9/11: 20th Anniversary

[Mihalik]

What is happening in this thread? Are we really pretending that anyone who is a US ally would object to the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden?

With Bin Laden even countries that aren't on good terms with the US have basically went "Good riddance, and nothing of value was lost".

Again, beyond just the embassy bombings and 9/11 the guy was indirectly responsible either by ideologically inspiring to logistically enabling terror attacks and terrorism from Mali and Nigeria to Indonesia, and from North America to Russia and anywhere and everywhere in between.

With the only exceptions of Hamas, the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood every organization world wide from the Yakutsk Chess Club to the CCP was like "Thank god" when that shit head died.

[PhaelixWW]

I wanted him brought to justice, this wasnt that. Extrajudicial killings generally arent just. It sets a terrible precedent too

A precedent for what? Terrorist masterminds? Now you're sliding down the slippery slope of "If they do it to bin Laden, what's the say they won't do it to someone who isn't that evil?"

Also, to pretend like this was even remotely the first time something like this has happened is just laughable. Should someone explain Operation Valkyrie to you? And that's just the most high-profile example.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're just nitpicking, good to know. Not a good faith tactic.

Nah, bruv. It's not nitpicking when the details are important.

I admitted when I was wrong. I doubt you would do the same.

You stated that it doesn't matter that you were wrong; it does. You tried to claim that the details were insignificant; they're not. You tried to call it nitpicking; it isn't.

Also, please point out where you think I've been wrong.

[prwraith]

It's weird to me how stuck in that moment people are. Almost as if for a large portion of people, they're incapable of moving on.

Sure it's a traumatic event, but it does not make sense to effectively stop living because of it. As if a trauma is the single and only defining point in your life.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm not pretending this is the only time it has happened? It's the most relevant to 9 11 though.

If you're admitting that it has happened countless times throughout history, and even many times throughout US history, then it can't exactly be setting a precedent, can it? Setting a precedent would mean that it was a change from the way things were done before, and setting a new standard going forward.

Clearly that's not the case here.

Him watching tv or not was really that important to the fact he was killed? Its nitpicking.

You're characterizing him in a way that sounds like he was just some dude who was totes on vacation, not a threat anymore, and just at home watching The Price is Right, minding his own business. Then you characterized his funeral as just throwing his body in the ocean.

Those are extremely disingenuous statements. He was still actively involved in terrorist activities. He had weapons at hand in his bedroom. He definitely wasn't shot while watching TV. And he was given a proper Muslim sea burial. Those are the facts as reported.

You're mischaracterizing the situation to suit your narrative. If your narrative can't survive without those mischaracterizations, then the problem is probably with your narrative.

And if the mischaracterizations aren't necessary for your narrative, then don't get the details wrong.

[jonnysensible]

You're characterizing him in a way that sounds like he was just some dude who was totes on vacation, not a threat anymore, and just at home watching The Price is Right,

bruh he was playin counterstrike and watching jackie chan adventures

[Shadowferal]

Plenty of people around the world objected to his extrajudicial killing, I dont think many people would have opposed the death sentence for his crimes though.

Nobody objected. Even Amnesty International gave a wall-eyed glance at what little a writeup they had.
You're just full of fucked up beliefs about bin Laden. And you couldn't do shit then because your own country wouldn't hear you. And it's too late to do shit now...

[Milchshake]

What is happening in this thread? Are we really pretending that anyone who is a US ally would object to the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden?

If you want to hang onto a no-exception approach to extrajudicial actions then fine, but I think anyone with a hint of pragmatism would recognize taking out Bin Laden was valuable and not really objectionable.

It's an object lesson for how being Anti-Establishment isnt really a coherent ideology. It's just another dumb version of Populism.
Take a noble idea, "Wars are Bad", then turn it into your own personal soapbox. People tune you out. The movement gets hollowed out. All that are left are conspiracy cranks and cointelpro ops.


Example: Look at what happened at Code Pink over the last 20 some years.
Start by protesting the Afghan war.
Become a revivalist org for every anti-establishment cause from the 60s.
Stan for Assad.
Spend 9/11 2021 hanging with Boogaloo Boys to "End the Damn Wars".

[Shadowferal]

Amnesty international gave a weak willed objection to it. But they did object to the fact they didnt capture him alive given he was unarmed? My fucked up beliefs involve "by international law he should have stood trial"? That's so fucked up.

It must bother you that international law didn't apply.
But take heart! You're on the same page as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban.

-----

Bin Laden's death was welcomed throughout most of the world as a fitting end to a figure who had inspired mass bloodshed, and a positive and significant turning point in the fight against al-Qaeda and related groups. Those who welcomed it included the United Nations, European Union, NATO, and some nations in Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, and the Middle East, including Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Somalia, the Philippines, Turkey, Iraq, Australia, Argentina, and the rebel Libyan Republic.

[Shadowferal]

International law doesnt apply because??

Because it needs to be recognized in this particular case by those with power.

[PhaelixWW]

you're making a lot of assumptions about my beliefs.

No, lol, I'm not making any assumptions about your beliefs. Instead, I'm pointing out the disingenuity of your statements; that's far more objective.

Instead of asking for clarification you are taking the most bad faith interpretation of what I've said as possible.

Hahahahahahaha! So this, then, is not "asking for clarification"?

Why do you keep stating this like it's a fact?

Who said he was unarmed?

And why do you keep saying he was just "thrown into the sea"?

And how do you know?

A precedent for what? Terrorist masterminds?

Talking about "bad faith", hah. What a joke.

Like my argument doesnt rest on the fact he was watching tv or how they treated his body.

Then choose to get your facts right. You have only yourself to blame if your unwillingness to do even the most cursory fact-checking about shit that you keep repeating leads people to dismiss your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe he was wrecking phaelix and that's why they're behaving this way.

Ah, yes, resorting to ad hominems. Classy. And also a sign that you know your argument is weak.

[Themius]

Then complain to the U.N.. They did approve...

The UN was basically set up by the US so it could do whatever it wanted while looking as though it were legitimate.

[Shadowferal]

This is basically just admitting that powerful countries dont have to obey international law, which is part of what I'm complaining about.

For you to be heard you would need to appeal to the people in those countries. Do you imagine that anyone would have heard you then? Would they now?

[Lenonis]

Dunno lots of people here dont like america that much, but we are allies. And they dont appreciate that they feel that they can do these things.

Again, I'm highly skeptical there were objections to Bin Laden's death.

Is it really pragmatic to kill someone without trial when they could have been captured alive?

If capturing him alive were that easy it would have been done long ago.

- - - Updated - - -

But moral authority is eroded when exceptions are made to the principle of trial by jury.

Again, this only matters if there were objections to it. If everyone looks at the events and goes "yup, good on ya" then no moral authority was lost.

There are times when the cause of justice is so clear no one needs justification. These cases should be extraordinarily rare. Bid Laden would fall into that case.

- - - Updated - - -

Plenty of people around the world objected to his extrajudicial killing

Like who? Joe down on the street corner doesn't matter in this context. We're talking world leaders here.

[PhaelixWW]

You definitely assumed I was intentionally lying or misleading people.

Actually, what I said was:

You're consistently misrepresenting or lying about the facts that are known about the situation, and then claiming as facts things that are unknown.

That's not an assumption. It's an either-or situation. Even if it's a "mistake", it's still misrepresenting the situation. And I clearly didn't specify that I thought one of those two possibilities was more likely than the other.

In fact, I later acknowledged your claim of it being a mistake (even though that doesn't absolve you of the misrepresentation):

Yeah, so you really just have no idea what you're talking about. You're making assumptions, and then trying to pass them off to others as fact. It's bad enough when you let your false assumptions dictate your position, but now you're arguing with others based on your shitty understanding.

I don't see the part where I accused you of intentionally lying.

Oh come off it, you've already been arguing with ad hominems

Hmm, nope. My statements have all been objectively about the details of this discussion.

I guess a joke about how you're bad at counter strike was too far but saying I was intentionally misleading people when I made a mistake is okay.

Eeeeeexcept that I never said you were intentionally misleading people. I said that you were misleading people, and that you chose not to do any kind of fact-checking, despite making repeated assertions as fact. That qualifies as willful ignorance, which reasonable people would agree tends to rather cut through any attempt at claiming a "mistake" as a defense. Arguing from a position of willful ignorance is not the same thing as intentionally lying, but frankly, it's on the same moral level.

So far it's just you who is flat out dismissing my entire argument, you have a chip on your shoulder obviously

Again, I'm not even discussing the "entire argument". I just "have a chip on my shoulder" for gross misrepresentations, and particularly when they're repeated so heinously:

I Remember when they did the extrajudicial killing of Osama bin laden and dumped his body in the sea.

They executed him while he watched tv and threw his body in the sea.

Osama was found watching tv in a compound

If a team of some americas most elite forces cant arrest a unarmed man watching tv then they're pretty fucking useless.

cant say it's a good look to execute him and throw his body in the sea.

he was an elderly man watching tv.

All of that was in less than 24 hours, and all of it was before I decided to "ask some clarifying questions".

So, no, you shouldn't expect that people won't push back when you so blatantly get shit wrong, yet push so forcefully the idea that you're right.

But I'm done with this unnecessary tangent. I've said all I really need to.

[Lenonis]

There certainly were to the method in which he was killed, I linked a paper from cambridge written by lawyers who contended that they violated international law.

Come back to me when you want to respond to my actual argument.

They found him unarmed and opened fire before he was given an opportunity to surrender or pose a threat.

His existence posed a threat. You also weren't there. How do you know there was no threat? How do you know they could safely extradite him? How do you know the risks to your ideal outcome were minimal?

You don't. You are making up stuff because for some reason you really want people to feel bad Bin Laden was killed.

[zorkuus]

I take issue with the how. And I'm not alone on this

You pretty much are. Unless you want to be in the same crowd as the countries who are sympathetic to islamic extremism. Can you name any other country that had an issue with Osama being killed "unlawfully"?

[zorkuus]

I'm not a country

Then no one gives a crap. On this issue the opinion of a random individual is totally worthless.

The people whos concerns im echoing are human rights advocates

As a human rights advocate myself, I am sorry to say that there is sometimes lots of ideological naivety going around in those circles. Virtue signaling over practicality.

[Edge-]

Yes they do. Sadly this is just a part of a bigger picture where the US does more or less what it wants while it holds the rest of the world (especially nations which stray from capitalism) to a much higher standard.

I mean...most of the developed world is on the same standard. They all ignore international law when it suits them because there are no real enforcement mechanisms, especially for any country with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The developing world doesn't have this luxury as often.

[Edge-]

You look at why we created these laws and what its trying to prevent and then you see powerful countries ignoring them and it doesnt sit well.

Because no country will want to give up total sovereignty and let themselves be held accountable by a collection of others. And it's unlikely that will ever change without a MASSIVE global shift in popular democracies.

Hell, look at all the folks in the US constantly threatening/wishing to secede, plus Brexit recently. Sure, it's usually the more conservative parties that are more adversarial to international legal bodies, but even without them it's unlikely much would change in the current day.

[Shadowferal]

Then no one gives a crap. On this issue the opinion of a random individual is totally worthless.

Pretty much.
A lone voice complaining against the wind does little.
He'd need to get people to hear him...inside his country's borders, and in within US borders. I don't know where he's from but for the US he...well, he might be able to organize something at NYC at that particular memorial on September 11 of next year. He probably won't receive the response he wants, but I can almost guarantee he'll get attention.