Ban-Hammer then return under an alt-id as most trolls are known to do.Rurudyne wrote:Wow, that's vintage Ban Hammer worthy material there!
Hey wait...
The thing with that is that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are at war with America surely - therefore this is a military counterstrike. It's like the Gibraltar Rock Incident (where the SAS shot three unarmed IRA members, IMHO rightly because they were terrorists who had committed bombings and were planning to do so again, though this gets negative press because the Irish are all leprechauns, invented Guinness and so on). A good rule of thumb is that if you've done something bad enough to get special forces hunting you down, you can't really expect to be taken alive.Notabot wrote:There's some appeal to that, but that makes us no better than the evil that we're trying to fight. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism is so insidious because it tends to spiral out of control. It's hard to rise above it, and some would say there's no point in standing against it, but if we really want to end terrorism (idealistic, I know), we can't become terrorists.
This is how I feel... In an ideal world he would have been put on trial, Al-Qaeda could all be put in jail and we could keep the lot of them under lock and key. But the world doesn't work like that; the options were Bin Laden alive, Al-Qaeda commit acts in order to free him and maybe succeed or Bin Laden dead, Al Qaeda commit acts in reprisal which they would probably do anyway, but less Bin Laden and whichever other members were taken in the storming.Sir Auros wrote:Keeping him alive would have probably been the worst option if only because of the legal nightmare it would pose and potential for increased attacks. Also pretty good that his body was dumped in the ocean to avoid giving his idiot sympathizers a spot to make a "holy" spot. It's only too bad we didn't use a gutted pig as his coffin.
There's a big difference between what happened with Bin Ladden (shot as a result of a massive fire fight between two heavily armed groups), and Gibraltar (three unarmed people are shot whilst on holiday when they could just as easily been arrested considering it's British territory. Them being bastards doesn't change that).Big Daddy wrote:The thing with that is that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are at war with America surely - therefore this is a military counterstrike. It's like the Gibraltar Rock Incident (where the SAS shot three unarmed IRA members, IMHO rightly because they were terrorists who had committed bombings and were planning to do so again, though this gets negative press because the Irish are all leprechauns, invented Guinness and so on). A good rule of thumb is that if you've done something bad enough to get special forces hunting you down, you can't really expect to be taken alive.
They weren't on holiday, they were planning a bombing operation and had the materials ready (they were killed before the bomb was planted) - it's dangerous ignorance to pass if off as "holidaying". The SAS didn't know they were unarmed, and when the IRA members (sorry, the "holidaying" IRA members, because they stop being terrorists if they take a weekend break in Gibraltar... even if they're planning a bombing) made suspicious moves the SAS opened fire - it turns out prematurely as they were unarmed, but they prevented the bomb being planted, and if the cost of that is three terrorists' lives, well... Again, it comes ack to if you're bad enough to have the SAS on your case, you can kiss goodbye to being given a sporting chance.inflatable dalek wrote:There's a big difference between what happened with Bin Ladden (shot as a result of a massive fire fight between two heavily armed groups), and Gibraltar (three unarmed people are shot whilst on holiday when they could just as easily been arrested considering it's British territory. Them being bastards doesn't change that).
Well yes, that was me being flippant rather than completely accurate.Big Daddy wrote:They weren't on holiday,
The problem with that is that the IRA (or insert any terrorist organisation) could use exactly the same argument. "If you're on our list, tough shit". The Gilbralta thing was badly handled, the SAS are not an assassination squad and are perfectly capable of capturing men in those circumstances. That they didn't, be it through human error (which happens to everyone) or sinister conspiracy stuff the net effect was to make a tense situation in Ireland even tenser, give the IRA a good rallying cry for new members and to make the situation for the troops there more difficult.Again, it comes ack to if you're bad enough to have the SAS on your case, you can kiss goodbye to being given a sporting chance.
Whoa there, how is me thinking the British troops making one mistake in any way an endorsement of the IRA? Or are we supposed to be nothing but 100% supportive and cheerleading even if we think they've gotten things wrong? I think generally our troops members do an extraordinary job with frankly pathetic resources, that isn't the same as they being perfect.What is it about the IRA that attracts such white-washing of their atrocities? And what is it about the British that makes them side against their own defence forces doing their job (cf. Belgrano, Iranian Embassy)? I mean, you expect it from the fake Shamrock American-"Irish" crowd who see it as some great romantic struggle, but really...
Do you really think that this is a subject that deserves flippancy? Or do you need flippancy along the lines of saying a group on a terrorist mission are 'holidaying' to get things across? Or did you have your facts wrong and are now back-tracking?inflatable dalek wrote:Well yes, that was me being flippant rather than completely accurate.
The SAS are not an assassination squad? I think you'll find it is one of the things they train for, even if they're rarely (if ever) deployed in that fashion. The SAS are a multi-task unit. Or was that being flippant too?The problem with that is that the IRA (or insert any terrorist organisation) could use exactly the same argument. "If you're on our list, tough shit". The Gilbralta thing was badly handled, the SAS are not an assassination squad and are perfectly capable of capturing men in those circumstances. That they didn't, be it through human error (which happens to everyone) or sinister conspiracy stuff the net effect was to make a tense situation in Ireland even tenser, give the IRA a good rallying cry for new members and to make the situation for the troops there more difficult.
Apologies here, I didn't mean to imply you supported the IRA in any way, shape or form - what's happened is that your flippant remark made you look like a deeply stupid person, and describing a three-person IRA bomb team on a mission in Gibraltar as 'holidaying' tends to suggest a certain amount of either bias or ignorance. This sort of thing tends to happen in a text-based medium where people deploy things like flippancy in situations where there's no need or place for it.Whoa there, how is me thinking the British troops making one mistake in any way an endorsement of the IRA? Or are we supposed to be nothing but 100% supportive and cheerleading even if we think they've gotten things wrong? I think generally our troops members do an extraordinary job with frankly pathetic resources, that isn't the same as they being perfect.
*goes on at considerable length*
Yes, I'm guessing someone at the White House was so delighted with the basic result that the first garbled reports were put out before the dust had really settled and all information had been gathered.It's a shame the PR side of things hasn't been handled so well, with contradictory stories having come and gone from official sources ("He was/wasn't armed, he did/didn't use a woman as a human shield, we got the info on where he was from torture/no we didn't") it's giving the impression of a massive cover up and conspiracy. The main reason I'm assuming there isn't one is that it's beeing done so badly.
At what point is a subject not serious enough to be OK to joke about then? I assume that my as repeating of the Osama in a robot suit silliness in the last post passed without comment it's at least OK to be throwaway about the main subject of this thread, but not the IRA? Because I'd have thought with all the horrible international long term consequences of 9/11 (including long term wars in multiple countries) ol'Bin Laden would be considered at least a fairly serious subject?Big Daddy wrote:Do you really think that this is a subject that deserves flippancy? Or do you need flippancy along the lines of saying a group on a terrorist mission are 'holidaying' to get things across? Or did you have your facts wrong and are now back-tracking?
I'm trying hard to see what was to gain by being flippant, because all you've really acheived is to make the post look stupid. What was your motivation in being flippant? Does your argument not stand without it?
Well yes, exactly, they're multi taskers, not an assassination squad (which sort of implies just the one job description). So you're basically agreeing with me there then?The SAS are not an assassination squad? I think you'll find it is one of the things they train for, even if they're rarely (if ever) deployed in that fashion. The SAS are a multi-task unit. Or was that being flippant too?
In terms of our army this sort of thing actually happens pleasingly rarely, especially given all the potential troops/civillian face offs in Ireland. That's why when things do go wrong like in this situation it gets a lot of attention.Of course they were perfectly capable of capturing the IRA members in those circumstances, but only by taking their chances that they weren't reaching for concealed weaponry or a detonator. Do you have an idea how often that sort of thing happens in situations with guns? What would you have honestly expected to happen? The SAS troops wait and see what happens and possibly die as a result?
Well, as long as I only look stupid [/flippant].Apologies here, I didn't mean to imply you supported the IRA in any way, shape or form - what's happened is that your flippant remark made you look like a deeply stupid person
What exactly about claiming they were 'holidaying' was funny? 'Flippant' and 'joke' are two different things. Robot suit? Obviously funny, blatant Wolfenstein reference. 'Holiday?' Not seeing where the humour comes from there in any way shape or form.inflatable dalek wrote:At what point is a subject not serious enough to be OK to joke about then? I assume that my as repeating of the Osama in a robot suit silliness in the last post passed without comment it's at least OK to be throwaway about the main subject of this thread, but not the IRA? Because I'd have thought with all the horrible international long term consequences of 9/11 (including long term wars in multiple countries) ol'Bin Laden would be considered at least a fairly serious subject?
Yes and no - we're unlikely to ever know (within our lifetimes at least) what task the SAS team of Flavius were assigned to; it could have been assassination, it could have been arrest, it could have been "alive if possible but don't take any chances". Your assertion "the SAS are not an assassination squad" is incorrect, unless that's another joke.So you're basically agreeing with me there then?
Was the technology feasible? Probably not, but it's all pretty fairly covered by a trained reaction to suspicious movement - if an SAS squad jump out at you, it's not a good idea to then reach in your pocket for anything, be it a hidden remote detonator or a stick of gum.So it boils down to the detonator thing. How feasible was it with the tech of the time, and how much would the SAS troopers present known about how feasible it was? That seems to be what the issue basically boils down too, with the official inquest and the more recent European one coming to different conclusions on it.
Yes - I do enjoy reading a lot of conspiracy theories, but have yet to found one that really sets alarms off, usually just being a case of unrelated coincidences. There probably are a lot of secrets hidden away at higher levels, but it's probably all mundane unexciting stuff.Personally I've never been a big believer in conspiracies, generally they can be put down to straightforward incompetence. I think what happened here was a terrible mistake, but that they didn't go into in planning to kill everyone no matter what.
Alright, that's enough of that. You guys want to discuss the IRA or whatever fine, but one more shot like that and you get some time away.Big Daddy wrote:You dropped a clanger. Be a man about it instead of trying to wriggle out of things and hide behind red herrings
People are flippant about everything on these forums. It's one of the reasons I like posting and browsing here. People never take themselves so seriously.Big Daddy wrote: You dropped a clanger. Be a man about it instead of trying to wriggle out of things and hide behind red herrings