Tygaland

Best of luck, Dajobo. Wishing you a speedy recovery!

No !@#$, Sherlock. 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. 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.

Also, I'd dispute the assertion that the Greens in Australia have "smart politicians who know how to sway public opinion". The only reason the Greens get seats in the senate is because people vote for them as a protest against the major parties with no clue as to their policies. Only in the past months, since they helped the Labor Party for a minority government, have the Greens policies been held up to the light and their numbers are on the decline. The only reason the Greens won a lower house seat for the first time was because of Liberal Party preferences as for some reason they preferred the Greens winning the seat over Labor. Next election the Greens will be preferenced last and will be annihilated.

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 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.

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.

We can only hope.

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.

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.

He was probably treated with much more dignity than many of his victims. I can't recall any of the people who were beheaded by his goons having their body treated according to Christian or Jewish religious traditions. Unless leaving the headless corpse in a street somewhere is the Christian and Jewish tradition.

You are so mired in semantics because the reality of the world does not fit with your mindset. bin Laden declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter two knobs of goat crap whether he had the religious authority to do it, he did it. He also planned and funded attacks on US citizens to follow that declaration up. The Geneva Convention, as far as I'm aware, only applies to wars between sovereign states. Al Qaeda is not a sovereign state but is still a body that has declared war on the US outside of the Geneva Convention. There are various other aspects of the Geneva Convention that put Al Qaeda outside of it but that example alone is sufficient to knock that argument on the head. bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group that declared openly and followed through their declaration of war on the US. The US was not obliged to take him prisoner, nor put him on trial. They were within their rights to kill him where they found him, which they did. Your attempts to apply two options in such a black and white manner shows you really are not interested in thinking about the situation. You hate the US and have made that clear to me on a few occasions so will believe anything that will back that mindset. To do that, you have to argue semantics and apply moral equivalence. By your words any soverign state who is attacked by a group that is not a sovereign state has no right nor power to defend itself and/or kill those attacking it. As for examples of sovereign states attacking terrorist groups. Israel has attacked Hezbollah and Hamas in reaction those groups' declarations of war against Israel. If I recall correctly, you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself either.

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? Secondly, I may be the only one here who feels this way, but there is a massive difference between celebrating the death of a man who planned and financed the deaths of thousands of innocents and celebrating the murder of those innocents by bin Laden as occurred throughout the Islamic world. The moral equivalence applied by people these days is breathtaking. And, The Rebel, if I'm not mistaken, bin Laden himself declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. So, you can hide behind your semantics all you like but bin Laden made the call and now he gets the consequences. Had bin Laden been taken alive it would have triggered abductions and executions of Westerners throughout the Middle East to try and extort bin Laden's freedom. Not to mention giving him a pulpit to preach from as he dragged his case through the courts for years. I'm sure you'd be fine with that as it is more about you feeling good about yourself than the cold, hard reality that your feel-good nonsense would bring.

The Greens in most countries care nothing for democracy, they are totalitarians wearing panda suits. This sort of ranting should not come as a surprise to anyone who has looked closely at Green parties.

Moridin nailed it. The illusion that there are people or alliances here pushing "moralism" is nonsense. "Moralism" is a cover-all for anyone who disagrees with whatever crap a group is trying to pull at any particular stage. The ones making all the noise about "moralism" are the ones who claim they despise it. It is a shadow created for them to box. Don't like what someone says about your latest war? Label them a pesky moralist and instantly they are discredited in the eyes of the peanut gallery as someone akin to the nosy old lady next-door who tells you to turn your music down all the time. Prudish, old hag! The facts of the matter are that every alliance and bloc in this game has their own opinion on what is "right" and "wrong". We all have morals, what those morals espouse is what differs. You need only look at the ODN-CoJ nonsense for an example. CoJ consider an alliance aiding an alliance they are at war with as an act of war, a "moral" opinion that has been the norm in the Cyberverse for as long as I care to remember. ODN believe that CoJ telling their protectorate of this is a "threat" worthy of special punishment in their peace terms. That is ODN's "moral" stand on the situation. Who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Depends on whose side you are on, I guess. For me, I have no link to either party but I can guarantee my opinion would be dismissed as "moralism" regardless. During Karma, MK and friends were at the forefront of the Karma revolution. Bringing a fairer, dare I say nicer, world but deposing the NPO and their allies. This is probably the only real example of a war fought on a truly "moral" platform. Yet, those at the forefront then are the ones bleating loudest about the "filthy moralists". Laughable. My suggestion to the owner of this blog is to move away from the big jug of Kool-Aid and get some fresh air. The thoroughbred you thought you bought is a mule.

Sorry to hear this, Alfred. The depths some will plumb in this game is never much of a surprise to me, unfortunately. Best of luck post-CN and I hope the morons involved give you peace now they have succeeded in what they were trying to achieve. The more I see of the new "golden age of CN", the more I despise it.