So Bin Laden is Dead, what now?

[jyork89]

Woohoo! Dibs to you America. You finally got the a-hole.

And even though killing bin Laden isn't going to stop terrorism, it was more about bringing him to justice. 66 years on and we are still pissed that Hitler managed to avoid justice. At least with Laden we can say we gave him what was coming and he had no choice in the matter.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Hey, speaking of bin Laden, is it true that he hacked into the TV networks to tell every American that they would die on September 11th 2001?
I doubt anyone could have. I'm probably terribly misinformed.

I'm going to go with terribly misinformed

 

[Troy Vandeventer]

Bin Laden is Dead. Now what?

The man behind the Sept. 11th 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks is dead. What is going to happen now? Does this mean we can bring our troops home? Are we safe? Frightening questions to ask yourself.

Unfortunately it is too soon to answer many of our questions. I can speculate that we will not be bringing our troops home anytime soon. Too do so now would destabilize many of the regions that we are working in. As to weather or not we are safe, I would have to say No, we are most certainly not safe.

I expect that now that Osama bin Laden has been killed that his many followers will soon unite and bring a terror to our country that will make Sept. 11, 2001 pale in comparison. I believe that this Mans death will be the catalyst that bring War to our shores. Not just Terrorist act's but WAR, soldiers fighting in our streets and our homes.

So to answer the question of 'Now What?'. We will fight. We will fight, and we will win. We are Americans and we will not fail. We are family, and we will prevail. Let them come into our streets, let them come to our homes, for only then when they are away from their streets and their homes will they feel the full might of our righteous wrath.

This is only my opinion of what may happen.

 

[HHKelevra]

That hardly answered my question though. First, legally, even if the drone/the facility that launched it is not in Pakistani territory, nevertheless, it is an attack on Pakistani soil. Kinda like, say, a ballistic missile would be if it hit American soil (similar argument can be made - the launcher is not in US airspace/soil). So clearly there are still some international rules governing these. What are they, is what I am trying to figure out?

"Can't control what we do with drones" - well, can't physically, or can't legally? If can't legally - see the argument above.

The "by way of our connections in the Pakistani government" statement is also kind of meaningless. What does that mean exactly? Bribed a few officials? Made an official, open and internationally legal and recognized deal? What does this mean?

There was no 'UAV Strike'

The Pakistani government had full knowledge of what was going on, and cooperated with the CIA to bring Osama down.

 

[Volkov]

Hm... so does anyone know, why are US armed forces allowed to act on Pakistani territory? I mean, like, legally, how is that classified? (And is Pakistani government OK with this?)

Obviously, a natural answer would be "Fuck Pakistani government, we are stronger so we call the shots", but still, is there an answer to the above question?

They weren't acting in Pakistan. It was a drone strike that killed Osama, the Pakistanis can't control what we do with drones since they don't even have to be in their airspace to hit the targets we want to hit.

We got the body out by way of our connections in the Pakistani government.

That hardly answered my question though. First, legally, even if the drone/the facility that launched it is not in Pakistani territory, nevertheless, it is an attack on Pakistani soil. Kinda like, say, a ballistic missile would be if it hit American soil (similar argument can be made - the launcher is not in US airspace/soil). So clearly there are still some international rules governing these. What are they, is what I am trying to figure out?

"Can't control what we do with drones" - well, can't physically, or can't legally? If can't legally - see the argument above.

The "by way of our connections in the Pakistani government" statement is also kind of meaningless. What does that mean exactly? Bribed a few officials? Made an official, open and internationally legal and recognized deal? What does this mean?

Osama was killed in a fire fight by US soldiers

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

 

[maturin]

Though, my mom believes that this actually might come back to bite him, because he has been pushing for less funding for the military, then the military did a great job with this using the funding he wanted to cut.

Your mom doesn't sound very bright. We didn't kill Osama with the additional engine for the F35. Didn't kill him with the Osprey either. Or the new AAV for the Marines. Or the other landing craft they haven't used in generations for that matter.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I predict Republicans will come down with a massive case of shutting-the-fuck-up. You can't really talk shit to a President who took out the guy in, if I'm reading the sequence of events right, a day.

I highly doubt that, Obama did jack-crap. The U.S. military did all the work. Obama just sat there and said, "Hey guys is it okay if I start cutting down on the funds I'm giving you...oh, you need them, well too bad I'm going to do my best to cut them anyway."

 

[maturin]

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

Sounds like Pakistan was in on this one, at least at some point.

But we have routinely carried out blatant violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, ignoring their very loud objections. Where have you been?

This is one they are not going to complain about.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Hm... so does anyone know, why are US armed forces allowed to act on Pakistani territory? I mean, like, legally, how is that classified? (And is Pakistani government OK with this?)

Obviously, a natural answer would be "Fuck Pakistani government, we are stronger so we call the shots", but still, is there an answer to the above question?

They weren't acting in Pakistan. It was a drone strike that killed Osama, the Pakistanis can't control what we do with drones since they don't even have to be in their airspace to hit the targets we want to hit.

We got the body out by way of our connections in the Pakistani government.

That hardly answered my question though. First, legally, even if the drone/the facility that launched it is not in Pakistani territory, nevertheless, it is an attack on Pakistani soil. Kinda like, say, a ballistic missile would be if it hit American soil (similar argument can be made - the launcher is not in US airspace/soil). So clearly there are still some international rules governing these. What are they, is what I am trying to figure out?

"Can't control what we do with drones" - well, can't physically, or can't legally? If can't legally - see the argument above.

The "by way of our connections in the Pakistani government" statement is also kind of meaningless. What does that mean exactly? Bribed a few officials? Made an official, open and internationally legal and recognized deal? What does this mean?

Osama was killed in a fire fight by US soldiers

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

There was none, other than Pakistani intelligence help us find him, however after the fact the...president? of Pakistan supported our actions

 

[Volkov]

I predict Republicans will come down with a massive case of shutting-the-fuck-up. You can't really talk shit to a President who took out the guy in, if I'm reading the sequence of events right, a day.

I highly doubt that, Obama did jack-crap. The U.S. military did all the work. Obama just sat there and said, "Hey guys is it okay if I start cutting down on the funds I'm giving you...oh, you need them, well too bad I'm going to do my best to cut them anyway."

1. Obama is part of the US military. He is the supreme commander.
2. Vast majority of the spending targeted by his reforms is entirely unrelated to the war on terror. Most of the costly technology (although not all) that the reforms have been targeting is for war against standing military of a similar size, not the wars that the US military has been fighting for over 6 decades.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

No it wasn't, I got done watching every cable news program that was running the stuff. All of them and their military advisors and contacts said that it was a drone attack, we have never had clearance to even enter Pakistan with troops, only drone strikes have been allowed.

 

[HHKelevra]

For anybody who may have missed it. Sorry if it was put up earlier.

 

[Stoplesteimer]

'Merica fuck yeah!

The big question is, how soon will this be incorporated into Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc?

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

No it wasn't, I got done watching every cable news program that was running the stuff. All of them and their military advisors and contacts said that it was a drone attack, we have never had clearance to even enter Pakistan with troops, only drone strikes have been allowed.

Directly form the presidents speech
"Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

 

[Volkov]

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

Sounds like Pakistan was in on this one, at least at some point.

But we have routinely carried out blatant violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, ignoring their very loud objections. Where have you been?

This is one they are not going to complain about.

I know that the US military has done this routinely, that's exactly why I asked the question. I am genuinely interested in the legal status of actions like this. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE, by the way. In other words, if, say, Obama, says to me "Feel free to bring your fiance from across the border into the United States, without a visa" - this does not make me doing so legal, even if the US government agrees. Certain paperwork, according to certain laws (both international and US) has to be in place. Similarly to here; that's all I am asking - what was that paperwork, and what international/Pakistani laws govern this type of thing. (If it's an under-the-carpet type of thing, which it sounds like it is - well, I guess there isn't an open answer then).

 

[artanis_neravar]

So the statement about drones was bullshit? Fair enough. Then back to my original question. What's the international/2-party law/agreement that lead to a US armed force acting on Pakistani soil?

No it wasn't, I got done watching every cable news program that was running the stuff. All of them and their military advisors and contacts said that it was a drone attack, we have never had clearance to even enter Pakistan with troops, only drone strikes have been allowed.

The President Himself announced that it was US ground troops

 

[Necrotech]

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Sir Winston Churchill

This will not stop the unrest, the violence or the hatred. But it will, I believe, put enough sense into some people that we WILL NOT rest until we accomplish our goals.

As a soldier I must say that the doors this both opens and closes does intrest and worry me some. But come what may we still have a job to do.

 

[OutforEC]

"After a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body."

This is the only thing I found strange. Not during a firefight, but after.

That being said, /tiphat to what appears to be a well-executed...er, execution.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I would personally like to shake the hand of the soldier that took that kill shot.

 

[Necrotech]

I would personally like to shake the hand of the soldier that took that kill shot.

I wonder if he shouted "Headshot FTW!" a moment later.

 

[JochemDude]

Well ofcourse you're not pulling out. It's not like you we're there to get Bin Laden. No, but now just win that thing already. Hmmmkay