A man who masterminds the hijacking of civilian aircraft and flies them into civilian buildings with the intention to kill as many civilian non-combatants as possible is not a war hero and deserves to die. Sorry if your warped relativism doesn't allow for that easy conclusion.

I don't understand how educated people can be so stupid.

So was General Sherman a war hero?

Osama bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11. We didn't pin him to it. Unlike most criminals who proclaim innocence till the day the die, he proclaimed guilt.

The way we moved in and killed him broke international law, but unless Pakistan does something about it and unless the ICC is all of a sudden willing to care about the US breaking international law (it doesn't at the moment), there's no story here.

Also, the way the world sees the U.S. is less like a big bad guy and more like sort of a dickhead neighbor that stays up until 2 a.m. partying, but tries to have good intentions.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4845/wct5kdmxds.gif

I've had a quote from orathaic on my profile for about 3 years now. It tells you everything that you need to know about him. I've met considerably stupid people but few that have the desire to be so willfully stupid.

I read part of a Pakistani government file about the case, and it seems that while Pakistan resented the illegal act, they were more concerned that it happened without them knowing or being able to stop it. It also contains interesting details, like, the compound being insanely close to a major police HQ type building, the soldiers telling the family to stay where they were, that police would be there soon. It all suggests that Pakistan itself respected the US's actions, but resented them. Also, local government pretty much had to know, and decided not to intrude until a long time after the american troops left.
I like Venusaur's question. It is interesting. The Civil War was a horrible period.

What about posing as polio vaccine workers and setting vaccination back a decade? Is that part of the movie?

'I don't understand how educated people can be so stupid.'
- Is the ability to see more than one narrative of events an example of stupidity? Life is not simple, and each person may see more than one side of a given story. That means there are likely more than 7 billion versions of events. So how can you NOT accept that there are more than one simple version of events escapes me...

Which part of my question demonstrates my 'wilful stupidity'?

"...unless the ICC is all of a sudden willing to care about the US breaking international law (it doesn't at the moment)" - Is the US subject to the ICC? I suspect that their military forces can't be prosecuted for 'warcrimes' because the US refuses to sign up.

As for Pakistan, sure in the world of real-politik they would likely do whatever tehy can get away with... Just as the US did whatever they could to ensure Osama didn't get away (ie not mentioning it to their 'allies' in Pakistan)

@'[Pakistan] were more concerned that it happened without them knowing or being able to stop it.' - As i'm sure the US would be were it possible that anyone else was able to pull something like this off on their soil.

@Santa, i'd love to see the context for that quote, as i can't recall it...

What is the narrative that makes a non state actor who kills thousands of unarmed civilians a war hero. Can you explain that to me professor.

That's my issue here, not that there are different versions. I just take issue that someone with a semblance of intelligence can accept that as a realistic narrative

The non-state actor is employed by Blackwater and killing Iraqis?

Who calls black water war Heroes?

And what does it have to do with Osama bin laden

@Santa: 'What is the narrative that makes a non state actor who kills thousands of unarmed civilians a war hero. Can you explain that to me professor.' 1) i'm not a professor. 2) There are those who worship as heros those who die for their God (americans hero worship warriros, whether they die or not, who risk their lives for their country, 'under god'), there are those few (like Osama) who claim that the US represents a great satan against which they are at war.

The 'non-state' actor part makes little difference to the cause. You have a mindset where there states are allowed wage war (and kill individuals) but individuals are not. What makes this different?

Realistic? Who said anything about 'a realistic narrative' - the existence of another narrative doesn't mean it is equally real, but the point is that most people who hold an-other version of events probably think your preferred narrative is likewise ridiculous.

I'd be more interested in seeing people question their reality to better understand it.

"Who calls black water war Heroes?"

I'm sure lots of people.

"And what does it have to do with Osama bin laden"

You asked about non-state actors generally.

Forget about non state actors then. Yes religious crazies think that bin laden is on the right hand side of god. Why the fuck do you consider this? Why do you feel that one of the possible narratives is that a man who targeted civilians specifically could be considered a war hero, like that view has the same weight as all the rest? I want a real fucking answer not a delicate dance around it.

Do you honestly believe that the view of bin laden as a "war hero" should have the same weight as him as a criminal? That both deserve to be explored equally?

Ok orothaic if I was an Islamic jihadi that believed that Allah granted me and those that think like me the ability to kill whoever I want in his name and that all infidels were born with a target on their head, then bin laden was a hero. I'm so glad for this fucking mind expanding exercise!

It takes an individual who doesn't think racial slurs should be considered offensive to come up with this shit.

And the gontext is mapleleaf called obi a kike. Not offensive to you...

That is one extreme, there is a tonne of middle ground.

If you take away the narrative you have men sending other men to kill each other. Some kind of parity, Osama would have killed his enemy if he could, Obama managed to do just the same.

I can appreciate this excellent film (though apparently some people find it politically uncomfortable as a propaganda piece which supports the use of torture) as a narrative it is an excellent story. Does that mean it's the only story, does the emotion which it evokes have any more or less value than, say, a story about Islamic terrorists might?

You're offended, and i'm afraid I totally missed my point. It is just so clear to me what a disconnect there is between narrative and reality. And we construct our narratives.

Did i honestly claim that the 'Osama is a war hero' narrative should have the same weight? It should be explored, certainly, because understanding differences is just about the only way to find a bridge between them; but it's not the only alternative.

I could write 7 different caricatures or different views on this issue, from a UN court of human rights advocate, to an Indian Hindu who is concerned about the local impact. From all ends of the political spectrum, the secular to the atheist, the Pakistani to the American, the Russian to the African... Read the article about why Europeans and Americans differed in their reaction to the news. There was, in the US, an entire myth about this evil man - to supply some demand for a story, what does that tell you about people? (not to blame the news media, though they had their part, or the CIA/US government, or those telling the Islamic terrorist side of the story... all playing different parts; just something human to vilify bad guys.)

Again, we vilified Osama bin laden? He didn't have the lions share in doing that? Just a human urge? Thousands of human dead in one day had nothing to do with that?

What was the myth?

The myth that he ran the operation or even ordered it. Al Qaeda doesn't operate under a centralized command system, but rather by independent cells, something the US has come to understand with 'network centric warfare'. OBL was the face of the organization, a symbolic figure head that aided with recruitment. His initial video after all denied having ordered the attack, but applauded it.

"and unless the ICC is all of a sudden willing to care about the US breaking international law (it doesn't at the moment), there's no story here."

We've never actually ratified the ICC treaty anyway, so it wouldn't have jurisdiction.

Didn't know that. Interesting...

Putin, he admitted to being personally involved in 2004

But the FBI itself did not finger OBL as being directly responsible, as late as 2011 before his death.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden

You know better than bin Laden