What do people think of this? Agree he should have been pasted or captured?
I think they stormed it and killed anyone who was there, without hesitation. They were trained to kill on sight.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16042791
Printable View
What do people think of this? Agree he should have been pasted or captured?
I think they stormed it and killed anyone who was there, without hesitation. They were trained to kill on sight.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16042791
He should have been captured. The US simple didn't want the hassle of having to go through the proper procedures. They had things on him, but not the great masterplan nor the justification for invading nations such as Iraq. And then you have other things such as Guantanamo and torture and you have America looking like the leading terrorist state. Both in terms of military and economic force, easier to shoot him dead and just lie to the world. And so they did.
America is a sinking sheep. Just feeding on the carcasses of the poor whilst it goes under.
They read him his rights...they stopped at you have the right to remain silent
Did I really say a 'sinking sheep'? It could be used, but clearly I had something on my mind at the time.
You can be sure of 2 things:
1) they didn't bother to give him the "muslim burrial rites"
2) Getting him alive has always been out of question.
I have all the doubts in the world that on a couple of hours notice where they decided the mission, they did have time to place an Imam on board with all the required material to process to the last rites and they couldn't care less, especially as if they say "yes, we did the proper rites", nobody can prove it.
As for the shooting on sign, my first thought was that it was unacceptable and that they should have trialed him but then, I had a second thought and I lean more toward the "it was the only option" thing, I explain myself:
Ben Laden was guilty of a load of things that could cause him death sentence in the countries where he did perpetuate his deeds, even claiming himself these things on the T.V and radio through different broadcasts, which means that even at the end of a trial, he would have most likely being executed anyway.
Second, they might have learn from the Saddam Husein experience where the show turned to be a whole circus and a publicity stunt for the hardcore radicals to recruit evne more and to foster even more hate. Do you want of that? NO. DO you want of all the distraction around his jail time (which would be at least 2-3 years as you can expect countless of lawyers trying to take his defense for free to get themselves some high profile publicity) plus all the newspapers trying to get a picture of ben Laden and to overwatch way too narrowly everything surrounding him to sell more?
You don't want that neither. Once the process is over (and closely before it gets), do you imagine all the muslims whining and making noise so he's burried somewhere under earth as the muslim protocol prescribes (and with all the publicity that would have come around it, it would have been an even bigger deal than what it has been when they did proceed) and now, imagine him burried somewhere because of that pressure and that circus, congratulation, you might just have created a new pilgrimage location for the coo-coos.
If the whole system would be different, under some circumstances, I'd favor a fair trial. In the circumstances... I'd say that I am not 100% well with the decision they took but I understand quite well why they did it and there is some good arguments about it.
as for how it happened exactly, the Abbottabad launch should be available in 30 years with the documents declassification, some of us should live long enough to see it.
I thought the article was quite interesting though. Gave a good insight into what actualy happended on the day.
Who gives a fuck? He should have always been shoot to kill.
For a start if they held him in custody the rest if the sand dwellers would start blowing them selves up, taking out innocent people until he was "freed"
They should have tortured the son of a bitch first, maybe had a pig rape him or something & then kill the bastard.
well said,Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
i would have made that cunt beg for mercy while i ripped his head off.
Capturing him would have been red tape - if they hung saddam hussain then executing bin laden would be a forgone conclusion.
A public execution makes an even bigger martyr of him.
....Personally I would have captured him and then loaded him into a missile and fired him at the sun
If we could have captured him quietly, interrogated him for six months with nobody knowing? That's clearly the best option. It was also impossible.
Killing him was the best available option, and in my view thoroughly ethical.
This is no different than killing Yamamoto (though Yamamoto was a thoroughly honorable man, not a scumbag like bin Laden).
It's also no different from the failed British attempt to kill Rommel or the Spartan attempt to kill Xerxes at Thermopalye (if that really happened).
Targeting opposition leaders in war is throughly legitimate.
Think about it, its just easier to kill him. Capturing him ould lead to more attacks to get him free and what would they ultimatly do with him? Just easier to put two shots in him. Imagine being the guy who killed him! Mind you they should have tortured that fuck.
Yeah show them thar sand niggers we're more civilised than they are! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Preme
oooh wait a minute...:-\
There is no doubt that a lot of exploitable intelligence was left on the table by not capturing him. That being said I am very happy we didn't have to go through the endless circus of a trial and execution. The media coverage of Casey Anthony was already enough to make me want to poke my eyes out. And on another note, the U.S. Military has "chaplains" of all faiths to include Muslims so it is very likely there was an Imam/Mullah (I'm not really sure what the title is in the military) present before he was put to sea.
I quite agree. However, I doubt about the chaplain thing, on such a short notice and because almost any imam knows that dropping somebody at sea is not conform to the rites, I have high doubts it went so smoothly. Thus said, I would't hold it against the army, the guy was a super sensitive case and in the circumstances, I don't see how they could have done otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorCharlie
Interesting: Getting in before the Sun does the reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Opposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
No it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Well, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNo it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.
Anyone who can't distingush between TARGETING civilians and collateral damage has a major hole in their system of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesWell, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNo it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.
Ever wonder HOW we got the Nazi's and Japanese leaders to trial? We literally destroyed their countries city by city. Over half of Cologne, Dortmund, Dresden, Frankfurt, Essne, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg and Munich were destroyed. Same with Yokohama, Kobe, Tokyo, Kagoshima etc.
You'd be more morally comfortable had we leveled that Pakistani City and put bin Laden on trial? REALLY?
But they could have captured him alive and obviously without commiting serious war crimes against Pakistan. The opportunity to take him alive was there. Bin Laden had no power to invade countries or have an army defending him. Completely different to trying to capture or kill someone like Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiAnyone who can't distingush between TARGETING civilians and collateral damage has a major hole in their system of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesWell, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNo it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.
Ever wonder HOW we got the Nazi's and Japanese leaders to trial? We literally destroyed their countries city by city. Over half of Cologne, Dortmund, Dresden, Frankfurt, Essne, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg and Munich were destroyed. Same with Yokohama, Kobe, Tokyo, Kagoshima etc.
You'd be more morally comfortable had we leveled that Pakistani City and put bin Laden on trial? REALLY?
You are the one thinking without morality. Arbitrary assasination is never acceptable.
You haven't the vaguest idea what the word "arbitrary" means do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut they could have captured him alive and obviously without commiting serious war crimes against Pakistan. The opportunity to take him alive was there. Bin Laden had no power to invade countries or have an army defending him. Completely different to trying to capture or kill someone like Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiAnyone who can't distingush between TARGETING civilians and collateral damage has a major hole in their system of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesWell, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNo it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.
Ever wonder HOW we got the Nazi's and Japanese leaders to trial? We literally destroyed their countries city by city. Over half of Cologne, Dortmund, Dresden, Frankfurt, Essne, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg and Munich were destroyed. Same with Yokohama, Kobe, Tokyo, Kagoshima etc.
You'd be more morally comfortable had we leveled that Pakistani City and put bin Laden on trial? REALLY?
You are the one thinking without morality. Arbitrary assasination is never acceptable.
As for capturing him, I cannot even IMAGINE how many innocent people that would have put in danger at the hands of his followers. Are you too young to remember the PLO/Badder Meinhof/Red Brigade kidnappings and hostage taking designed to free their imprisoned brethren?
Your willingness to risk the innocent in defense of a monster is unsurprising, monstrous and sad.
I'm out. Good night!
And let's not forget the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and Rwanda and Zimababwe that have died and continue to die when the West has selective morals. But it's ok and I can reassure the rest of us it won't happen here because they don't really matter. They're brown.
Of course I do, you pompous arsewipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiYou haven't the vaguest idea what the word "arbitrary" means do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesBut they could have captured him alive and obviously without commiting serious war crimes against Pakistan. The opportunity to take him alive was there. Bin Laden had no power to invade countries or have an army defending him. Completely different to trying to capture or kill someone like Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiAnyone who can't distingush between TARGETING civilians and collateral damage has a major hole in their system of morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesWell, Bush and Blair targeted far more than Bin Laden. Maybe not openly targeting civilians but with hundreds of thousands dead, you can argue that they are no better than someone like Bin Laden. All should have been brought to trial IMO, but of course only the powerful are able to get away with their crimes without being too muddied.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmauiNo it doesn't. The difference is this, bin Laden targeted civilians. We targeted bin Laden. And we chose to attack him in a way that minimized the possibility of collateral damage. HUGE difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOpposition leader in war? Right, so let me declare war on all Pac fans and let's just chop off Xaduboxers head. I disagree with that mentality. Even stupid and evil people deserve a trial with all the evidence laid out in the proper way. To have no standards means you are no better than the 'terrorists' you are supposedly taking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.
Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.
Ever wonder HOW we got the Nazi's and Japanese leaders to trial? We literally destroyed their countries city by city. Over half of Cologne, Dortmund, Dresden, Frankfurt, Essne, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Bremen, Hamburg and Munich were destroyed. Same with Yokohama, Kobe, Tokyo, Kagoshima etc.
You'd be more morally comfortable had we leveled that Pakistani City and put bin Laden on trial? REALLY?
You are the one thinking without morality. Arbitrary assasination is never acceptable.
As for capturing him, I cannot even IMAGINE how many innocent people that would have put in danger at the hands of his followers. Are you too young to remember the PLO/Badder Meinhof/Red Brigade kidnappings and hostage taking designed to free their imprisoned brethren?
Your willingness to risk the innocent in defense of a monster is unsurprising, monstrous and sad.
I'm out. Good night!
And your ignorance of war criminals who are shielded with the veils of power is quite astounding too. They are all guilty of the same terrible things. And all the evidence suggests Bin Laden was there for the taking and yet he needed a bullet to the body and then one to the head just to ensure that he couldn't talk? That is barbaric and didn't need to happen.
Furthermore, clearly being born somewhat after 1914 I have no idea what your other references mean.:rolleyes:
It means you're young = know nothing.