Osama Bin Laden is Dead.

Started by
147 comments, last by dpandza 12 years, 11 months ago

[quote name='trzy' timestamp='1304404158' post='4805823']
Life expectancy factors all of this into account, and the US may actually be leading there.

Does the U.S. Lead in Life Expectancy?

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post. But the point made above is key.


It might be key if you hadn't trotted out things like cancer survivorship rates, or if that regression were more definitive. [/quote]

Survival rates are a different matter but nevertheless a very important contributor to the United States' overall excellent life expectancy. Another factor you may want to look into is the infant mortality rate, which is computed differently (and, arguably, more accurately) by the United States, seemingly inflating the number.

The government aggressively regulates the price of medical procedures, which keeps the cost of most routine medical services extremely low, so while it's still a significant expenditure on the national level it's far less expense per patient than in the US (even with the government picking up ~70% of the tab in many situations).
[/quote]

Reducing costs is never as simple as dictating price. Either quality is being sacrificed, or providers are finding ways to recoup the money elsewhere.

Japan does indeed have problems. As I noted above, doctors there are not pleased with their pay, especially because lower income makes it more difficult to offset the cost of medical school, as well as making going through that training less rewarding. Japan does have a very high debt-to-GDP ratio, but it's debatable how "crushing" that is for their economy.
[/quote]

Time will tell but presently, Japan's lethargic economy is costing the younger generation income and opportunity. It can't go on forever.
----Bart
Advertisement
All good and well! But I feel this may get worst for those who really hate American and those who are deployed... getting rocketed more! I've been out there before this news, it will be a matter of time before something will escalate! Stay safe out there!
Current Project:
* Project Lavapit (Using Visual C# Studio, Version 0.2)
* Mass Invasion (Using Visual C++ Studio, Version 1.2) [Minor break]
* Invasion -Port- (Using Visual C# Studio, Version 0.1)

* Codename Alias (Using GM; Version 1.0)

* Eternal Remien (Using RPG Maker VX; Version 2.2)

* R.E.X. (Unknown Program; Ideas Only)




Current Members:
Troy Cabal (Game Art & Design Major)
Francis Simon (Business Major)
Calvin "Romell" Mathes (Business Major)
Zane Castillo (English Major)
This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.
Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.[/quote]
Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.

U.S. officials originally spoke of a 40-minute firefight. The White House has blamed the "fog of war" for the changing accounts.[/quote]They're not even denying that they killed him in cold blood -- they're calling it "national self-defence", not even self-defence on the part of the commandos.
"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder said. "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate."[/quote]
I just dreamed my family had adopted a <i>mini</i> (bald) Bin Laden. But I saw his real intentions so I handled him to the police. I think I broke his heart though.
Then, all of a sudden, I was adopted and I was doing my (blonde) step-mom and step-sister at the park, with the police watching. And my performance was quite poor.

W. T. F.? I woke-up kind of disgusted I must admit. *lights a cig*
[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.

I just dreamed my family had adopted a <i>mini</i> (bald) Bin Laden. But I saw his real intentions so I handled him to the police. I think I broke his heart though.
Then, all of a sudden, I was adopted and I was doing my (blonde) step-mom and step-sister at the park, with the police watching. And my performance was quite poor.

W. T. F.? I woke-up kind of disgusted I must admit. *lights a cig*


ExplodingHead.gif

This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.
Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.
Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.[/quote]
[/quote]
At least I know they have 6 Jason Bournes on their team. Geez. Scary efficiency.

Beginner in Game Development?  Read here. And read here.

 


This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.

He's had a public price on his head dead or alive for 10 years and as far as I can tell they ran in the front door guns blazing. That's not really an assassination.

This doesn't sound like any capture/arrest that I've ever heard of. It sounds very much like an assassination.
Only one of four principal targets shot dead by U.S. commandos in the raid which killed Osama bin Laden was involved in any hostile fire, a person familiar with the latest U.S. government reporting on the raid told Reuters on Thursday.

Bin Laden was not armed when he was shot dead, nor are there indications that he directly threatened his attackers.

A SEAL squad moved in darkness on the guest house, one of two dwellings inside the walls of bin Laden's compound. They were met with hostile fire. As they moved in, they shot a man who was in the guest house who turned out to be Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, an al Qaeda courier.

After shooting al-Kuwaiti U.S. commandos moved onto the compound's three-story main residence. As they entered the house, they saw a man with his hands behind his back. Fearing that the man might be holding a weapon behind him, the commandos shot him dead.

After killing the second courier, commandos started climbing the stairs to the house's upper floors. As they climbed, a man charged down the stairs at them, and was shot dead. U.S. authorities now believe that he was Osama bin Laden's son.

As commandos proceeded up the stairs, they saw a person they believed was bin Laden either poke his head out of a door or over a balcony. The attackers took at least one shot at the person, who then retreated back inside the room he had come from.

The U.S. commandos proceeded to the top floor and into the room where the man had retreated. While entering the room, they were rushed by a woman. The woman, now believed to be one of bin Laden's wives, was shot in the leg.

After shooting her, the commandos pushed her to the side. The attackers did not wait for a reaction and immediately shot the al Qaeda leader dead.
Senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters that U.S. accounts had been misleading in describing a long gunbattle at the compound where bin Laden and four others were killed by an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALs.

U.S. officials originally spoke of a 40-minute firefight. The White House has blamed the "fog of war" for the changing accounts.[/quote]They're not even denying that they killed him in cold blood -- they're calling it "national self-defence", not even self-defence on the part of the commandos.
"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder said. "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate."[/quote]
[/quote]

While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)


Words like "illegal" become difficult when it comes to war. As been pointed out by many people over this thread and others, wars and military conflict are beyond the normal bounds of law; they are when civility and civil law has failed.

The rules of war (which evolved from the Geneva Convention) cover it. They are international treaties that describe violations of human rights beyond what is considered reasonable even during a war. They are no longer just the Geneva Convention, but have evolved into a body of "Customary international humanitarian law". Many nations have signed on to the treaties, or a subset of the treaties, that constitute Customary IHL.




Specific human targets, including leaders, scientists, and popular figures can be targeted as part of military operations. Usama bin Ladin was very clearly a valid and legal military target under those rules.

A target can be captured or killed unless they become a non-combatant described in Customary IHL:
"Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combatis:(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or© anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape."

If the target clearly offers to surrender AND can be captured safely, then killing the target would be eligible as a potential international war crime. However, if they do not clearly offer to surrender, or if they do offer but cannot be safely captured, killing them is not considered a war crime. The ICRC describes the rule with: "[color="#484848"][font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"]a party which “takes” surrender is not required to go out to receive surrender; instead, the party offering surrender has to come forward and submit to the control of the enemy forces."[/font]

[color="#484848"][font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"][/font]Acts like simply laying down your guns while across a battlefield or running from your own unit toward the enemy with hands up are not enough by themselves. It is a blurry line that is ultimately decided by a group of judges in a war crimes trial.

Obviously they haven't released recordings of their operation, but based on what has been said the man did not "offer surrender" in a way even closely resembling what is required by international humanitarian law.

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1304708515' post='4807458']
While killing bin laden was morally wrong and probably even illegal when considering international law i still think it was the right thing to do when looking at things pragmatically, holding him captive would most likely result in alot of terrorist activity aimed at forcing the US to release him which would be a very bad thing for US citizens in general, The only other option would have been to allow him to escape and hope to kill him in a "fair" fight later (Not a compelling option i think)

Specific human targets, including leaders, scientists, and popular figures can be targeted as part of military operations. Usama bin Ladin was very clearly a valid and legal military target under those rules.
[/quote]

This isn't quite true scientists and popular figures are generally civilians, not combatants and can't be individually targeted(Targeting important facilities is allowed though), leaders have varying status depending on their position (If the US and Canada were at war and the canadians assassinated the New York mayor it would be a war crime, assassinating the US president however would not (as he is effectivly a part of the military command structure).

Assuming Usama qualified as an enemy combatant it was indeed legal to assassinate him though. (Prior to 2001 terrorists were generally considered to be criminals, not enemy combatants so its debatable, but i guess its an acceptable interpretation given how they operate (its not quite comparable to the more restricted scope of domestic terrorism afterall).

Ofcourse this also assumes that pakistan gave their permission for the operation (If not it would have been a violation of their sovereignity, but given the rather good US-Pakistan relations since 2001 I assume they did allow it.
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement