David Cameron calls Bin Laden's death a tragedy... Watch

username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1


Well there you go folks... In no uncertain terms David Cameron called Bin Laden's death a tragedy. It doesn't matter what the context is because he said the words.

Besides context is overrated.
9
reply
581371
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by Bornblue)


Well there you go folks... In no uncertain terms David Cameron called Bin Laden's death a tragedy. It doesn't matter what the context is because he said the words.

Besides context is overrated.
Lmaooo is this real? There has to be more context to this..
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
I was gonna make this thread O.o

Would have been better if you didn't explain the joke... ¬.¬
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Bornblue)


Well there you go folks... In no uncertain terms David Cameron called Bin Laden's death a tragedy. It doesn't matter what the context is because he said the words.

Besides context is overrated.
This is utterly stupid. The context for David Cameron is that there he's quoting Corbyn directly. The context for Corbyn is that he thinks we have to arrest and try enemy soldiers and commanders because killing them offends his delicate pacifist sensibilities. I doubt any people who condemned Corbyn for what he said will suddenly about turn when they hear the full passage.
5
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
This is utterly stupid. The context for David Cameron is that there he's quoting Corbyn directly. The context for Corbyn is that he thinks we have to arrest and try enemy soldiers and commanders because killing them offends his delicate pacifist sensibilities. I doubt any people who condemned Corbyn for what he said will suddenly about turn when they hear the full passage.
Boris Johnson the exact same thing as Crobyn when bin laden was killed.

It's more about rule of law. The thing that makes Western Democracies superior to other forms of government... Supposedly. Got nothing to do with pacifism.

WE tried Nazi war criminals under the rule of law for the above reasons. Was that wrong in your eyes? Should we have done a communist style string of mass executions and mock trials?
10
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Boris Johnson the exact same thing as Crobyn when bin laden was killed.

It's more about rule of law. The thing that makes Western Democracies superior to other forms of government... Supposedly. Got nothing to do with pacifism.

WE tried Nazi war criminals under the rule of law for the above reasons. Was that wrong in your eyes?
No he didn't. Johnson called for Bin Laden to be arrested and tried in 2001. There's a big difference between hoping someone gets tried and calling their death in a legitimate military operation a tragedy.

I absolutely advocate the rule of law. There is nothing unlawful about assassinating enemy commanders during a war. I believe pacifism has everything to do with it, since many people clearly think most acts of waging war are somehow illegal and it would be morally superior to act unnecessarily non-lethally just to prove a point.

We tried captured and surrendered Nazi war leaders after the war was over and hostilities had ceased. Not even a remotely comparable situation. Since you mention WW2, during the war, off the top of my head we assassinated Reinhard Heydrich while the Americans took out Admiral Yamamoto. The targeted killings of enemy commanders during a conflict is a legitimate and legal method of hampering the enemy's ability to wage war.
3
reply
Zargabaath
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
x
I'm just repping you for you username lmao
0
reply
a noble chance
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
WE tried Nazi war criminals under the rule of law for the above reasons. Was that wrong in your eyes? Should we have done a communist style string of mass executions and mock trials?
We also attempted to assassinate a string of Nazis, sometimes successfully. We tried the remaining Nazis once their surrender had been secured and the leaders were no longer commanding armed men with express orders to kill us. This was not the situation when the US marines stormed Bin Laden's HQ.

I can't see why capture was not just as achievable as shooting on sight, and agree that it should have been Plan A and find it objectionable that capture was apparently not genuinely considered, but your comparison with our treatment of the Nazis is flawed, both because we did try and succeed in killing them without any intention of capture and those we captured and tried had already surrendered themselves to us.
0
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No he didn't. Johnson called for Bin Laden to be arrested and tried in 2001. There's a big difference between hoping someone gets tried and calling their death in a legitimate military operation a tragedy.

I absolutely advocate the rule of law. There is nothing unlawful about assassinating enemy commanders during a war. I believe pacifism has everything to do with it, since many people clearly think most acts of waging war are somehow illegal and it would be morally superior to act unnecessarily non-lethally just to prove a point.

We tried captured and surrendered Nazi war leaders after the war was over and hostilities had ceased. Not even a remotely comparable situation. Since you mention WW2, during the war, off the top of my head we assassinated Reinhard Heydrich while the Americans took out Admiral Yamamoto. The targeted killings of enemy commanders during a conflict is a legitimate and legal method of hampering the enemy's ability to wage war.
Was it a legitimate military operation though? Bin Laden was in Pakistan. The Navy Seals effectively invaded Pakistani soil -- an act of war -- in order to carry out the execution of Bin Laden. I would have much preferred him to have been captured alive and brought to The Hague where he could have been answerable to the highest of international courts. Remember, at the time, the West was officially at war with Afghanistan only.

Of course, it would have been wholly unnecessary if the Pakistani government did their bit in countering terrorism to a better degree
.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by jammy4041)
Was it a legitimate military operation though? Bin Laden was in Pakistan. The Navy Seals effectively invaded Pakistani soil -- an act of war -- in order to carry out the execution of Bin Laden. I would have much preferred him to have been captured alive and brought to The Hague where he could have been answerable to the highest of international courts. Remember, at the time, the West was officially at war with Afghanistan only.

Of course, it would have been wholly unnecessary if the Pakistani government did their bit in countering terrorism to a better degree
.
Invading Pakistan to take out someone they're harbouring at most infringed Pakistan's sovereignty, not Bin Laden's right to a trial. The West has never been at war against Afghanistan. The Taliban nor their Al Qaeda lackeys were ever recognised by the west as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It was an intervention on behalf of the Northern Alliance, and we were/are at war against numerous militant groups including Al Qaeda.
1
reply
jammy4041
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Invading Pakistan to take out someone they're harbouring at most infringed Pakistan's sovereignty, not Bin Laden's right to a trial. The West has never been at war against Afghanistan. The Taliban nor their Al Qaeda lackeys were ever recognised by the west as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It was an intervention on behalf of the Northern Alliance, and we were/are at war against numerous militant groups including Al Qaeda.
Of course, I appreciate the distinction you are making. As a clarification, Invading Pakistan to get to Bin Laden should have been done with Pakistan's blessing. Of course, the scope of the war, was limited to Afghanistan, at the time Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.
1
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
This is utterly stupid. The context for David Cameron is that there he's quoting Corbyn directly. The context for Corbyn is that he thinks we have to arrest and try enemy soldiers and commanders because killing them offends his delicate pacifist sensibilities. I doubt any people who condemned Corbyn for what he said will suddenly about turn when they hear the full passage.
Correct, and well put.

I've yet to hear any one of the idiots to have quoted this explain exactly what difference they think the context of Corbyn's statement makes.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it doesn't make any difference. Context or not, this plays perfectly into the narrative the Tories are trying (successfully) to establish about Corbyn. So, the corbynistas can continue to titter at idiotic 'jokes' as much as they like. The rest of us can just sit by and enjoy the fact that they'll never get close to government.
1
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Bornblue)


Well there you go folks... In no uncertain terms David Cameron called Bin Laden's death a tragedy. It doesn't matter what the context is because he said the words.

Besides context is overrated.
Okay, let's put Corbyn's statement into context.

He said it was a tragedy bcause bombing and war isn't the solution to things.

Negotiations, round the table talks and listening to people is.

So basically Corbyn wanted to negotiate with Bin Laden.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Correct, and well put.

I've yet to hear any one of the idiots to have quoted this explain exactly what difference they think the context of Corbyn's statement makes.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it doesn't make any difference. Context or not, this plays perfectly into the narrative the Tories are trying (successfully) to establish about Corbyn. So, the corbynistas can continue to titter at idiotic 'jokes' as much as they like. The rest of us can just sit by and enjoy the fact that they'll never get close to government.
Wow you're in a strop.
Get a sense of humour.

Corbyn said the lack of a trial was a tragedy - not his death.- not much wrong with saying that someone should be given a trial before they are shot dead.
0
reply
Marie_Antoinette
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
This story is getting really annoying.
Since someone is completely unaware of the context, this is what Corbyn actually said.
http://bcove.me/vifvss9j

It does make a difference. The tragedy he's referring to is the fact that his death prevented us from try him and get information and details about Al Qaeda and its operations. But MAYBE someone involved didn't want to allow that.
We westerners defend our interventions abroad with that magic word, democracy, but this event has proved once again that we don't always practice what we preach.
Nobody is actually sad because of Bin Laden's passing away, and if you think Corbyn does, you're either very stupid or disingenuous.
As jammy4041 pointed out, Boris Johnson said the same thing in 2001 but nobody (and rightfully so) called him a terrorist symphatizer: "Of course, it would be the neatest solution if the terrorist maniac were to be dispatched in the coming days, whether by an M16 carbine or a 10-rupee jezail. But it would not be the best or most satisfying outcome. [...] He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could. We want justice. It was a trial that concluded the tragic cycle of the Oresteia, and asserted the triumph of reason over madness and revenge."
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Bornblue)
Wow you're in a strop.
Get a sense of humour.

Corbyn said the lack of a trial was a tragedy - not his death.- not much wrong with saying that someone should be given a trial before they are shot dead.
Well that's open to argument. The bet the tories are making is that a lot of people will think there is something wrong with it. It will be seen as weakness even with context. It will say to a lot of people: wow, Mr Corbyn really isn't willing to put our interests first. I've explained this.
0
reply
De Chirico
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
I can accept that Corbyn wanted to see him put on trial but 'tragedy' was an extremely poor choice of word when referring to one of the most profound mass murderers in history. He could have simply said he would have preferred to see him answer for his crimes in court. Not surprised he went for the most controversial option though, the man acts more like a rebellious schoolboy than someone who could potentially run the country.
1
reply
BigItch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
There is no proof he did 911. Alqueda had many members who could of planed this attack. I think the real criminal above OBL for this is Bush for not informing the people of the United States Of America, I am pretty certain he would of had prior knowledge and he let it happen and detonated the rest of the towers
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No he didn't. Johnson called for Bin Laden to be arrested and tried in 2001. There's a big difference between hoping someone gets tried and calling their death in a legitimate military operation a tragedy.

I absolutely advocate the rule of law. There is nothing unlawful about assassinating enemy commanders during a war. I believe pacifism has everything to do with it, since many people clearly think most acts of waging war are somehow illegal and it would be morally superior to act unnecessarily non-lethally just to prove a point.

We tried captured and surrendered Nazi war leaders after the war was over and hostilities had ceased. Not even a remotely comparable situation. Since you mention WW2, during the war, off the top of my head we assassinated Reinhard Heydrich while the Americans took out Admiral Yamamoto. The targeted killings of enemy commanders during a conflict is a legitimate and legal method of hampering the enemy's ability to wage war.
It wasn't lawful. It was just America being the bigger more power state doing what it wants. Any semblance on international law is a bit of a joke I admit but it is good concept to aim for imo. Some people think power countries like the United States should lead by example. It may be idealistic but is not pacifism or terrorist sympathizing and more often than those that claim it is have an interest in opposing any notion of international law in that they want their big power country to have power over weaker ones. They decry dissidents as terrorists sop they can carry out their own form of state terrorism. Russia does it, so does America.

If a french terrorist group did a 9/11 style attack on Britain we would work with France using international agreements/laws and work with therm in bringing the perpetrators to justice. We would not invade France or commit acts like sending in Navy Seals on an operation without permission (which is how wars can start).
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
It wasn't lawful. It was just America being the bigger more power state doing what it wants. Any semblance on international law is a bit of a joke I admit but it is good concept to aim for imo. Some people think power countries like the United States should lead by example. It may be idealistic but is not pacifism or terrorist sympathizing and more often than those that claim it is have an interest in opposing any notion of international law in that they want their big power country to have power over weaker ones. They decry dissidents as terrorists sop they can carry out their own form of state terrorism. Russia does it, so does America.

If a french terrorist group did a 9/11 style attack on Britain we would work with France using international agreements/laws and work with therm in bringing the perpetrators to justice. We would not invade France or commit acts like sending in Navy Seals on an operation without permission (which is how wars can start).
Are you honestly comparing French institutions and stability to that of Pakistan and Afghanistan? The US spent the better part of a decade cooperating with Pakistan, billions down the drain and nothing achieved. Then just to top it all Bin Laden is found in one of the most secure areas of Pakistan. Sometimes you just have no choice but to act unilaterally.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (263)
15.29%
The paper was reasonable (958)
55.7%
Not feeling great about that exam... (370)
21.51%
It was TERRIBLE (129)
7.5%

Watched Threads

View All