Osama bin Laden Killed

[Wästed The Great]

If they weren't giving OBL info about us, then they can stop taking our assistance.

If they were giving him intel, then they should shut the hell up.

Pretty easy scenario for them.

 

[LooseCannon]

I don't think it's that Pakistan the state was complacent in Osama living in Pakistan; more likely that some government members were on the payroll/jihadroll and therefore were not going to report him or make him safe. IE, I think this is more about pro-Al Qaeda corruption in Pakistan than Pakistan as a state making a conscious decision to harbour the world's most wanted fugitive.

 

[Mosh]

Hopefully he had a Playstation Network Account.

That reminds me of a facebook post that my friend made a few months ago. He said that Playstation was shit and that it was the equivalent to Bin Laden and then PSN goes down and Bin Laden dies. Isn't that crazy?

 

[snake plissken]

That reminds me of a facebook post that my friend made a few months ago. He said that Playstation was shit and that it was the equivalent to Bin Laden and then PSN goes down and Bin Laden dies. Isn't that crazy?

Your friend compared the playstation to Bin Laden? He's clearly a prophet

 

[SixesAlltheway]

In the question whether vengeance wins over law? Definitely.

Well he resisted capture, there was a 40 minute something gun fight. Thats just more justification for killing him.

 

[Wästed The Great]

It's easy to justify anything.  I honestly wish he had been captured and stood trial.  Justice is always better than vengeance, otherwise, those 'avenging' always look like that.  They will justify themselves, but still its just a matter of 'an eye for an eye'.  We are a few thousand years better than that.

 

[bearfan]

Capturing him would be have been better, but given the time they were there, there may not have been a choice.  In any case, I am glad he is dead either this way or after a trial.

 

[Mosh]

It's easy to justify anything.  I honestly wish he had been captured and stood trial.  Justice is always better than vengeance, otherwise, those 'avenging' always look like that.  They will justify themselves, but still its just a matter of 'an eye for an eye'.  We are a few thousand years better than that.

I do too. But he tried to evade arrest. He was given the chance to surrender and he didn't. Killing him was the right thing to do in that situation.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

The madness of a trial would have been a mistake. Instead of merely making him a martyr for his followers, he'd be a martyr-to-be, under persecution by his oppressors, on TV every day until the martyrdom is completed.

And would there be any point? Is there any doubt what the verdict and sentence would be?

This way gets us to the same exact point, without stirring up his followers for months. It's not a failure of justice - quite the opposite. It's realistically expedited justice.

 

[Mosh]

Something that I think most people have been arguing is the Right to a fair trial. If he would've surrendered he should have been given a fair trial even thought it is obvious that he would be guilty. If we just went ahead and killed him after a surrender then it would make us look like the bad guys.

 

[Perun]

Well he resisted capture, there was a 40 minute something gun fight. Thats just more justification for killing him.

Yes, as soon as the soldiers entered the house, it was clear that he was going to be killed. The question is: Was the raid itself lawful? Would there have been alternatives to raiding the house in the middle of the night? Was this the most likely action that would bring Osama out alive?

The madness of a trial would have been a mistake. Instead of merely making him a martyr for his followers, he'd be a martyr-to-be, under persecution by his oppressors, on TV every day until the martyrdom is completed.

Either that, or being de-mystified. A guy who got captured alive and has to answer critical questions has much less appeal than somebody who died in battle, don't you think?
Besides, why not hand him over to the International Court of Justice? No death penalty means even less martyr appeal. Imagine the old boogey man sitting in his cell, crying: "Kill me! Please, kill me!"

And would there be any point? Is there any doubt what the verdict and sentence would be?

By that logic, we could all go out with a shot gun and kill anyone we suspect of being a murderer, rapist, child-molester, etc. That is precisely the kind of attitude a legislation attempts to counter. And that is what everybody was afraid of in the start: Letting the terrorists win by abandoning the principles of democracy and lawfulness. Either you have laws and follow them, or you don't. You can't just disregard them when it becomes inconvenient to you, but insist they are still in state. That is not how it works.

Something that I think most people have been arguing is the Right to a fair trial. If he would've surrendered he should have been given a fair trial even thought it is obvious that he would be guilty. If we just went ahead and killed him after a surrender then it would make us look like the bad guys.

Yes, under the condition that death penalty is the only option. See above.


And this piece of news is going to nullify a lot of arguments: Apparently, Osama was unarmed.

 

[Forostar]

He was unarmed yes. But I doubt if the others were.

Still, it is interesting they said that he resisted.

They won't tell us how he resisted. Did he started a fistfight? Did he do some amazing judo?

 

[Night Prowler]

I just noticed that when someone replies to this thread, it says like this:
Osama bin Laden Killed by Forostar
Osama bin Laden Killed by NightProwler666
Osama bin Laden Killed by Perun
etc.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

• Yes, as soon as the soldiers entered the house, it was clear that he was going to be killed. The question is: Was the raid itself lawful? Would there have been alternatives to raiding the house in the middle of the night? Was this the most likely action that would bring Osama out alive?
• Either that, or being de-mystified. A guy who got captured alive and has to answer critical questions has much less appeal than somebody who died in battle, don't you think?
  Besides, why not hand him over to the International Court of Justice? No death penalty means even less martyr appeal. Imagine the old boogey man sitting in his cell, crying: "Kill me! Please, kill me!"
• By that logic, we could all go out with a shot gun and kill anyone we suspect of being a murderer, rapist, child-molester, etc. That is precisely the kind of attitude a legislation attempts to counter. And that is what everybody was afraid of in the start: Letting the terrorists win by abandoning the principles of democracy and lawfulness. Either you have laws and follow them, or you don't. You can't just disregard them when it becomes inconvenient to you, but insist they are still in state. That is not how it works.
• Yes, under the condition that death penalty is the only option. See above.

Good points. It would be more right if Osama had been brought to trial. I can't see how it would be any less worth in terms of PR for the US military anyway - the main accomplishment was finding him. If the man himself was unarmed, it should have been possible to arrest him. It looks more like killing him was the goal, and that makes the US government and military look like both jury, judge and executioner at the same time.

Of course, one can also see it as the US military simply killing an enemy commander ... but then, one should not talk about justice. Revenge may be sweet, but it is not justice.

 

[Forostar]

I just noticed that when someone replies to this thread, it says like this:
Osama bin Laden Killed by Forostar
Osama bin Laden Killed by NightProwler666
Osama bin Laden Killed by Perun
etc.

Hahaha.

Good points. It would be more right if Osama had been brought to trial. I can't see how it would be any less worth in terms of PR for the US military anyway - the main accomplishment was finding him. If the man himself was unarmed, it should have been possible to arrest him. It looks more like killing him was the goal, and that makes the US government and military look like both jury, judge and executioner at the same time.

Of course, one can also see it as the US military simply killing an enemy commander ... but then, one should not talk about justice. Revenge may be sweet, but it is not justice.

If you think killing was the goal, you imply that you don't believe US officials (on this case). Nothing wrong with that, of course, just stating it (and adding a bit of fuel in the fire  ).

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

If you think killing was the goal, you imply that you don't believe US officials (on this case). Nothing wrong with that, of course, just stating it (and adding a bit of fuel in the fire  ).

I don't believe them 100% - I don't believe any politician 100%. Especially not when we're talking about war, which is what this is. When they say they wanted to take him alive, it might be true. Just like it might be true when a footballer talks about how much he loves his new club and their fans. Quite frequently, it is bollocks.

 

[Forostar]

Let's stick to this case. Here it's not a matter of percentages. Let me explain:

To try and take someone alive, fail and then kill him instead is totally something else than:
The goal was to kill him.

It's one way or the other. These are totally different intentions, so we can't believe them a bit when they say A or B. We believe them totally, or totally not.

My 2 cents.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

Let's stick to this case. Here it's not a matter of percentages. Let me explain:

To try and take someone alive, fail and then kill him instead is totally something else than:
The goal was to kill him.

It's one way or the other. These are totally different intentions, so we can't believe them a bit when they say A or B. We believe them totally, or totally not.

My 2 cents.

I disagree, and I believe you misunderstand what I meant. Yes, of course it is one way or the other. Either they wanted to killl him (A), or they wanted to take him alive (. However, when I talked about 100% and not 100% here, I was not meaning that the truth itself lies between these two. I mean that I don't hold it 100% certain that B was true. It's about the probability of the two (A and , not that the truth is half A, half B.

Why should one either totally believe in A, or totally believe in B? The fact is, we do not know what the motive was, except for what the US administration tell us. They are political leaders of a country involved in conflict - it is always wise to treat what leaders in a conflict say, with a bit of skepticism.

 

[Forostar]

Alright. Well, in case if you wonder if I believe all this (100%   )

I admit I am also skeptic. I just saw an explanation of the CIA boss and the story was as follows (in my own words):

question: the men were allowed to kill OBL?
answer: yes they had authorization to kill him, but if he had raised his hands, surrendered, he would be taken alive

So the story is: "we killed him because he resisted".
I want to know an exact description of that resistance, and I'd like to hear the audio (or see film) of it. It wouldn't be the first footage of US soldiers having their own interpretation of rules of engagement (remember the Iraq footage which leaked last year or so).

If I have judged the story and witnessed how it went, then I can decide if I believe it or not.
Up til now, it's a story which leaves out some parts, and I can't draw my final conclusion already.

 

[Ranko]

This way gets us to the same exact point, without stirring up his followers for months. It's not a failure of justice - quite the opposite. It's realistically expedited justice.

Just like in the Old West, eh? I don't agree in the least - if you wish to spread peace and democracy around the world (with the right to a fair trial being one of the pillars of democracy), you should uphold those ideals to the highest possible degree. Don't you think it's a little bit sick seeing kids in the streets cheering because OBL was killed? Isn't it just a little bit too similar to Arabs cheering in the streets when Americans get killed?