Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 46 of 464 < 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >

ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 3.53pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 3.31pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him. The morality of targeted assassinations can be justified but that was not what was being argued here. But, for what it�s worth, i think the use of targeted assassinations is a very dangerous precedent to set that often has limited military value. The Black Hawks were used to ferry troops to and from the site, but the Chinooks weren't actually deployed 'on site', but at a staging location, which the black hawks would then operate from (The Black Hawks would have likely come from a different airbase, landed at the staging post first, taken on troops and fuel and headed out). I think its debatable how much actual information of ongoing value that Osama Bin Laden actually held, compared to say a hard drive on a computer, or documentation of financial transfers etc. Also incarcerated, they become a popular 'cause for liberation' resulting in terrorist attacks justified in the name of liberation. Dead, generally they're written off, as martyr to one side, and an enemy to the other. Personally I have much less of an issue with Al-Queda if it had just targeted the pentagon and white house, rather than flown planes full of civilians into the twin towers (full of civilians) and brought them down on the city of new York (more civilians) - or targeted the twin towers when they weren't packed full of people. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, for me, is generally who they choose as targets. I understand about the chinooks coming from a possibly different location and not deploying 'on site' but it doesn't follow that they therefore had to execute Osama. They were able to evacuate his body, and had time to destroy the damaged Chinook after the killing so i would still argue that evacuation was possible. I agree it�s debatable how much Osama really knew or how much info he could have provided, but he would have been able to provide more alive than dead certainly. I have to disagree with the idea that incarcerated he would have become a popular 'cause for liberation'. His popularity, for what it was, was already on the wane and I�d estimate that his martyrdom was probably more dangerous and more likely to inspire future terror attacks. I sympathise with your thoughts on al quedas choice of targets, and agree that a targeted campaign against the symbols of the american administration would be more morally justifiable (shaky?) but thats a western view. Al queda is mainly playing to the arab populations by justifying the killing of american civilians by the deaths of so many arab civilians in american (sponsered) operations.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

01 Sep 15 3.53pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 3.31pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm

Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm
What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I.

The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair.

But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals.

People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information.

And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior.

In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm)

I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission.

In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him.

The morality of targeted assassinations can be justified but that was not what was being argued here. But, for what it�s worth, i think the use of targeted assassinations is a very dangerous precedent to set that often has limited military value.

The Black Hawks were used to ferry troops to and from the site, but the Chinooks weren't actually deployed 'on site', but at a staging location, which the black hawks would then operate from (The Black Hawks would have likely come from a different airbase, landed at the staging post first, taken on troops and fuel and headed out).

I think its debatable how much actual information of ongoing value that Osama Bin Laden actually held, compared to say a hard drive on a computer, or documentation of financial transfers etc.

Also incarcerated, they become a popular 'cause for liberation' resulting in terrorist attacks justified in the name of liberation. Dead, generally they're written off, as martyr to one side, and an enemy to the other.

Personally I have much less of an issue with Al-Queda if it had just targeted the pentagon and white house, rather than flown planes full of civilians into the twin towers (full of civilians) and brought them down on the city of new York (more civilians) - or targeted the twin towers when they weren't packed full of people.

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, for me, is generally who they choose as targets.

I understand about the chinooks coming from a possibly different location and not deploying 'on site' but it doesn't follow that they therefore had to execute Osama. They were able to evacuate his body, and had time to destroy the damaged Chinook after the killing so i would still argue that evacuation was possible.

I agree it�s debatable how much Osama really knew or how much info he could have provided, but he would have been able to provide more alive than dead certainly.

I have to disagree with the idea that incarcerated he would have become a popular 'cause for liberation'. His popularity, for what it was, was already on the wane and I�d estimate that his martyrdom was probably more dangerous and more likely to inspire future terror attacks.

I sympathise with your thoughts on al quedas choice of targets, and agree that a targeted campaign against the symbols of the american administration would be more morally justifiable (shaky?) but thats a western view. Al queda is mainly playing to the arab populations by justifying the killing of american civilians by the deaths of so many arab civilians in american (sponsered) operations.

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 3.57pm
Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.45pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.12pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head. Not once did I say 100 percent he was armed, as it happens I know he wasn't that one of his wives was shot in the leg trying to defend him, he then resisted arrest and was quite rightly shot. My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren�t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony. The only source that says he wasn�t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth. So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don�t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer. Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly. In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don�t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are. You are right, i am a lovely bloke. Apart from that this is a regurgitation of your previous posts. I don't know where you have been researching but i would urge you to try again. The only report that Osama was armed came out just after the incident and was quickly corrected, so you are wrong there. You arrogant so and so, did you read my post, or are so far up your own arse hole you vision is a bit wonky, I've highlighted the bits you need to read before making yourself to be a total ass. Your point, for what it is, is that no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything. True enough but in practice we base our opinions on the evidence available to us. All of which indicates that Osama was unarmed. Are like arseholes everyone has one but most of them stink including yours. I apologise for calling you silly, this was not warranted. I reiterate that you are childish as you refuse to admit your mistake concerning Osama being armed. And I dont apologise for calling you arrogant, or narcasistic, the mere fact you don't even read others posts but just troll on regardless is proof enough. Childish, as i said. Osama was unarmed and you have this huge hissy fit because you got it wrong. Man up and just admit you made a mistake, it's really not that big a deal.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

01 Sep 15 3.57pm

Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.45pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.29pm

Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.12pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm

Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm

Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense.

How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief.

My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head.

Not once did I say 100 percent he was armed, as it happens I know he wasn't that one of his wives was shot in the leg trying to defend him, he then resisted arrest and was quite rightly shot.

My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren�t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony.

The only source that says he wasn�t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth.

So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don�t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer.

Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly.

In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don�t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are.

You are right, i am a lovely bloke. Apart from that this is a regurgitation of your previous posts. I don't know where you have been researching but i would urge you to try again. The only report that Osama was armed came out just after the incident and was quickly corrected, so you are wrong there.

You arrogant so and so, did you read my post, or are so far up your own arse hole you vision is a bit wonky, I've highlighted the bits you need to read before making yourself to be a total ass.

Your point, for what it is, is that no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything. True enough but in practice we base our opinions on the evidence available to us. All of which indicates that Osama was unarmed.

Are like arseholes everyone has one but most of them stink including yours.

I apologise for calling you silly, this was not warranted. I reiterate that you are childish as you refuse to admit your mistake concerning Osama being armed.

And I dont apologise for calling you arrogant, or narcasistic, the mere fact you don't even read others posts but just troll on regardless is proof enough.

Childish, as i said. Osama was unarmed and you have this huge hissy fit because you got it wrong. Man up and just admit you made a mistake, it's really not that big a deal.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 01 Sep 15 4.01pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.53pm I have to disagree with the idea that incarcerated he would have become a popular 'cause for liberation'. His popularity, for what it was, was already on the wane and I�d estimate that his martyrdom was probably more dangerous and more likely to inspire future terror attacks. On the wane because he wasn't news and had gone almost completely silent compared to his successors. If he were incarcerated he became big news.....Name me a famous leader who once incarcerated was forgotten? Killing Bin Laden was by far the lesser evil for the west. It was a tiny, if promised payback. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

01 Sep 15 4.01pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.53pm

On the wane because he wasn't news and had gone almost completely silent compared to his successors.

If he were incarcerated he became big news.....Name me a famous leader who once incarcerated was forgotten?

Killing Bin Laden was by far the lesser evil for the west.

It was a tiny, if promised payback.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 4.02pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 3.40pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.34pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 12.33pm What are these facts ? please show me, how do you know 100 percent that there was opportunity in the middle of a firefight in close quaters to detain and arrest the worlds Number one terror target, without further injury to your team. The simple answer is you don't know you have made an assumption based on what little scraps of material (valid) are avalible, as have Matt and I. The US Dept. of Defense and Seal Team operations. They specifically stated they were planning to capture Osama Bin Laden if at all possible, but the failure of one of the heavily modified helicopters (which crashed) meant that was no longer a viable option, so it became a kill mission. Which seems more than fair. But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals. People like Bin Laden made a specific choice, and knew the consequences of their actions could only ever result in victory, or death. Doesn't make a difference if he was armed or not, or surrendered - The alternative would have been to either leave him alive or take him and leave valuable information. And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior. In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm) I have to disagree with regards to the objective of the mission. While the failure of the helicopter is well documented, indeed pakistan was particularly interested in the wreckage due to its stealth technology, this was replaced by a chinook for the evacuation so in reality it had no effect upon the intended objective of the mission. In terms of the fight against terror, it would seem that more information could have been obtained from an incarcerated Osama, which does beg the question of why they felt it necessary to execute him. The morality of targeted assassinations can be justified but that was not what was being argued here. But, for what it�s worth, i think the use of targeted assassinations is a very dangerous precedent to set that often has limited military value. Ohh here we go, what the f*** do you know about the value of military targets. I understand the basic concept that removing the head of an organisation while leaving the supporting infrastructure intact will, in many cases, have a limited effect on the military capacity of that organisation. Al-Queda's military capacity is 'non-existant', at its core, its served as a means of putting different groups in contact with each other, providing finance, support and infrastructure. Even during the time of the war against the Soviet, Al-Queda was more involved in providing support, finance, training and equipment to the Mujahaden and foreign jyhadists, than launching operations. A misnomer of the 9/11 attacks is that they were masterminded and planned by Al-Queda, when in reality they were planned by an affiliate group, financed by Al-Queda, who also gave them contacts necessary to recruit Jyhadists and so on. Usually where people were referred to as Al-Queda fighters, they were those who trained in camps sponsored or supported by the group. It was much more of a brand thing, than an organization. Fair enough, and all true and agreed. I was talking in general terms but i think your post backs up what i was saying, killing Osama had no military value.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

01 Sep 15 4.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 3.40pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.34pm

Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.15pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.06pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Sep 2015 1.59pm

But I also have no problem with the idea of targeted assassination operations such as these, that target specific individuals.

And you can take a corpse, where you can't take a person, because you don't have to worry about throwing it out, or tying it to the exterior.

In that situation, its clear, you deny your enemy the asset, and take as much information as you can. Its the right decision, and more or less a lawful one. Live by the sword and all of that.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Sep 2015 2.05pm)

Ohh here we go, what the f*** do you know about the value of military targets.

I understand the basic concept that removing the head of an organisation while leaving the supporting infrastructure intact will, in many cases, have a limited effect on the military capacity of that organisation.

Al-Queda's military capacity is 'non-existant', at its core, its served as a means of putting different groups in contact with each other, providing finance, support and infrastructure. Even during the time of the war against the Soviet, Al-Queda was more involved in providing support, finance, training and equipment to the Mujahaden and foreign jyhadists, than launching operations.

A misnomer of the 9/11 attacks is that they were masterminded and planned by Al-Queda, when in reality they were planned by an affiliate group, financed by Al-Queda, who also gave them contacts necessary to recruit Jyhadists and so on.

Usually where people were referred to as Al-Queda fighters, they were those who trained in camps sponsored or supported by the group. It was much more of a brand thing, than an organization.

Fair enough, and all true and agreed. I was talking in general terms but i think your post backs up what i was saying, killing Osama had no military value.

Alert a moderator to this post

Palacetinian Surrey Fam 01 Sep 15 4.04pm
Talks a lot of sense... Supporting Crystal Palace since 19.45 on 29th August 1972 (approximately)!
Alert a moderator to this post

Palacetinian

Surrey Fam 01 Sep 15 4.04pm

Talks a lot of sense...

Supporting Crystal Palace since 19.45 on 29th August 1972 (approximately)!

Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle 01 Sep 15 4.08pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 01 Sep 2015 4.01pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.53pm I have to disagree with the idea that incarcerated he would have become a popular 'cause for liberation'. His popularity, for what it was, was already on the wane and I�d estimate that his martyrdom was probably more dangerous and more likely to inspire future terror attacks. On the wane because he wasn't news and had gone almost completely silent compared to his successors. If he were incarcerated he became big news.....Name me a famous leader who once incarcerated was forgotten? Killing Bin Laden was by far the lesser evil for the west. It was a tiny, if promised payback. It�s a reasonable argument that his profile would have increased once he was incarcerated, although mayhap his death increased his profile in the middle east? (not hailing from the region i am looking for insight) Again though, what about the value of any information he may have had? How does this weigh up against any possible profile boost?
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

01 Sep 15 4.08pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 01 Sep 2015 4.01pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.53pm

On the wane because he wasn't news and had gone almost completely silent compared to his successors.

If he were incarcerated he became big news.....Name me a famous leader who once incarcerated was forgotten?

Killing Bin Laden was by far the lesser evil for the west.

It was a tiny, if promised payback.

It�s a reasonable argument that his profile would have increased once he was incarcerated, although mayhap his death increased his profile in the middle east? (not hailing from the region i am looking for insight)

Again though, what about the value of any information he may have had? How does this weigh up against any possible profile boost?

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 4.18pm
Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.57pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.45pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.29pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 3.12pm Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 2.54pm Quote dannyh at 01 Sep 2015 2.11pm Accept all of that, but I bet Ghost smeaogle will have an answer all of which is 100 percent legit and factual to counter argue common sense. How he has the front to accuse any one of living in a dream land is beyond belief. My accusations are based on your insistence that Osama was armed when confronted when there is no evidence for this. Thus, there being no evidence from either media reports or the people involved the only place that you could have plucked this silly and frankly childish version of events is from your own head. Not once did I say 100 percent he was armed, as it happens I know he wasn't that one of his wives was shot in the leg trying to defend him, he then resisted arrest and was quite rightly shot. My point is that you were basing your whole argument as fact, when it was impossible for you to do so as you weren�t there. Nor did you back it up with any witness testimony. The only source that says he wasn�t armed was the Whitehouse press rep. Who by your own assumptions about politicians lying, (when I qouted Obama saying he wanted him alive) can not be trusted to tell the truth. So my point which seems to have evaded one who professes to have intelligence is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will we ever now the exact truth, who knows? One thing I do know is that you don�t know it any more than Matt, me or anyone else who can type and owns a computer. Once again you revert to type and start stating anyone whose opinions differ to yours are childish and Silly. In reply I would say your posts are arrogant, condescending, dismissive bordering on narcissistic, and deliberately belittling as if you are always talking down to people who don�t follow your "facts". And seem to delight in others getting carded as you wound them up. What a lovely bloke you are. You are right, i am a lovely bloke. Apart from that this is a regurgitation of your previous posts. I don't know where you have been researching but i would urge you to try again. The only report that Osama was armed came out just after the incident and was quickly corrected, so you are wrong there. You arrogant so and so, did you read my post, or are so far up your own arse hole you vision is a bit wonky, I've highlighted the bits you need to read before making yourself to be a total ass. Your point, for what it is, is that no-one can ever be 100% sure of anything. True enough but in practice we base our opinions on the evidence available to us. All of which indicates that Osama was unarmed. Are like arseholes everyone has one but most of them stink including yours. I apologise for calling you silly, this was not warranted. I reiterate that you are childish as you refuse to admit your mistake concerning Osama being armed. And I dont apologise for calling you arrogant, or narcasistic, the mere fact you don't even read others posts but just troll on regardless is proof enough. Childish, as i said. Osama was unarmed and you have this huge hissy fit because you got it wrong. Man up and just admit you made a mistake, it's really not that big a deal. another post another insult. what a surprise ! "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 01 Sep 15 4.18pm

Quote ghosteagle at 01 Sep 2015 3.57pm