Gondor, do you seriously  think Pakistan government was totally aware about the whereabouts and not telling? They are fighting a bloody dirthy war against Al Qaeda and Taliban themselves in North-West Pakistan.

Because movies are definitely the best ways to determine US policy...

or you can buy an Osama to be the nanny of  naughty kids!

they didnt ask if Sadam helped him or not?

> Gondor wrote:

> I would assume most of the people wouldn't care when you consider it was Osama that was killed... And you're not going to tell people in the country thats been harboring him for up to 5 years (or so i've heard) that your going to send a team in to take him out. Absolute secrecy means absolute. That'd be like the catcher telling the batter what kind of pitch is coming

"Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he thinks many Pakistanis might have known where bin Laden was, including people in the government.

"This is one reason we did not inform the Pakistanis of our actions," he said Tuesday, noting "there were probably many who were very uncomfortable about the presence likewise." "

Saddam Hussein - V
Usama Bin-Laden - V
Justin Bieber -

Well for this to have the same effect the conditions have to be  similar. the pakistan people have to feel we know about this IRA terrorist, the whereabouts for a significant ammount of time like 5 years, the american's not assist in the case and then MAYBE it would be understandable yes.

You can do a merry jig twice over all over bin Ladens crown jewels as much as you like, but I have a serious problem with the USA's machiavellistic behaviour here. The ends, even getting to bin Laden, don't justify trampling over sovereignity and international law. At least not if you claim to be the global leader in justice, freedom and democracy. In my opinion this action makes the USA no better than a rogue state that will lash out anywhere as it sees fit.

Whatever the Pakistani knowledge, you don't roughshod international principles of sovereignity of allies. At least have the guts to reprimand or accuse Pakistan before you charge in. At the very least inform them at the last minute even if you don't see the need to ask consent.   

Any ally of America will have some serious thinking to do about what they can expect from their relationship. I think pretty soon the congrats at the result will turn into loathing of the methodology used.

what i wanna know is, where is the evidence for all this? i mean, im just as glad as everyone else that he's finally gone, but they have yet to show any pictures, videos, anything at all really. It just strikes me as a little fishy that this all happened when Obama had hit rock bottom pretty much in terms of support. And suddenly this happens

> [TI] ZoZferatu [Pw9] wrote:

> I read that USA didn't inform their allies untill the operation was finished.

Apart from it being embarrassing for Pakistan that bin Laden on their territory, shouldn't the USA have needed some permission to do that operation? I can imagine if he was hiding in Paris, Sarkozy wouldn't been too happy with US marines suddenly blasting ammo all over the Champs Elys

> Metrex wrote:

> Didnt the US tell Pakistan that if Osama were to be Pakistan, they wouldnt need permission to invaid the area and take him out?

Technically, we didn't invade. We infiltrated.

So you confirm what I say Yell. Laws don't apply to America when America says so.

Sovereignity is the most imortant international principle. Don't call it rule 1234.56, you know better than that.

"Smurf with us and you'll get what you've got coming", "To hell with their sovereignity".
If you instate that kind of logic, don't come crying when you alienate states who, if not condone US enemies, won't exactly come down hard on them. Noone likes the class bully. 

Primo, what the US has is a limited permission for the CIA to perform certain intelligence operations in Pakistan. That is not the same as 70 SEALs in 4 blackhawk helis doing what they did.