Albertan_J Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 is he even dead haha :yp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaybeNextTime Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sorry guys this all seems a litte too emotional and 'deep'. Bin Laden is dead - it would have been ideal if he was armed and fighting, but its not immoral to execute a murderer IMHO especially if he has killed innumerable people and is a threat to world peace. The bible will give you a justification for anything and a reason why you should not do that thing. Its not a first choice to shoot an unarmed man but if you were there and did not know how many armed guards were there, whether there were wired explosives, whether the pakistanis would weigh in support of your target and your whole country expecting you to end the grief of 3,000 dead? Anyone who would not pull the trigger and administer the 'double tap' would for ever be a pariah. Then again you would never be a Seal, SAS or any other elite group. Try telling the SAS, acting on these sort of orders that execution is immoral and against natural law. Come on guys would you have asked these moral questions at the moment or a hell of a long time before? How do you come up with the idea that OBL was a murderer with 3000 deaths on his hands? Pretty sure he wasn't flying the planes.... Or are you suggesting that by ordering the killing then he was committing murder? Ignoring the suggestion that it wasn't OBL but that Khalid Sheik Mohammed fella who was the mastermind then haven't you just called Obama a murderer for ordering the killing of OBL? Just give me a clue as to when laws apply and when the don't 'cos it seems to be getting a little hazy about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sorry guys this all seems a litte too emotional and 'deep'. Bin Laden is dead - it would have been ideal if he was armed and fighting, but its not immoral to execute a murderer IMHO especially if he has killed innumerable people and is a threat to world peace. The bible will give you a justification for anything and a reason why you should not do that thing. Its not a first choice to shoot an unarmed man but if you were there and did not know how many armed guards were there, whether there were wired explosives, whether the pakistanis would weigh in support of your target and your whole country expecting you to end the grief of 3,000 dead? Anyone who would not pull the trigger and administer the 'double tap' would for ever be a pariah. Then again you would never be a Seal, SAS or any other elite group. Try telling the SAS, acting on these sort of orders that execution is immoral and against natural law. Come on guys would you have asked these moral questions at the moment or a hell of a long time before? I would have thought it would have had more of a pyschological effect on the terrorists if they'd gone in, killed him and anybody else who was there, destroyed all evidence and not broadcast the news to every tom **** and harry the world over. There would be terrorists ******** themselves as they would not know for sure what had happened and who was next. Why televise so much information, its asking for trouble. All you've got do is say you're going to burn a Koran and they all go nuts. The yanks have just murdered the muslim fundamentallist equivalent of Winston Churchill and dumped him in the drink like a peice of ****. Wether he was or wasnt a peice of **** is not the question, its how it will be percieved by our foes. Red flag to a bull, what a great example of tact and diplomacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sorry guys this all seems a litte too emotional and 'deep'. Bin Laden is dead - it would have been ideal if he was armed and fighting, but its not immoral to execute a murderer IMHO especially if he has killed innumerable people and is a threat to world peace. The bible will give you a justification for anything and a reason why you should not do that thing. Its not a first choice to shoot an unarmed man but if you were there and did not know how many armed guards were there, whether there were wired explosives, whether the pakistanis would weigh in support of your target and your whole country expecting you to end the grief of 3,000 dead? Anyone who would not pull the trigger and administer the 'double tap' would for ever be a pariah. Then again you would never be a Seal, SAS or any other elite group. Try telling the SAS, acting on these sort of orders that execution is immoral and against natural law. Come on guys would you have asked these moral questions at the moment or a hell of a long time before? So... where do we draw the line then? Because if it was ok for the 'authorities' to summarily execute, without trial, someone who ALLEGEDLY (and that is the correct word... not a sympathetic or doubting word but the fact that he hasn't had a fair trial..) killed 3000+ civilians, then surely it's now ok for for them to do the same to someone who ALLEGEDLY killed 1,000 or 500, or 100, or 10, or.............. 1... How would you feel if our police or security forces began summary executions of anyone suspected of killing someone? No matter what my feelings are towards Al Quaida, Osama Bin Laden, The US administration and the background to this whole affair, executing an unarmed suspect leaves a VERY nasty taste in my mouth and, in my eyes, puts western democratic society on the same level as the terrorists! There have been people in recent history who have facilitated or even directly caused the deaths of FAR more civilians than OBL... tens, if not hundreds of thousands... genocide in the true meaning of the word and yet they were afforded "due process." This is just sanctioned murder, justified like a lot of abhorent things seem to be nowadays, in the name of "The War on Terror!" Newsnight now... all about this very subject... just started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Put him on trial, yes he would most probably been found guilty and then execute him.. but regardless, he was still entitled to the same "due process" as we all would be.. sorry but doing that would simply have allowed him to influence yet more lulabells into doing his dirty work,and given him a stage to the world, by his acts (undisputable) he had indicated to the world you call civalised that he wanted no part of it, a tap on the back of the head gets a thumbs up from me and an early bath for him, in fact he surely would rejoice in the act of having his evil brains blown out as now he is dead and up there ******** away at the virgins allah has provided him with, he has reached the pinnacle of his career, so just look upon it as if the yanks have simply promoted him. KW Edited May 5, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 sorry but doing that would simply have allowed him to influence yet more lulabells into doing his dirty work,and given him a stage to the world, by his acts (undisputable) he had indicated to the world you call civalised that he wanted no part of it, a tap on the back of the head gets a thumbs up from me and an early bath for him, in fact he surely would rejoice in the act of having his evil brains blown out as now he is dead and up there ******** away at the virgins allah has provided him with, he has reached the pinnacle of his career, so just look upon it as if the yanks have simply promoted him. KW True but why shout it from the roof tops. They should have just done the job and said nixy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Ok, as an example, Hitler was no longer able to wage war - in addition to all his cronies. He reputedly shot himself, ending the need to try him but the rest were tried and a 'formal process' ended in many 'legitimate' killings. Hitlers continuing influence on a very small sector of the German populaion is, in large part due to 'the elvis syndrome', no body was found. Sift through the rest of the bestial tyrants and it seems to me 'due process' was offered to people whos ability to continue their previous behaviour had long gone. Not the case with BL, he was supported/ protected/undescovered for 5 years in his house in Pakistan and would have been able to continue his own peculiar terrorism if he had been at large. If you have the means at hand to avoid making him a martyr, to avoid threats to innocents as hostages for his release, to prevent a vile a repugnant attempt to 'justify' his crimes to the world in a 'show' trial and to prevent an upsurge in radicalisation because of his continued existence..........would you kill him - I know I would have and leave the moral assessment to the afterlife. You can count to 1, just 1 man, this one well known terrorist, thats all the moral dilemma is. In MHO to miss the opportunity to end this mans life and his reign of terror would have been the greater 'sin'. Even Hitlers generals knew he should be killed - why are you having ANY trouble with the manner of OBL's death ?? Edited May 5, 2011 by Kes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I can't believe how many people on this thread are supporting a terrorist (yep by defending him you are supporting him), the guy had nearly 10 years to hand himself over for trial and didn't bother, the right thing was done in the end, no chance of hostage exchange and no chance of escape, bullet(s) to the head job done! People give these terrorists too much freedom, they don't want to be part of society so why offer them the best parts of it (the right to trails etc),the whole Saddam fiasco cost millions, everyone knew he was guilty so why bother, shame there was no SEAL team there when he was found, throw a couple of grenades in his bunker with him, close the lid and money saved! It's about time we stopped pussy footing around with these people and actually show we're sick of this ****, we should start by ceasing all funding to Pakistan until they can prove then had nothing to do with hiding OBL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toombsy Posted May 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Well said that man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I can't believe how many people on this thread are supporting a terrorist (yep by defending him you are supporting him), the guy had nearly 10 years to hand himself over for trial and didn't bother, the right thing was done in the end, no chance of hostage exchange and no chance of escape, bullet(s) to the head job done! People give these terrorists too much freedom, they don't want to be part of society so why offer them the best parts of it (the right to trails etc),the whole Saddam fiasco cost millions, everyone knew he was guilty so why bother, shame there was no SEAL team there when he was found, throw a couple of grenades in his bunker with him, close the lid and money saved! It's about time we stopped pussy footing around with these people and actually show we're sick of this ****, we should start by ceasing all funding to Pakistan until they can prove then had nothing to do with hiding OBL I'll defend him if you like, he fought for something he believed in, as far as his organisation were concerned they ahd a force from a foreign country invading their land. If the same happened here and we had an underground force committing "terrorist" (and i use that term as debateable) acts would we be terrorists or freedom fighters. The French resistance might have been classed as terrorists by the germans but not the rest of the world. It's all about controlling oil not human rights ect. If it was about human rights why has nothing been done about the Chinese in Tibet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I'll defend him if you like, he fought for something he believed in, as far as his organisation were concerned they ahd a force from a foreign country invading their land. If the same happened here and we had an underground force committing "terrorist" (and i use that term as debateable) acts would we be terrorists or freedom fighters. The French resistance might have been classed as terrorists by the germans but not the rest of the world. It's all about controlling oil not human rights ect. If it was about human rights why has nothing been done about the Chinese in Tibet? There's a difference in defending your land from an unprovoked invasion to actively waging war on another country and then playing hide and seek in your own country when the big boys come to give you a slapping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I can't believe how many people on this thread are supporting a terrorist (yep by defending him you are supporting him), the guy had nearly 10 years to hand himself over for trial and didn't bother, the right thing was done in the end, no chance of hostage exchange and no chance of escape, bullet(s) to the head job done! People give these terrorists too much freedom, they don't want to be part of society so why offer them the best parts of it (the right to trails etc),the whole Saddam fiasco cost millions, everyone knew he was guilty so why bother, shame there was no SEAL team there when he was found, throw a couple of grenades in his bunker with him, close the lid and money saved! It's about time we stopped pussy footing around with these people and actually show we're sick of this ****, we should start by ceasing all funding to Pakistan until they can prove then had nothing to do with hiding OBL Not supporting a terrorist or a person, I am trying to support "the law"... nothing else and "the law" is the cornerstone that our society is built on... As soon as you start 'picking and choosing' who the law should and shouldn't apply to then you are on a very slippery slope to a society I don't think ANYONE would want to be part of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Elby, are you saying OBL was like the Maquis, the Ling etc etc., fighting an invader ? I dont recall the resistence groups killing innocents (colaborato werent innocents), thousands of them. I dont recall these groups doing anything cowardly They were fighting for the survival of their country - yes, but they had 'rules of engagement'. The ling were largely responsible for preventing Hitler developing the A bomb. I would duck if I were you, some of these gallant resistance fighters are still alive and honoured by many living relatives. Your comparison is ill judged and wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Not supporting a terrorist or a person, I am trying to support "the law"... nothing else and "the law" is the cornerstone that our society is built on... As soon as you start 'picking and choosing' who the law should and shouldn't apply to then you are on a very slippery slope to a society I don't think ANYONE would want to be part of! You do realise though that in war there are official targets and OBL was one of them, no international law was broken, OBL himself released video footage and told the west how he was going to defeat them (shortly before beheading some innocent hostages), this made him a legitimate military target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Just want to add that maybe the whole shooting him unarmed was planned - lets face it if your life was on the line (and all of the SEAL team members lives were), and after watching your target you notice that at certain times he is unarmed and unguarded would you: a ) use one of those times to attack b ) think "let's make this sporting and wait for him to arm up and get his guards!" So maybe, just maybe the unarmed killing was 'very' good planning and not an accident, and if that is the case then I would call it a damn perfect operation Deker Edited May 5, 2011 by Deker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 You do realise though that in war there are official targets and OBL was one of them, no international law was broken, OBL himself released video footage and told the west how he was going to defeat them (shortly before beheading some innocent hostages), this made him a legitimate military target. Hmmm. just watched a very interesting debate surrounding this and am still unsure as to whether killing an UNARMED enemy combatant if he refuses to surrender is legal, even under the rules of war... I am trying to find out though... It still doesn't change my view however. It is easy to apply whatever set of rules facilitate the achievement of your goals... the rules of war were written and put together for a scenario very far removed from this one.. If they killed an unarmed man rather than capturing whether under war time or peacetime law is still summary execution and I thought we were better than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 If it was anyone else, the Seal that pulled the trigger would probably be facing murder charges! Actually if it was anyone other than the military then they would have been millions better off due to the bounty - this wasn't an unlawful killing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Actually if it was anyone other than the military then they would have been millions better off due to the bounty - this wasn't an unlawful killing I meant the target rather than the shooter but yes... I see your point... I am fully aware there was a bounty on his head 'dead or alive!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Hmmm. just watched a very interesting debate surrounding this and am still unsure as to whether killing an UNARMED enemy combatant if he refuses to surrender is legal, even under the rules of war... I am trying to find out though... As I mentioned in the other post, it would also sway on the reason he was unarmed for example: a ) no guns anywhere near b ) caught taking a dump with the good ole AK47 on the floor c ) making a butty while watching x-factor on the kitchen tv and the AK left on the sofa you get my point (also trying to keep it as light hearted as possible given the subject!) I meant the target rather than the shooter but yes... I see your point... I am fully aware there was a bounty on his head 'dead or alive!' Also just to add a little extra, I don't think there was a bounty for 'alive', I'm almost certain it was for dead only! Edited May 5, 2011 by Deker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Actually if it was anyone other than the military then they would have been millions better off due to the bounty - this wasn't an unlawful killing Ah, yes I get your point, I read your post wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Elby, I would duck if I were you, some of these gallant resistance fighters are still alive and honoured by many living relatives. Your comparison is ill judged and wrong. I won't duck at all. To a lot of muslims OBL is gallant and honoured. No good saying their acts were cowardly. They couldn't stand toe to toe with a force like the US so they went in the back door. War on terror my ****, where was their war on terror when they were funding the IRA and our women & children were getting killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I won't duck at all. To a lot of muslims OBL is gallant and honoured. To a lot of Germans in WW2 so was Hitler - still made his actions wrong They couldn't stand toe to toe with a force like the US so they went in the back door. Correct but this is why they should have thought about their actions in the first place, they can't go bleating when the West kick their back door in (try actually saying that without sniggering!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 To a lot of Germans in WW2 so was Hitler - still made his actions wrong Correct but this is why they should have thought about their actions in the first place, they can't go bleating when the West kick their back door in (try actually saying that without sniggering!) I tried but I couldn't. Anyway my whole point was he should have been captured and tried because our PM said his killing was justified that must mean he believes in the death penalty which we don't have. Also as much as I feel for all the people that died in 9/11 I do think as a nation of bullies it was about time the US suffered some terrorism on their own doorstep, would have been better if it was targetted at a millitary base rather than civilians though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deker Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 I tried but I couldn't. Anyway my whole point was he should have been captured and tried because our PM said his killing was justified that must mean he believes in the death penalty which we don't have. Yes true, and in my opinion we should jump on this argument to get it re-introduced (but that's another debate for another thread ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) To a lot of Germans in WW2 so was Hitler - still made his actions wrong Not arguing with you about that, although I do have some admiration for his ideals and goals for his people and country, sadly he went about it with a very skewed view and absolutely abhorent crimes were committed under his command.. Anyhoo... that's not what I was responding about... I was just going to point out that history tends to be the judge of right and wrong and it tends to be the winners of wars who were right and the losers who were wrong. I'm sure if the Nazis had won the war, plenty of allied commanders would have been tried for war crimes against germany and 'human rights' violations under their interpretation... Edited May 5, 2011 by Vipa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.