osama bin laden is dead

[WhiteRat]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

[kahljorn]

I don't think you realize how the LAW works. Even if you think he's a foreigner or whatever so the six amendment didn't apply to him or whatever theres still certain ways to treat other soldiers in war ;/ PLUS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THEM
and yea if we can just kill osama whats to stop us from just killing people like saddam without a trial? Or any other leader of a country that we deem wrong? Or anybody really. All we gotta do is attack our own country, put a fake beard on some dude and some 80's boots and be all, "I HATE AMERICA AND IM THE ONE THAT DID IT" and we have a license to kill?

plus how are we any different than them? Not like he didn't see it as an action of war when he attacked us: attacking something that might have been perceived as an important part of our infrastructure, which could be said to be endemic of his problems with us (globalization), and luring us into a war that fucked our economy over (and maybe the world trade center being sploded added to that).

anyway i dunno why I'm arguing this i dont care well a small part of me cares

[WhiteRat]

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.

Best watch yo back.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

Those 3000 people killed were an act of war.

Killing Bin Laden (which as it turns out was an act of self defense on the part of the troops as he was shooting at them after all) was part of the war he started.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

Originally Posted by http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9MVHBPG0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1 018&page=4

Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they'd likely find bin Laden's family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

So maybe, before you tell people to quote 'fuck off' and basically put words in my mouth that I never said (you are saying that nobody should get a trial) in a very weak attempt to make me look bad, you should use that thing between your ears eh?

[kahljorn]

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.

Well if you unmarginalize him I'm pretty sure it just makes my point stronger...

[Geggy]

Originally Posted by Geggy

I JUST POSTED A BUNCH OF PICTURES,

STRANGELY ENOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING,

THANK GOD TADAO WAS HERE TO EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TEXT.

sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

[Seven Force]

It sounds retarded I know, but we should of just went ahead with the trial if it was possible. I think everyone deserves a right to due process, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly against that person. Even if they're not a citizen. Killing the guy won't bring the countless dead back, it just satisfies our lust for revenge. We need to rise above that if we want to claim we're a civilized society.

On the other hand, if people think that Osama was going to go without a fight they'd be sorely mistaken. Odds are he wanted to be a martyr. It sucks but sometimes that's how shit goes down.

[Seven Force]

Whiterat: I don't think with a fair trial he'd go free. There really wouldn't be any chance of that happening with a mountain of evidence against that (not including his little homemade videos). People would be outraged, and they'd have a right to be, especially the families of the victims, but I think they'd get over it once they find him guilty in international court and kill him anyway.

[Tadao]

Originally Posted by Geggy

sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

Most of the time words say more than pictures. Like just now, when you expressed your thoughts on the matter.

[Tadao]

The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

[Tadao]

When Sadam was sitting in court rooms being tried, the whole word believed that he was captured. Even though he is know for having multiple doubles. The point is that moving pictures captures little tells, photos show nothing viable. Most of the world believes Sadam is dead.

What we have here is a bunch of ammo for the Tea Party and Birthers to go on and on about how there is no proof and how do we really know. Yay! I wanna hear that for 4 more years.

I believe that our government is fully capable of faking this whole thing to get 'Merica up and running again. Do I care? No, not really. At this point in Americas life, this is probably the best thing for us, real or fake. It's just stupid that they didn't take every measure to prove to the Arab and Western worlds that he was defiantly captured and defiantly dead.

[Esuohlim]

osama bin laden is dad

[Esuohlim]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

So my brother says toi me, "I'm just picturing a family having a nice day on the beach and all of the sudden Bin Ladin's body washes ashore"

I d

All scarin' the kids

All ruinin' the meticulously built sandcastles

[Seven Force]

Those kids are gonna be messed up somethin' fierce I tell ya

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by WhiteRat

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

Am I naive enough to believe that Osama would have gotten an un-biased trial and that he would have had a fair chance of being found not guilty? No. Am I sick of world leaders talking about justice when they in fact mean a lack of it? Yes.

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

Originally Posted by moi

If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

[Tadao]

If I remember correctly, he was wanted dead or alive.

[Zhukov]

Doesn't really change what I said. If he was executed then that isn't what your country should be parading as justice.

If he wasn't executed then whatever. No argument.

Actually, no, wait; killing someone on the battlefield isn't justice either - that's just dying.

[Tadao]

Why shouldn't we parade executing him as justice? I mean this is only out of curiosity. I know what I would do to someone who killed my family, and I would call it justice.

[Zhukov]

Because that's not what you pretend your country is based on. This isn't what you would do to someone who killed your family, this is how a system of morals and ethics of an apparently progressive country should treat someone.

Seriously though, it's Osama bin Laden. I'm not surprised he's dead, I'm not angry he's dead, I'm not that interested on defending his personal rights in the eyes of the USA; it's more the comment that justice was done. That gets a scoff from me.

[WhiteRat]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

That gets a scoff from me.

Why I never!

[Tadao]

I wouldn't trust the US penal system to punish the guy who killed my family. I would try to kill him before he got captured.

[kahljorn]

maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

[WhiteRat]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims

Originally Posted by Zhukov

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Tadao

The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

I can see merit in this. Killing him and dropping his corpse in the sea only makes the "lack of evidence is evidence" crowd have ammo. And in this case I am inclined to agree with them, I want to see his dead ass for myself so I know he is dead.