Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
You can't take alive a guy that's been dead for ten years.
or one that never existed in the first place.
And even if he did exist and was stil alive, taking him alive and bringing him to justice in a fair court of law is just not the american way.
The other problem with taking him alive is you'd have to charge him for 9/11. Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
People would find that a bit odd, and then if you did decide to try him for 9/11 you'd have to come up with some kind of evidence not to mention that bin laden may have started talking and showing up more inconsistancies in the official story.
Nope it's better to kill off the boogie man in a blaze of Hollywood movie style bravado, that the american people lap up like a thirsty dog on a hot day.
Just when Obama's approval rating is at the lowest of any american president at this point in a term, just when Obama needs to show he's a leader, just as he's about to start a re election campeign. and now he's off to ground zero to grand stand and no doubt give an emotional and rousing speech about 'getting the job done' or some other 'mission accomplished' style propaganda bullshit.
The whole thing is so absurdly comical to me, that people actually believe and buy into this crap.
My final thoughts.....
If the US went into afghanistan to get bin laden how come they are still there now that the guy is dead?
Doesn't the fact that they 'found' him in Pakistan make the last 10 years of blood shed pointless? (setting aside the real agenda which was to secure oil, opium and lithium) Surely anyone with half a brain should be asking what the real agenda is.
One of the most technologically advanced milliataries with one of the biggest budgets in the world took ten years to find one guy living in a mansion in Pakistan? But hold on they didn't, it was his next door neigbours twitter feed that gave the game away. That doesn't sound the remotest bit ludicris to any of you?
After killing bin laden the corpse is thrown in the sea and the pictures are too disgusting? Just take our word for it we got him? Really?
The media and government have got it so easy. They don't even need to try anymore. People will believe ANYTHING!
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
Jesus Christ...
:vd:
You do know that the name isn't actually spelt using the English alphabet... it's Arabic and there is no official English translation... a lot of people say Osama and a lot of people INCLUDING THE FBI and CIA say Usama
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
When anyone starts to say he was unarmed and it was wrong I think about the innocents in the Twin Towers and on the tubes/bus in London - they were unarmed too.
You go around blowing people up then don't expect when justice comes calling that it's coming with a cup of tea and a blanket. If there was intel to be gained then yes he should have been taken alive if not then to me a double tap to the head was quicker and more humane than he deserved - period.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Honestly? I hope he didn't go out shooting... becuase the cunt does not deserve an ounce of valour.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
porkypara
I think in the morden world the law does not always seem to equel justice.
Bin Laden deserved to die in a horrible way and thats what he got IMO.It was justice
Also what benifit would it serve to keep him alive.All it would do is fan more extreamists when he would spout his hatred at his trail.
The SEAL team were give the nod and wink the same way the British SAS were when dealing with the IRA.Bring him in dead.
Job well done!;D
Miles has a point though about Assange. Had the US dropped a killing squad into the mansion he was staying in and slaughtered a bunch of people there would have been an outcry.
Had the Pakistani's launched an attack on some enemy of their state on American soil they would now be facing two weeks of carpet bombing.
Also it makes the British look stupid. America send in their navy seals and kick ass, we sent our SAS into LIbya to help the rebels and they captured us and sent us packing tail between legs.
It's a very important point really.
It seems to me that the fact that the US went to a sovereign nation without them knowing and murdered people seems to be getting lost amongst all the euphoria and chants of "USA, USA". It seems to me that America has no respect for international law and also had no desire to bring a man to justice. Shooting an unarmed man in the head just isn't justice. It is barbaric and shows America to be no better than Bin Laden and his so called terrorists, but I guess we knew that all along. It is hardly a new topic for me.
I also call into question the humanity of people who say that it was better off this way. So we should basically start murdering people without trial and we are comfortable with this? I certainly am not. I find the idea that this should be acceptable quite repugnant. Evidence should be laid out and a case made. I am opposed to the death penalty, but if there is enough evidence then the death can come at that juncture.
I view this as yet another sorry episode in America's recent political/military history. A shame really because it should have been something that showed them as something much better.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shamrock
When anyone starts to say he was unarmed and it was wrong I think about the innocents in the Twin Towers and on the tubes/bus in London - they were unarmed too.
You go around blowing people up then don't expect when justice comes calling that it's coming with a cup of tea and a blanket. If there was intel to be gained then yes he should have been taken alive if not then to me a double tap to the head was quicker and more humane than he deserved - period.
Those were terrible events for sure, but we should have taken him in and laid the evidence out for all to see. We have never really put together the direct links saying that he caused 9-11 for instance. We are just led to believe that this was the case. He was a terrible piece of work, but two wrongs don't make a right. As I say, if we needed to execute him them it should have been done after he had been proven guilty.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
I'm leaning in favor of taking him alive, but I understand why they didn't.
Miles: "The reaction to Wikileaks, the treatment of Bradley Manning and now this, suggest a moral decay and these are just issues from the past year or so"
LOL.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
Jesus Christ...
:vd:
You do know that the name isn't actually spelt using the English alphabet... it's Arabic and there is no official English translation... a lot of people say Osama and a lot of people INCLUDING THE FBI and CIA say Usama
Out of all the things mentioned in my post you pick up a descrepency on spelling :vd:
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
Jesus Christ...
:vd:
You do know that the name isn't actually spelt using the English alphabet... it's Arabic and there is no official English translation... a lot of people say Osama and a lot of people INCLUDING THE FBI and CIA say Usama
Out of all the things mentioned in my post you pick up a descrepency on spelling :vd:
Because it was completely calling bullshit on the point!
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
Jesus Christ...
:vd:
You do know that the name isn't actually spelt using the English alphabet... it's Arabic and there is no official English translation... a lot of people say Osama and a lot of people INCLUDING THE FBI and CIA say Usama
Out of all the things mentioned in my post you pick up a descrepency on spelling :vd:
Because you were saying that the FBI website has spelt it differently as if it was somehow relevant to some conspiracy... when in actual fact it just highlighted your lack of knowledge regarding what you were trying to speak with authority about?
Honestly, I could try and go into your other points... but I doubt we'd get very far. You should be thankful that I've just educated you and now you know that not everybody uses the English Alphabet and how this may affect translations etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pele5vptVgc
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shamrock
When anyone starts to say he was unarmed and it was wrong I think about the innocents in the Twin Towers and on the tubes/bus in London - they were unarmed too.
You go around blowing people up then don't expect when justice comes calling that it's coming with a cup of tea and a blanket. If there was intel to be gained then yes he should have been taken alive if not then to me a double tap to the head was quicker and more humane than he deserved - period.
Those were terrible events for sure, but we should have taken him in and laid the evidence out for all to see. We have never really put together the direct links saying that he caused 9-11 for instance. We are just led to believe that this was the case. He was a terrible piece of work, but two wrongs don't make a right. As I say, if we needed to execute him them it should have been done after he had been proven guilty.
Exactly, arrest him, take him to the Hague, and try him for crimes against humanity, if found guilty, then as they done to Saddam, hang him, or gas him in full public view, hell it would probably do more figures than Mayweather v Ortiz.
Re: Should Bin Laden have been taken alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boozeboxer
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hornfinger
Now the problem with that is the FBI never held him responsible for 9/11 in the first place.
FBI — Ten Most Wanted And his name is spelt differently....
Jesus Christ...
:vd:
You do know that the name isn't actually spelt using the English alphabet... it's Arabic and there is no official English translation... a lot of people say Osama and a lot of people INCLUDING THE FBI and CIA say Usama
Out of all the things mentioned in my post you pick up a descrepency on spelling :vd:
Because it was completely calling bullshit on the point!
So that blows everything else out of the water does it?
That's weak, very weak.
