oh, indeed. I'm not saying there isn't a valid legal claim there, if you run a hard line down on sovereignty and the right of the host government (unwilling/willing host questions aside) to know when a military operation is in effect [see: every Nazi war criminal capture, pretty much ever].
But claiming to be the wronged party on the basis of international fair play when the victim was the self-proclaimed architect of a massive act of criminal behavior (since terrorism =/= war, legally) on another nation's soil? Wow, those're some massive balls of iron(y) they're swinging....
Oh yes, indeed. Just like the Pakistani government protesting about our invasion of their territory to get Bin Laden in the first place. If they hadn't done their Sgt. Schultz routine for all this time, we'd not have needed to do what we did.
I keep thinking that if "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is in the Old Testament (or maybe the New?), surely there is something about that in the Qu'ran. And the bin Laden family owes blood price to at least 3,000 families in the US.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-10 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-10 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-10 06:06 pm (UTC)But claiming to be the wronged party on the basis of international fair play when the victim was the self-proclaimed architect of a massive act of criminal behavior (since terrorism =/= war, legally) on another nation's soil? Wow, those're some massive balls of iron(y) they're swinging....
no subject
Date: 2011-05-10 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-10 11:30 pm (UTC)They're getting off lightly.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-11 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-05-13 09:00 pm (UTC)