200,000 civilians vs. thousands of soldiers? That's really an ugly calculation.
Casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan in Operation Downfall were wildly divergent but most predicted casualties in the hundreds of thousands to over a million for American troops and in the millions to over ten million for Japanese troops and civilians. Either way, more than the dropping of both atomic bombs combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#cite_ref-shockley_0-1
I don't want to get into a debate about the merits or lack thereof about dropping the atomic bombs, because this discussion has veered off the mark enough as it is. But it certainly becomes less of an "ugly calculation" when it's not framed from the point of view of only doing it to save "thousands of soldiers" rather than hundreds of thousands to millions of US personnel and millions to tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians.
Such was the expectation for massive casualties that the US military still has ~120,000 of the half million Purple Hearts made for Operation Downfall available to be awarded to soldiers who are wounded or killed today.
I know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Shock and Awe. But so was 9/11. And one could also argue that an attack on the Pentagon and the financial district of New York City is a valid military strategy in a war against the United States.
Who elected Osama bin Laden to anything? What state does he represent that gave him the authority to wage war? What was the specific incident that prompted his declaration of war against the US and made it a lawful response to an attack or planned attack?
The Koran allows for jihad under the following circumstances:
- 1- Defensive War,which is resorted to when the enemies of Muslims attack the religion, honor, property, territories etc..
- 2- Liberating War, which is done to liberate all those who are oppressed, such as slaves. This form of war was normal in the early days of Islam.
- 3- Preemptive War, which is launched only when Muslims know for sure that there is treason against their peaceful treaties with the enemy, when the enemy has a serious plan to attack them.
Bin Laden specifically adopted the more militant stance preached by Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which called for an offensive jihad of conquest in violation of the very Islamic law he vowed to impose on the Islamic caliphate he wanted to establish.
Bin Laden's main grievance with the US and the West came about as a result of the Saudi government choosing to use Western coalition forces to oust Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 rather than accept the protection of bin Laden's mujahideen returning from fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He hated the idea of Western troops being stationed on the holy land of the Arabian peninsula, even though they were asked to do so by the recognized government of Saudi Arabia.
So we have an unelected representative of no state declaring war against countries that were actually allied in cause with him when it came to Afghanistan against the Soviets, Bosnia against the Serbs, and in Gulf War 1 against the Iraqis. We have a man who was operating in violation of not only international law but his own religion's law. A man who's chief claim to being aggrieved was not an attack but that the recognized government of his home country decided not to use him to repel Saddam but rather the hated West. But you've decided to give him as much weight in waging legitimate war as elected leaders of democratic governments who were attacked first.
As far as the legitimacy of us assassinating bin Laden, I see little difference between this and the British and Czechs assassinating Heydrich or the US assassinating Yamamoto in WW2.
And I'm still wondering why the FBI didn't want him for 9/11.
Because the FBI Most Wanted list only includes crimes for which the person has already been convicted or indicted. Bin Laden had already been indicted for murder, conspiracy, and other charges for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 which killed 223 people and wounded over 4,000. Holding a completely separate hearing for 9/11 when there's already an arrest warrant out on him would be redundant and a waste of money and manpower. Any extra charges could be added if and when he was captured and facing a trial.
I'm not even sure what your point was in bringing that up, other than your point throughout this discussion which seems to be throw as much shit against the wall as possible and hope something sticks. Are you implying that because the FBI didn't explicitly mention 9/11 on the Most Wanted List (they did however say "...and other terrorist attacks") that they weren't convinced he was behind it or weren't pursuing him for that as well? Or is to cast doubt that he was actually behind it, which is asinine since he's flat out said he was on numerous occasions.
