Bin Laden Was Always "Shoot to Kill"

[Andre]

....Personally I would have captured him and then loaded him into a missile and fired him at the sun

Interesting: Getting in before the Sun does the reverse.

[Gandalf]

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.

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

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.

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.

And by the way there are many options between a law enforcement type trial and no standards at all.

[Gandalf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Every man deserves a criminal trial. If we can try Nazi's and insignificant world leaders, then we can try a suspected terrorist.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Gandalf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are the one thinking without morality. Arbitrary assasination is never acceptable.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

[Howlin Mad Missy]

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

Of course I do, you pompous arsewipe.

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.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

It means you're young = know nothing.