Bin Laden sons say US broke international law

[trestres]

rocketpig said:

trestres said:

rocketpig said:

Doobie_wop said:
I agree that he should have died, I don't agree with how it was handled, but what's done is done. I was just interested in this point though, what do you think will happen now that he is dead? Will the US leave the middle-east alone? Will terrorist groups falter and lose some of their strength? Or is it all just a feel good thing for the people of the US? I'm not trying to be patronizing, I just want to know your thoughts on it.

I think it will have terrorists scrambling for awhile. It won't be a huge impact because their organizations are designed to withstand exactly this kind of loss.

Where it WILL impact them is recruitment, I think. Their face is gone. There is nothing left but old videos. There is no body, there is no evidence, there will be no more speeches, attacks, or anything under the banner of the charistmatic bin Laden. The man who brought the mighty (and evil) America to its knees could no longer hide from the might of the United States of America.

They've lost their rallying point, in my opinion. And that's going to be tough to overcome. From what I know of the rest of the organization, there is no one who can replace bin Laden and rally the people in the same way. They're lacking a recognizable (and to them, likable) face to bring them back together and keep the people in check.

I view it like this:

If you had a chance to take a shot at Hitler in 1940 or Stalin in 1935, you take that fucking shot EVERY TIME. I don't care if it was possible to *maybe* take them alive, you go for the sure thing, and that's a bullet in their skull. There are very few people who the majority of the planet consider to be a blight on humanity worthy of instant death. Bin Laden was one of those few and I agree with the decision to erase him from the planet with prejudice.

I agree with your idea, although there's something really important missing there. Where's the names of the USA presidents in the list of people that should have been killed when chance was there?

How is Bush any different than Osama when we talk about massacring innocents? Both violated international law, both declared war "in the name of". How is the invasion of Iraq for example any different than the invasion of Poland by the Soviets and Nazis in 1939? It's all with an ulterior purpose. Hitler's was to have a direct route tto attack the USSR by land. Bush's motives? I mean, sorry if I got a bit off topic, but when USA got attacked on 9/11, they used that pretext to start invading and destroying countries. Much like Vietnam. I mean, history repeats itself, those with a lot of power rely on the ignorance of the masses to deceive them and do whatever the heck they want. And yes, there's very few people in the world who know the truth about things, some of them known leaders, some of them in the dark. The USA broke the international law, the mediums don't justify the ends. I wonder how international community would have reacted if for instance Mexico bombed a residential area in the USA because one of the drug cartel leaders was hiding there. People need to place themselves in the skin of others to really understand the implications of such acts.

Sorry about the rant, I didn't quote you because of your post, but because your post gave me the chance of expanding on my idea.

The Iraq War was and is incredibly unpopular, that's a key difference. There was opposition to it and ultimately, it cost the Republicans the Presidency in this country. And while there were ulterior motives to the Iraq War (just like any war), comparing it to Hitler's invasion of Russia is folly. The ultimate goal of Hitler (and other dictators) is complete domination on a global scale.

When the US is in the midst of handing Iraq back to the Iraqi people (something they haven't had since before the Brits invaded, if ever), that comparison completely falls apart. There are plenty of reasons to complain about US international policy under Bush but let's not go off the deep end here.

@Bolded: Who said that was his goal? His goal was to expand on the East, to attack Russia because communism was a big threat to Germany and Marx himself wrote that the first 2 countries that should fall victim to communism were Germany and Russia, in that order, but German people had a much greater sense of nationalism and a smaller difference between classes, which made communism very difficult to establish and so they went for Russia were the Zaristic regimes was at an all time low.

Then at the wake of WWII, the allied forces declared war on Germany. I still wonder why France and Britain didn't stand apart and let the 2 dictators destroy each other. There's where the ulterior motives come into play.


As for the rest of the post, invading Iraq made zero sense from any point of view. It should have never happened and it's taken really long to give the Iraqis control back and demilitarize the country of foreign forces. Oh and WW2 was also incredibly unpopular before Pearl Harbor, and so was a middleaste war before 9/11. I mean, the USA always find the excuse to enter a war, why is the entire world trying to provoke them?