He didn't deserve to die the way he did. In fact, he didn't deserve to die at all. You're just as terrible as he ever was if you think killing someone is justice.
You should always put someone before a trial. It doesn't matter what they've done or who they are, It's the law.
Say whaaaaat?
Let me ask you this then. If I'm shooting at a cop, and then he shoots me back and I die, is that fair game or did I deserve a trial still while I was in the middle of shooting people?
Had they managed to take bin Laden alive, there would have been a trial, I can assure you. What ensued instead though was a firefight in the attempt to apprehend him. So when people are shooting at each other back and forth, I'm not sure it's a question then of who deserves to die. It's more about who happens to win the firefight.
I personally think that yeah killing someone brings justice. But if you want to get into a whole death penalty discussion I suppose we should save that for a separate thread.
He didn't deserve to die the way he did. In fact, he didn't deserve to die at all. You're just as terrible as he ever was if you think killing someone is justice.
You should always put someone before a trial. It doesn't matter what they've done or who they are, It's the law.
Trial isn't international law, it's a constitutional provided right. Since Osama isn't a US citizen then he can't hide behind that. Besides the guy was a war criminal, he wasn't going to be taken alive. Not to mention if they did try to take him alive there would be attacks made on the people escorting him all the way back.
The biggest problem I have with this ordeal is we haven't been provided any proof. We just have to take their word on it all.
A single earthquake can kill more people than all the terrorist organizations throught history, combined. Terrorism is overrated. Osama's death was just US ego in its glory, it won't change anything.
I'll reword it slightly. Let's say I'm surrounded by my armed guards who are shooting the police, so thus it's irrelevant whether I'm shooting or not cause I'm in a place where everyone else shooting around me. Is this why I couldn't apply the situation to Osama's? Or am I still missing your point?
Had they managed to take bin Laden alive, there would have been a trial, I can assure you. What ensued instead though was a firefight in the attempt to apprehend him. So when people are shooting at each other back and forth, I'm not sure it's a question then of who deserves to die. It's more about who happens to win the firefight.
They entered with the purpose of killing him without a trial. That's breaking the very fundamental aspect of humans rights. Everyone is allowed a fair trial.
Bin Laden was living in Pakistan. A country of which he was not a citizen. Pakistan is a U.S. ally, and they had allowed U.S. troops to go in and act on their intelligence that he was there. Legally, the U.S. had more rights in Pakistan than bin Laden did. And how do you know they didn't try to take him alive? By standard of protocol it is most likely they had the place surrounded and then gave him once last chance to give himself up. Since obviously he would not give himself up, they came prepared for a firefight and that's just how it went down.
As I said, a fair trial is a fundamental part of the human rights. Not to mention the fact that if they attacked his hideout with the purpose of killing him they should not have attacked at all.
As details of the operation still continue to surface, I think we may revisit this point at a later time. But all common sense, intelligence aside, indicated that Osama would not have allowed himself to be taken into custody. He may have been a coward, but perhaps ideological enough to rather die than be taken prisoner. Also he might have dreaded what would have happened to him during an incarceration anyway.
I would still wager they gave Osama one last chance to surrender as per protocol and they probably did it after they had the place surrounded. And I'm willing to wager also that the people inside the house were the first ones to open fire. Had he been captured alive, albeit unlikely, he would have been given a trial. It would have been in an international court and it would have been very brief as there is overwhelming evidence against him.
A single earthquake can kill more people than all the terrorist organizations throught history, combined. Terrorism is overrated.
You are right. Terrorism, as far as how many people it kills, is overrated. But the goal of terrorism isn't just to kill people. It's to...you know, cause terror. Terror which is supposed to bring about change whether political or just how people live their daily lives. And as far as bringing change, unfortunately it actually is quite effective. The 9/11 attacks killed about 3,000 people. The U.S. population is now around 350 million. But for all those people who are alive it's changed the way their government thinks and they way tax dollars are spent.
I guess I'll at least say then that I do believe in the due process of law. And I don't mind if Osama had gone to trial cause I know he would've been convicted and if he didn't get the death penalty he'd be shenk'd eventually.
But the terror comes in the form of "I may die because of a terrorist attack". It's the only way they have to cause terror, threatening people's lives. It's fear of death, and statistically death by terrorism is extremely unlikely, thus, people should be less afraid of terrorism than, say, crossing the street.
What I meant by "US ego" was that killing Osama didn't have any real benefit, and they devoted countless resources to kill him. All it did was put terrorism back in people's mind, and prove that "we are America, we can do whatever the hell we want". It was just a childlish vendetta.
But the terror comes in the form of "I may die because of a terrorist attack". It's the only way they have to cause terror, threatening people's lives. It's fear of death, and statistically death by terrorism is extremely unlikely, thus, people should be less afraid of terrorism than, say, crossing the street.
People should be more or less of a lot of things. You can argue they should be less afraid all you want. But people are afraid anyway, that's the fact of the matter. And thus, terrorism is quite effective at making people afraid as many of us do live in fear of that sort of thing.
What I meant by "US ego" was that killing Osama didn't have any real benefit, and they devoted countless resources to kill him.
The same resources that were going into finding Obama were dedicated to searching for many members of al-Qaeda. We were far from putting "countless" resources into the operation that killed him. The resources gone into sending some guys into Pakistan are quite countable I'm sure.
All it did was put terrorism back in people's mind, and prove that "we are America, we can do whatever the hell we want". It was just a childlish vendetta.
Going after Osama bin Laden was just a childish vendetta? Seriously? We weren't just doing whatever the hell we wanted when we went into Pakistan to get him either. Do you think an armed U.S. soldier in uniform could just walk around the streets of Turkey or something? Or any other sovereign country? No, we had to have permission from the Pakistani government first. Luckily for the U.S. though much of that permission was ongoing so the operation was able to move fast and not wait for the bureaucratic red tape to clear.
And this didn't just put terrorism back in people's minds either. I don't know about you, but every time I go to the airport and start taking off my clothes and getting felt up by security guards...this puts terrorism in my mind far more than Osama's capture did. I'm all like, "Fucking terrorism...make me take off my belt and shoes will you!"
Just have to say that I am happy to see that they finally caught Bin Laden. I don't really know what else to say about this because I can get quite riled up in discussions like this so I will leave it at that
Meanwhile in bizzaro land the operation didn't commence until:
On April 29, 2011,[159] U.S. President Barack Obama authorized a raid ("Operation Neptune Spear"[160] with "Geronimo" as the code name for bin Laden himself.[161]) on bin Laden's suspected location near Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Just wanted to inject some of my conspiracy riddled nonsense into this conversation.
I've been following this news for some time now, and have amassed some considerable data on Osama Bin Laden which I think you will find interesting.
Osama was taken to a military hospital in Dubai by the CIA in July of 2001 while he was on the FBI most wanted list for the previous trade center attack. He was treated for chronic kidney infection. As reported by the French daily Le Figaro
One of Osama's doctors said that he had Marfans syndrome which is a disease that causes weakening of vital structures in the body but declined to comment further.
It is extremely unlikely that Osama could have lasted more than a few years with these combined conditions without aid of a dialysis machine (which was not found at the compound)
Ex-CIA agent of 20 years Steve Pechinik came out in 2002 saying that Osama was dead and that they literally had him on ice for a time when they needed a political victory.
Madeline Albright, former speaker of the house stated in 2004 that that Osama was Dead and that Bush was likely to roll out news of Osama Bin Ladens death in support of his 2004 campaign.
After the alleged killing of Osama, Steve Pechinik came out saying that he would testify before a grand jury to his claim.
Even if you don't buy any of that, dont you think it just a little bit strange that there is absolutely no evidence available to the public that would prove Osama's death? They gave him a burial at sea according to "Muslim beliefs" (which isn't actually true, you are supposed to be buried facing Mecca.)So there is no body, and no evidence other than testimonials that have been supplied to the public. Pics or it didn't happen imo.
All the conspiracies aside, who do you think really won this war? Our economy is in shambles, 12000+ innocent Afghani civilians lie dead, our reputation is ruined, and what do we have to show for it? The dead body of a tall terroris... oh wait, we threw away the body?!?
Oh yea and this made me laugh
The same resources that were going into finding Obama were dedicated to searching for many members of al-Qaeda.
I honestly don't think its over. Give it time and there will be another 'Osama' commanding terrorist attacks on innocents all over the world.
Killing one guy can never end a war. And a war it is. Its strange how people are so happy about it. There must have been someone related to Osama in some way who'll surface sometime later with plans to destroy the world despite of Osama's unpredicted death (maybe because of it). That's the thing with these terrorists, they never realize that they should stop.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
''May the Gods give you the strength and power to bear the madness which flows through our minds.''
''Zubin, I've always imagined you as a crazy raver. The kinda guy that spends all night dancing to trance music while waving glow sticks and popping ecstasy.'' - Murderface
Fear is an irrational feeling, so most people are incapable of being rational with it.
Swimming pools, for example, kill roughly 300 kids under the age of five each year in the USA alone (around 9,000 in the past 30 years), so they're by far more dangerous than Al-Qaeda.
The war on swimming pools just didn't sound as catchy.
They spent something in the neighborhood of the hundreds of billions of dollars, while the budget to research coronary heart disease, something that kills about 6000 more people a year than terrorists do, was in the neighborhood of 6 billion dollars.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
And if that makes me "inhumane", then I don't wanna be humane baby!
Let me ask you this then. If I'm shooting at a cop, and then he shoots me back and I die, is that fair game or did I deserve a trial still while I was in the middle of shooting people?
Had they managed to take bin Laden alive, there would have been a trial, I can assure you. What ensued instead though was a firefight in the attempt to apprehend him. So when people are shooting at each other back and forth, I'm not sure it's a question then of who deserves to die. It's more about who happens to win the firefight.
I personally think that yeah killing someone brings justice. But if you want to get into a whole death penalty discussion I suppose we should save that for a separate thread.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Trial isn't international law, it's a constitutional provided right. Since Osama isn't a US citizen then he can't hide behind that. Besides the guy was a war criminal, he wasn't going to be taken alive. Not to mention if they did try to take him alive there would be attacks made on the people escorting him all the way back.
The biggest problem I have with this ordeal is we haven't been provided any proof. We just have to take their word on it all.
I'll reword it slightly. Let's say I'm surrounded by my armed guards who are shooting the police, so thus it's irrelevant whether I'm shooting or not cause I'm in a place where everyone else shooting around me. Is this why I couldn't apply the situation to Osama's? Or am I still missing your point?
Bin Laden was living in Pakistan. A country of which he was not a citizen. Pakistan is a U.S. ally, and they had allowed U.S. troops to go in and act on their intelligence that he was there. Legally, the U.S. had more rights in Pakistan than bin Laden did. And how do you know they didn't try to take him alive? By standard of protocol it is most likely they had the place surrounded and then gave him once last chance to give himself up. Since obviously he would not give himself up, they came prepared for a firefight and that's just how it went down.
As details of the operation still continue to surface, I think we may revisit this point at a later time. But all common sense, intelligence aside, indicated that Osama would not have allowed himself to be taken into custody. He may have been a coward, but perhaps ideological enough to rather die than be taken prisoner. Also he might have dreaded what would have happened to him during an incarceration anyway.
I would still wager they gave Osama one last chance to surrender as per protocol and they probably did it after they had the place surrounded. And I'm willing to wager also that the people inside the house were the first ones to open fire. Had he been captured alive, albeit unlikely, he would have been given a trial. It would have been in an international court and it would have been very brief as there is overwhelming evidence against him.
You are right. Terrorism, as far as how many people it kills, is overrated. But the goal of terrorism isn't just to kill people. It's to...you know, cause terror. Terror which is supposed to bring about change whether political or just how people live their daily lives. And as far as bringing change, unfortunately it actually is quite effective. The 9/11 attacks killed about 3,000 people. The U.S. population is now around 350 million. But for all those people who are alive it's changed the way their government thinks and they way tax dollars are spent.
Not quite sure what this means.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
What I meant by "US ego" was that killing Osama didn't have any real benefit, and they devoted countless resources to kill him. All it did was put terrorism back in people's mind, and prove that "we are America, we can do whatever the hell we want". It was just a childlish vendetta.
The same resources that were going into finding Obama were dedicated to searching for many members of al-Qaeda. We were far from putting "countless" resources into the operation that killed him. The resources gone into sending some guys into Pakistan are quite countable I'm sure.
Going after Osama bin Laden was just a childish vendetta? Seriously? We weren't just doing whatever the hell we wanted when we went into Pakistan to get him either. Do you think an armed U.S. soldier in uniform could just walk around the streets of Turkey or something? Or any other sovereign country? No, we had to have permission from the Pakistani government first. Luckily for the U.S. though much of that permission was ongoing so the operation was able to move fast and not wait for the bureaucratic red tape to clear.
And this didn't just put terrorism back in people's minds either. I don't know about you, but every time I go to the airport and start taking off my clothes and getting felt up by security guards...this puts terrorism in my mind far more than Osama's capture did. I'm all like, "Fucking terrorism...make me take off my belt and shoes will you!"
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Kayla x
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Reported via tweet on the 28th:
http://twitter.com/#!/megneverlands/status/63659618995408896
Meanwhile in bizzaro land the operation didn't commence until:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Death
Just wanted to inject some of my conspiracy riddled nonsense into this conversation.
I've been following this news for some time now, and have amassed some considerable data on Osama Bin Laden which I think you will find interesting.
Osama was taken to a military hospital in Dubai by the CIA in July of 2001 while he was on the FBI most wanted list for the previous trade center attack. He was treated for chronic kidney infection. As reported by the French daily Le Figaro
One of Osama's doctors said that he had Marfans syndrome which is a disease that causes weakening of vital structures in the body but declined to comment further.
It is extremely unlikely that Osama could have lasted more than a few years with these combined conditions without aid of a dialysis machine (which was not found at the compound)
Ex-CIA agent of 20 years Steve Pechinik came out in 2002 saying that Osama was dead and that they literally had him on ice for a time when they needed a political victory.
Madeline Albright, former speaker of the house stated in 2004 that that Osama was Dead and that Bush was likely to roll out news of Osama Bin Ladens death in support of his 2004 campaign.
After the alleged killing of Osama, Steve Pechinik came out saying that he would testify before a grand jury to his claim.
Even if you don't buy any of that, dont you think it just a little bit strange that there is absolutely no evidence available to the public that would prove Osama's death? They gave him a burial at sea according to "Muslim beliefs" (which isn't actually true, you are supposed to be buried facing Mecca.)So there is no body, and no evidence other than testimonials that have been supplied to the public. Pics or it didn't happen imo.
All the conspiracies aside, who do you think really won this war? Our economy is in shambles, 12000+ innocent Afghani civilians lie dead, our reputation is ruined, and what do we have to show for it? The dead body of a tall terroris... oh wait, we threw away the body?!?
Oh yea and this made me laugh
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Killing one guy can never end a war. And a war it is. Its strange how people are so happy about it. There must have been someone related to Osama in some way who'll surface sometime later with plans to destroy the world despite of Osama's unpredicted death (maybe because of it). That's the thing with these terrorists, they never realize that they should stop.
''Zubin, I've always imagined you as a crazy raver. The kinda guy that spends all night dancing to trance music while waving glow sticks and popping ecstasy.'' - Murderface
They spent something in the neighborhood of the hundreds of billions of dollars, while the budget to research coronary heart disease, something that kills about 6000 more people a year than terrorists do, was in the neighborhood of 6 billion dollars.
Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions