What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

LogGrad98 said:
And lobbing bombs at each other is a far different situation than standing in a room with someone pointing a gun at them. The Geneva Convention makes a distinction. In an all out fire fight people are going to die, of course. But that is completely different than asking the question, could they have captured him instead of killing him.

The issue I have is just the total disregard for even considering the possibility that maybe we did something wrong in all this. Not that it is not wrong that OBL is dead or captured, but as per international agreements and laws, if we simply executed him if there were no threat, that would be wrong.

And I thank God we have "rule of law" people that are willing to speak out. If we did not expect the government, or each other, to follow the rule of law, or if we did not hold people accountable to the law, where would we be as a country or a society? Even if we don't always agree with or like the laws. We can't just pick and choose which ones we follow because we think one guy is worse than another.

No one answered my original question. At what point does the law break down, do our personal ethics break down, and we find it acceptable as a society to step outside the laws and just give in to the blood lust for revenge? How bad does the offense have to be, or how mad or outraged do we have to be to justify ignoring the law in our desire for vengeance?
Click to expand...

How would bombing Osama in cold-blood be any different than shooting him?
 
So were you all crying this hard when the US was trying to kill Osama by bombing the hell out of the mountains in Afghanistan in 2001?
 
Wow have you guys even read what is being said or do you just skim it long enough to see that you don't agree then just slam it. Have you ever even perused any of the articles of the Geneva Convention treaties? In Afghanistan they were fighting back. They were not just sitting there waiting. The forces in Afghanistan were continually fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It was an all-out battle. In any battle the goal is to overwhelm the enemy. If you can kill their leaders, the fight ends faster.

The same applies in smaller skirmishes. If they encountered resistance in the compound when they invaded to apprehend OBL, which is what they said they did, then they were completely within all rights to kill him. I believe this is how it went down.

But you really cannot see a distinction between those scenarios and the possibility that he just stood there and surrendered and we killed him anyway?


Let's phrase it this way. If it turns out that the Seals burst into his room, and he was just standing there in his pajamas and they walked over to him, made him kneel down, and shot him in the head, would it make it any different to you?
 
DutchJazzer said:
what does that have to do with bin laden deserving a trail? or with his capture the events surrounding his death
Click to expand...

No, I dont believe we should name a "trail" after Bin Laden. Also the difference between me and you is that I believe the Navy Seals judgement and you dont. They put themselves in harmes way and risked their lives for idiots like you. It was THEIR CHOICE TO SHOOT HIM, and for you to sit in your comfy home on your computer and question THEIR DECISION is pure BULL****!
 
LogGrad98 said:
Let's phrase it this way. If it turns out that the Seals burst into his room, and he was just standing there in his pajamas and they walked over to him, made him kneel down, and shot him in the head, would it make it any different to you?
Click to expand...

Exactly, keep questioning the Navy Seals that risked their lives to protect our country. Sit in your safe little house on your computer and say you dont believe them. They decided and killed a man who was still planning to blow up trains and disease our water to kill people just like you.

I believe and trust the Navy Seals to make the correct judgments....and you dont. End of discussion.
 
Beantown said:
No, I dont believe we should name a "trail" after Bin Laden. Also the difference between me and you is that I believe the Navy Seals judgement and you dont. They put themselves in harmes way and risked their lives for idiots like you. It was THEIR CHOICE TO SHOOT HIM, and for you to sit in your comfy home on your computer and question THEIR DECISION is pure BULL****!
Click to expand...

never trust someone you dont know. wasnt it a couple of years back soldiers where abusing/raping/ killing. so you trust seal soldiers armed forces?
you may be the trusting type i aint
 
Bin Laden declared war on the US & in the US declared war on Al Queda & terrorism in turn. He wasn't a criminal per se. He was an enemy combatant. People shoot each other in war. He could have surrendered most likely. He didn't. He got a hole in the head.
 
So let's run down the new video evidence:

1. A video of Osama supposedly watching TV. No clear shot of the guy. Completely worthless.

2. Videos with no audio that are supposedly from 2010 that look exactly like the videos they released four years ago. No audio renders them completely worthless.

Regardless of what happened on 1 May 2011, isn't propaganda fun?
 
LogGrad98 said:
Let's phrase it this way. If it turns out that the Seals burst into his room, and he was just standing there in his pajamas and they walked over to him, made him kneel down, and shot him in the head, would it make it any different to you?
Click to expand...

Beantown said:
Exactly, keep questioning the Navy Seals that risked their lives to protect our country. Sit in your safe little house on your computer and say you dont believe them. They decided and killed a man who was still planning to blow up trains and disease our water to kill people just like you.

I believe and trust the Navy Seals to make the correct judgments....and you dont. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Why won't you answer the question?

I already said I believe the white house when they said the Seals had no choice but to shoot OBL. I believe that is how it went down and I already said that. But why can you not for even one second consider the possibility that maybe it could have been different? What are you afraid of?
 
Beantown said:
No, I dont believe we should name a "trail" after Bin Laden. Also the difference between me and you is that I believe the Navy Seals judgement and you dont. They put themselves in harmes way and risked their lives for idiots like you. It was THEIR CHOICE TO SHOOT HIM, and for you to sit in your comfy home on your computer and question THEIR DECISION is pure BULL****!
Click to expand...

It is far from idiocy to consider that other options may have been better choices. The idiots are the ones who accept everything blindly and are completely unwilling to challenge their own, and our collective, assumptions.

I am sure glad the "idiots" after the second world war were willing to question what had happened and determine what was right and wrong in that conflict and were willing to write treaties that would make the world, even in times of war, a more civilized place.
 
LogGrad98 said:
It is far from idiocy to consider that other options may have been better choices. The idiots are the ones who accept everything blindly and are completely unwilling to challenge their own, and our collective, assumptions.
Click to expand...

You need to do your homework. They chose the best option. For months the plan was to bomb the compound from above. It wasnt until they found out that children were on the compound that they changed that plan to put military actually on the ground.

Also my brother is an Interrogator in Afgahnistan. I trust all military. Sure a handful have made mistakes but those are extremely rare. If you dont trust our Military, especially that unit that is literally the best of the best. Well then I cant help you. How can you judge someone that risks their lives to protect our country? In the same situation Im sure I would have shot a terrorist that made any type of movement besides falling to the ground with his hands above his head.
 
Beantown said:
You need to do your homework. They chose the best option. For months the plan was to bomb the compound from above. It wasnt until they found out that children were on the compound that they changed that plan to put military actually on the ground.

Also my brother is an Interrogator in Afgahnistan. I trust all military. Sure a handful have made mistakes but those are extremely rare. If you dont trust our Military, especially that unit that is literally the best of the best. Well then I cant help you. How can you judge someone that risks their lives to protect our country? In the same situation Im sure I would have shot a terrorist that made any type of movement besides falling to the ground with his hands above his head.
Click to expand...

So I am confused. You are saying that we should accept everything blindly and never challenge our assumptions?

Oh and what homework, when the official story is still so sketchy and there is still talks of investigation? How can there be any homework? It is not "officially" settled yet.

And you keep ignoring this and going back to it as if I never said it, instead of just answering the questions posed, so I will say it big this time, for like the 4th time:

I BELIEVE THE REPORTS WE HAVE HAD SO FAR. I BELIEVE THAT THE SEALS ACTED IN THE ONLY MANNER POSSIBLE EITHER DUE TO OBL'S RESISTANCE OR OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON THEM. I TRUST THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.

By no stretch does it mean I completely rule out the possibility that it could have been handled differently. I think the investigations will provide details that what they did fit within the Geneva Convention and was their only course of action. That does not mean they do not need to investigate. I still think it is important to really understand what happened and why.

Also have you read anything at all about either of the World Wars, or Korea, or Vietnam? A handful of mistakes? I guess it depends on your definition of handful.

I also have family members in the military, and I am a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. I respect all that they do and hold our military in the highest esteem. But I am nowhere near gullible or naive enough to believe that in our entire military history there have only been a "handful of mistakes". My brother-in-law was on the ground in Tikrit and Baghdad in the first days of the invasion. He has told me a few stories of soldiers shooting civilians who obviously posed no threat, on accident or on purpose, that were just kind of ignored. It bugged him and he reported it but mostly they didn't do anything. It was war after all. He didn't feel it made it right, but he also still supported his leaders.

But you cannot seriously believe that in a war there are no emotions or mistakes or misjudgements that happen with dire outcomes. On an individual level and larger scale. Of course they minimize these mistakes, train to make sure they handle things correctly, and execute incredibly well in very difficult circumstance. For all the possibility of mistakes there are incredibly few. But if there really were just a handful of mistakes ever made by the military there would have been no need for the Geneva Convention. There would be no discussions along these lines at all.

Read the book that was brought up earlier "Fiasco". It details mistakes made on a very large scale, mistakes in planning, tactics, strategy, all that caused far more casualties and a far longer time-line for the war than may have been possible without these mistakes.

And Marcus answered the question and I respect his honesty. For him the line between valid military action and murder is different than it is for me (and different than the Geneva Convention), but he was open about it. How about you? Would you be perfectly happy to find out the Seals took OBL in his jammies, unarmed, and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head? Is that ok by you?
 
You keep comparing the capture of Bin Laden to other wars. We were fighting a terrorist group not a country. We were hunting down one person. Again, what would your response be if Bin Laden would have died in the bombings back in 2001?
 
Beantown said:
You keep comparing the capture of Bin Laden to other wars. We were fighting a terrorist group not a country. We were hunting down one person. Again, what would your response be if Bin Laden would have died in the bombings back in 2001?
Click to expand...

I already answered all that if you actually read my responses. I responded to all of those issues. And I did not compare it to other wars in my last post, I answered your assertion about the military making mistakes. You brought it up, I responded to it.

So I have answered all of your assertions, why won't you answer my question?

Would you be perfectly happy to find out the Seals took OBL in his jammies, unarmed, and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head? Is that ok by you?
 
LogGrad98 said:
I already answered all that if you actually read my responses. I responded to all of those issues. And I did not compare it to other wars in my last post, I answered your assertion about the military making mistakes. You brought it up, I responded to it.

So I have answered all of your assertions, why won't you answer my question?

Would you be perfectly happy to find out the Seals took OBL in his jammies, unarmed, and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head? Is that ok by you?
Click to expand...


No not really, you should have watched Seth Meyers on SNL last night. He basically said we dont give a crap if Obama was holding a gun, he could have been a bunny rabbit for all we care. I just care that he's dead. Either by gunshot or bombs. He did not deserve to live.

But I believe if the Seals that if he would have surrendered they would have taken him in.
 
I already said ad nauseum that I agreed with how the Seals handled it. I also agree he did not deserve to live, and I am glad he is gone.

But if the Seals found him in his pajamas unarmed and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head, I also think that would be wrong. IF they could have, then they should have brought him back alive to stand trial.

Personally I think he should have rotted in a prison till he died of old age at 90, forced to live without his freedom. In the position he was in, killing him was the way he would have wanted to go out, so Al Qaeda could make a martyr out of him. Locked away and impotent would have been a far worse fate for him and for his terrorist groups.

But that is what I wanted to know. I was curious how people would feel about if it turned out they COULD have apprehended him but instead just executed him, like in his pajamas, completely unarmed. I for one think that would have been wrong if that happened. It would also be against the Geneva Convention and would be classified a grave war crime.

Which also begs the other question I posed earlier that no one tackled. How bad does it have to be, how mad do we have to get or how many people does someone have to kill before it becomes ok to toss our laws and ethics as a society out the window and just give in to the blood lust of revenge?
 
nice going log to bad i cant rep you for a while.
i for one am not glad osama is dead. cus knowing muslims death is nothing. he should have rot in jail.
if he resisted then he should have been shot.

trust me some guys will go to the court in Den Hague the international court and demand a investigation trail. they went to their local policie station to report a crime(the murder of osama. the local cops just send them to den Hague international court or something.

then if and note that i say IF the seasl just executed him. the usa might get some heat for that. not much since UN Geneva convention are a joke when it comes to enforcing the rules
 
Haven't read a page of this... But I think everyone needs to take a break, get up and ****ing dance!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn1Ca8izXto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top