill for more then just food. They kill for dominance, mates, protection and territory, so really don't preach a lie or pretend you are Dr Doolittle.

Link to comment
Since when have we been better then them? Just because we pretend to be doesn't mean we are so I'm not even going to say I was shocked by the crowds of people. I just hope he suffered.
Just because we weren't yesterday doesn't mean we can't, and shouldn't be, today./sounds like sappy thing Liberal Arts professor would say//still true

Yes, that is very true but I think the expression Hate breeds hate would explain why we will forever act this way.

Link to comment
Understand that you are destroying an immensely valuable, and to some family somewhere, beloved person forever.
What I am doing is removing a threat to the existence of what I value. If your moral code says it is wrong to celebrate human accomplishment, there is something wrong in your moral code, not mine.
It's not a matter of morals, it's class. I find it classless to publicly celebrate when you kill someone. I don't care if you do it in your head, but it really is unbecoming-as-hell of someone if you're literally throwing parties.

Everything boils down to right or wrong, so I don't know how you can say it's not about morals. You're saying it's wrong to celebrate Bin Laden's death. I see why you may think this, but I don't agree with your logic. By my account, human achievement should be celebrated, and destroying bad people is an achievement.

Link to comment

Vengeance is mine, sayeth the yank?

Osama bin Laden's death, was a long time coming, one's deeds catch up, eventually. Some have their just rewards sooner than others who may go a generation or two without their comeuppance. But yeah, eventually it is a zero sum game.

Link to comment

Why does an enemy combatant deserve a trial in war? Utter nonsense. Are we to try and capture alive every enemy combatant during war and take them home for a trial before our courts?

With normal enemy combatants, yes. You capture them as prisoners of war and release them once the war is over.

That's what the Geneva Convention says.

Bin Laden was accused of war crimes, so the normal thing to do would have been to treat him as a POW and then try him for war crimes.

However... I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what the Americans did. There is a slippery slope argument to be made about assassination, but given that the US already has a history of political assassination, I'm not sure that sparing Bin Laden until the end of a trial would have made a difference there. He's an exceptional figure, and we're unlikely to see anyone like him come along again.

Link to comment

With normal enemy combatants, yes. You capture them as prisoners of war and release them once the war is over.

That's what the Geneva Convention says.

No !@#$, Sherlock.

Bin Laden was accused of war crimes, so the normal thing to do would have been to treat him as a POW and then try him for war crimes.

I'm not aware of him being accused of war crimes. I am aware of him being accused of committing, planning and financing mass murder of civilians outside of what would be construed as war. So, no, he is not required to be taken as a PoW.

However... I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what the Americans did. There is a slippery slope argument to be made about assassination, but given that the US already has a history of political assassination, I'm not sure that sparing Bin Laden until the end of a trial would have made a difference there. He's an exceptional figure, and we're unlikely to see anyone like him come along again.

You, like many, ignore the likelihood that, had bin Laden been taken alive, aid workers and other Westerners in the Middle East would be taken hostage as leverage to get bin Laden released. How many innocent people being tortured and beheaded would be enough for you to consider the killing of bin Laden the better option? Or does your desire to feel good about yourself outweigh the future suffering of people as outlined?

It has nothing to do with the US history of assassinations. It has to do with taking down a vile, murderous thug (not an "exceptional person") in a manner which will prevent him using the court system as a pulpit to preach more bile and also remove the likelihood of innocent Westerners in the Middle East becoming removed from their own heads in the process.

You may find bin Laden exceptional, I certainly don't.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...