Quote Originally Posted by Football16 View Post
HKIT... Pakistan "scrambled" their air force meaning I assume that they put planes in the sky after reports of this event and all the fireworks.
If these US intruders were in Pakistan air space they could be shot down! Of course they had to get out fast meaning the time on the ground was likely very carefully planned like a bank robbery where they escape before the police arrive.
You are not understanding I assume what happens when planes are flying and people back at the base give approval to engage the enemy if they refuse to comply with their orders to follow them to some air base. In this case language too could be an issue.
What if the Pakistan air force had any skills and simply approached these helicopters as they were in their air space and shot them down - no questions asked?
This would have be a huge disaster and the Americans would have been pissed but what could they do? Start bombing their capital in retaliation? I doubt it.
It seems the Americans here knew they had some limited time to get in if they avoided radar, land, shoot the place up and get out in as few minutes as they could and run for the border. American air superiority being what it is - they no doubt knew exactly how long it would take their air force to get planes in the air. I suspect timing was crucial and the assault team and air crews and mission commander knew exactly what they were doing and how much time they had.
There are all kinds of situations where one country violates another's space like the US invading Canadian waters in the Arctic to try and prove these are international waters and not part of Canada's coast and lands as most of the islands are occupied by few people up there if at all. The US is supposed to register with Canada but they thumb their noses at us and we protest each year. I doubt Canada is big enough to start bombing Washington to get even. Just like Pak'n is not likely to retaliate other than if a trigger happy air crew took one of them out.
This makes for interesting reading:
The killing of Osama bin Laden: how the White House changed its story | World news | The Guardian
I'm not interested in reading 30 pages to find these supposedly true facts. However i did read some of these supposedly hard fact comments that Governments lie (USA was mentioned as well as most other nations) but this doesn't state that Pakistan sponsored and harbored OBL. These are just allegations and suggestions and nothing else.
OBL's choice of location has been considered by analysts as brilliant, who would have expected him to be a mile from a major military base. Most of the searching was around locations where the US and Pakistan thought he may be hiding.
Interesting article:
BBC News - Bin Laden compound location suggested by 2008 study
So are the 'unwashed masses' generally not competent to make informed judgments on whether or not a given act is legal or are they just not competent to assess the legality of this particular killing? Unfortunately, the ignorant rabble are still expected to abide by the law whether they possess the intellectual sophistication to know what it is or not.Original Post Deleted
Negative - it was then Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage.
You are assuming that Pakistani radar would identify the intruders as USN choppers. Radar picks up intruders, but they do not reveal the identity of the intruders, hence the need to scramble fighter jets. This being close so to Islamabad, may well have had the air force thinking that the IAF had launched an invasion of sorts. How are they to know if the intruders are allies or not, if they haven't been informed of the incursion?
Last edited by Dreadnought; 05-05-2011 at 11:34 PM.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
What a cloth eared idiot you really are. I didn't draw the distinction.... merely stating how you perceive the situation if China or Russia or Iran decides to take out their enemies in the US.
1) "it is not illegal in any way. The president has the authority to order military action, etc., etc. It was a military action"
2) if something is clearly extrajudicial (what the spooks would call "covert"), it is ever justified? In some cases, such as this one the answer should be 'yes'
3) "Murder" is a legally-defined term. He was "killed"