fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Godfather.
So you condemn OBL's actions in not giving his victims a "fair trial" (we'll leave aside the begged question of what exactly they would be being "tried" for...). And yet you use that as justification for acting in the same way ourselves? Pot... kettle... black etc.
If you want to have even a shred of moral authority in condemning OBL's actions and motivations, then don't suggest that we should sink to his level be denying fair justice. Make damn sure he gets fair justice, a fair trial, and a fair penalty for his crimes. And don't make the mistake in thinking a fair trial means he gets privileges. It's not "happy land bullshit", it's not "screaming and crying", it's not sympathy for Osama bin Laden. It means making sure that cold, hard, rational, civilised and intelligent justice is done - not mindless wild-west vengeance.
EDIT: Actually, GF, reading back on your post, it seems that you didn't bother reading mine - just saw the words "fair trial" and had a knee-jerk reaction. I really would like to hear what you have to say in response to the content of my post, because from here it would appear that both you and Thoughts_Arrive have completely misunderstood the entire notion of a fair trial. I think if you really do think it through, you should see that denying people a fair trial - especially those you know to be guilty, especially those who you think have committed the worst crimes - pretty much amounts to shooting yourself in the foot.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
firstly, how can anyone speak to ALL americans? ... can I say americans like baseball? ... well ... no ... not based on your conditions for generalization ... this is the thing - you say i choose to believe the worst ... well, then the same goes for you ... you choose to believe the best ... like i said ... no one wants to hear about the evil things their country does ... but the simple fact is this: america has done many evil things and if you believe that 9-11 happened because of your freedoms then you are sadly mistaken ...
JP - listen ... i'm not saying its your fault or mikep's fault ... but one has to acknowledge our role in society as party of the citizenry ... just read this thread ... how many people are like ... yeah, iraq was a mistake ... which we didn't do it ... it's terrible ... well - fuck, how many innocent people have died because of that ... and it's all because of lies told to the people by YOUR gov't ... the guys behind that are kicking back now doing speaking tours and enjoying the royalties of their decisions and all you guys can say is ... oh well?? ... again - if americans want to rid evil ... they need to acknowledge and act on the actions that were committed in the name of the US ... there is next to little or no citizen engagement on the issue in iraq ...
At this point, this thread has become somewhat comical. People saying they will say no more, then post more. Folks not understanding someone playing with them by expressing the views the others want them to express. Others trying to equate this situation to a pedophile walking away from a pool. Funny stuff.
The whole fair trial in a democratic society thing is so far off base it's beyond laughable. He was an enemy war combatant. Even if he were captured alive, he gets a war trial, not a civil trial. Just like Hitler's brigade. However, as someone pointed out, why would we in the strategy of a war against terrorism provide the head (figure or otherwise) to have the opportunity to continue to speak his propaganda. Yes, terrorism is not a country or even a tangible item. But, it is still a war none the less, and he was so clearly on the terrorism side that this is not a judicial point of discussion.
Beyond that, the fact that he himself was not armed is somewhat irrelevant in that he had guards that were. So, by extension, he is. I don't care if he put his hands up against the wall and spread his legs. He employed people to protect him with guns. Therefore, he is armed. Just because he was not holding the gun does not change that fact.
But, who cares? Again, this was part of a war operation. You can disagree with the war on terrorism. You may even argue against the tactics. But, all discussion should be framed with that point of reference and not that this was some innoncent, civil society person who did not declare war himself.
I am not Obama supporter, but this was the correct order to give. Kill not capture. And if there are segments of the world that hate us for that, so be it. It's not a popularity contest.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
At this point, this thread has become somewhat comical. People saying they will say no more, then post more. Folks not understanding someone playing with them by expressing the views the others want them to express. Others trying to equate this situation to a pedophile walking away from a pool. Funny stuff.
The whole fair trial in a democratic society thing is so far off base it's beyond laughable. He was an enemy war combatant. Even if he were captured alive, he gets a war trial, not a civil trial. Just like Hitler's brigade. However, as someone pointed out, why would we in the strategy of a war against terrorism provide the head (figure or otherwise) to have the opportunity to continue to speak his propaganda. Yes, terrorism is not a country or even a tangible item. But, it is still a war none the less, and he was so clearly on the terrorism side that this is not a judicial point of discussion.
Beyond that, the fact that he himself was not armed is somewhat irrelevant in that he had guards that were. So, by extension, he is. I don't care if he put his hands up against the wall and spread his legs. He employed people to protect him with guns. Therefore, he is armed. Just because he was not holding the gun does not change that fact.
But, who cares? Again, this was part of a war operation. You can disagree with the war on terrorism. You may even argue against the tactics. But, all discussion should be framed with that point of reference and not that this was some innoncent, civil society person who did not declare war himself.
I am not Obama supporter, but this was the correct order to give. Kill not capture. And if there are segments of the world that hate us for that, so be it. It's not a popularity contest.
I completely agree with this post.
Also, as far as we know, bin laden did not surrender. He may not have been armed, but he didn't surrender.
I don't see how anyone not in that compound at that time, nor anyone who hasn't fought terrorism first hand, can possibly give an opinion on what "should have" been done.
He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.
I am talking from everyone else's standpoint, reminding everyone to not have double standards.
Fuck the trial, I'd torture him there and then then kill him.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Godfather.
So you condemn OBL's actions in not giving his victims a "fair trial" (we'll leave aside the begged question of what exactly they would be being "tried" for...). And yet you use that as justification for acting in the same way ourselves? Pot... kettle... black etc.
If you want to have even a shred of moral authority in condemning OBL's actions and motivations, then don't suggest that we should sink to his level be denying fair justice. Make damn sure he gets fair justice, a fair trial, and a fair penalty for his crimes. And don't make the mistake in thinking a fair trial means he gets privileges. It's not "happy land bullshit", it's not "screaming and crying", it's not sympathy for Osama bin Laden. It means making sure that cold, hard, rational, civilised and intelligent justice is done - not mindless wild-west vengeance.
EDIT: Actually, GF, reading back on your post, it seems that you didn't bother reading mine - just saw the words "fair trial" and had a knee-jerk reaction. I really would like to hear what you have to say in response to the content of my post, because from here it would appear that both you and Thoughts_Arrive have completely misunderstood the entire notion of a fair trial. I think if you really do think it through, you should see that denying people a fair trial - especially those you know to be guilty, especially those who you think have committed the worst crimes - pretty much amounts to shooting yourself in the foot.
in this situation with obl it is totaly different,as I said he declared war on the US and he died as a result of a military action, this is not the same as john geasy,jeffry dalmer or even gottie this man openly declared war
then planned and plotted the death of thousands of americans and his own countrymen not even to mention the attacks he had masterminded in other countrys, he and alqeda commited acts of war.
you seem to be a pretty smart guy and usally I respect your word along along with a few others even it sounds like I don't but this time I think your wrong (with all due respect), I don't care if obl was unarmed and having sex with one of his wifes that donn't change the fact that he asked for a war and acted in an evil mannor,he basicly got what he asked for, do you recall the story's of Bonny and Clyde or John Dillenger,..no court date
cause they commited crime's that could not afford a chance of killing again, not wild-west vengeance at all
and not wild-west vengeance in the case of obl either it was justice.
fair trial ?????.......you mean like the one his victims got ? what kind of happy land bullshit is that ? :?
fair trial....... he had pleanty of time to turn his happy ass in and ask for a military trial but he did not, you guys....man what a bunch of malarky, bottom line is the piece of crap is DEAD! and you can scream and cry all you want and nothing will change the fact that he did the acts of a evil man and he died for them end of story.
Godfather.
So you condemn OBL's actions in not giving his victims a "fair trial" (we'll leave aside the begged question of what exactly they would be being "tried" for...). And yet you use that as justification for acting in the same way ourselves? Pot... kettle... black etc.
If you want to have even a shred of moral authority in condemning OBL's actions and motivations, then don't suggest that we should sink to his level be denying fair justice. Make damn sure he gets fair justice, a fair trial, and a fair penalty for his crimes. And don't make the mistake in thinking a fair trial means he gets privileges. It's not "happy land bullshit", it's not "screaming and crying", it's not sympathy for Osama bin Laden. It means making sure that cold, hard, rational, civilised and intelligent justice is done - not mindless wild-west vengeance.
EDIT: Actually, GF, reading back on your post, it seems that you didn't bother reading mine - just saw the words "fair trial" and had a knee-jerk reaction. I really would like to hear what you have to say in response to the content of my post, because from here it would appear that both you and Thoughts_Arrive have completely misunderstood the entire notion of a fair trial. I think if you really do think it through, you should see that denying people a fair trial - especially those you know to be guilty, especially those who you think have committed the worst crimes - pretty much amounts to shooting yourself in the foot.
You just reminded me of an interesting article I read. I wish I still had the link. Would bin laden ever have been able to receive a 'fair trial'? Really think about it. I'm NOT justifying him being shot (this has nothing to do with the question), just questioning the alternative.. but really, how would his trial proceed? Civilian or military? could they find neural jurors? Its a scary though -- the circus that would surround a bin laden trial.
I do find it upsetting that bin laden might have been shot in the head and was unarmed. I am trying to keep from judging yet however, because there was apparently a firefight and it was night time. We don't know what went down for sure yet. As well trained as a SEAL is, if there are bullets flying and you are pursuing the most wanted man in the world, I don't know if all the training in the world could keep you focused. Again, not justifying it, just trying to make sure I understand all sides.
The whole fair trial in a democratic society thing is so far off base it's beyond laughable. He was an enemy war combatant. Even if he were captured alive, he gets a war trial, not a civil trial. .
Fair trial is a basic principle - nothing laughable about that. An enemy combatant? He didn't belong to any army....
Anyway, I really don't think anyone was thinking about a civil trial - more an ICC trial (though it can only investigate crimes post establishment. As far as I can see, most americans believe that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 and they wanted to 'get him' for that (though no real proof was ever submitted by the US). The ICC wouldn't have been able to investigate that particular event but would have all others.
in this situation with obl it is totaly different,as I said he declared war on the US and he died as a result of a military action, this is not the same as john geasy,jeffry dalmer or even gottie this man openly declared war
then planned and plotted the death of thousands of americans and his own countrymen not even to mention the attacks he had masterminded in other countrys, he and alqeda commited acts of war.
you seem to be a pretty smart guy and usally I respect your word along along with a few others even it sounds like I don't but this time I think your wrong (with all due respect), I don't care if obl was unarmed and having sex with one of his wifes that donn't change the fact that he asked for a war and acted in an evil mannor,he basicly got what he asked for, do you recall the story's of Bonny and Clyde or John Dillenger,..no court date
cause they commited crime's that could not afford a chance of killing again, not wild-west vengeance at all
and not wild-west vengeance in the case of obl either it was justice.
Godfather.
I disagree that it is totally different. If he could have een captured alive - and if he was unarmed, it's pretty likely this was possible - then he should have been. The US govt initially said as much themselves, before the news that he was unarmed.
War or no war (and it's highly questionable that this can be called a war in the convetional sense of the word and its implications), this is starting to sound, as more and more contradictory details emerge, like a summary (and therefore illegal) execution. And you know well that I don't consider that execution can ever constitute justice.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Would bin laden ever have been able to receive a 'fair trial'? .. but really, how would his trial proceed? Civilian or military? could they find neural jurors? Its a scary though -- the circus that would surround a bin laden trial.
A very good point. We saw what a joke Saddam's trial was... I don't believe a fair trial in the US would have been at all easy, maybe not possible at all. The ICC would have been the best option, but as redrock pointed out, that may not have been possible either
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
firstly, how can anyone speak to ALL americans? ... can I say americans like baseball? ... well ... no ... not based on your conditions for generalization ... this is the thing - you say i choose to believe the worst ... well, then the same goes for you ... you choose to believe the best ... like i said ... no one wants to hear about the evil things their country does ... but the simple fact is this: america has done many evil things and if you believe that 9-11 happened because of your freedoms then you are sadly mistaken ...
I'm sorry that is the opinion you have of me, it is incorrect. I don't chose to believe the best. Ihope for the best, but I believe things after i've looked at them objectively. I do want to hear the evil things. I want to know it all..
And I certainly don't believe 9-11 happened because of my freedoms.
JP - listen ... i'm not saying its your fault or mikep's fault ... but one has to acknowledge our role in society as party of the citizenry ... just read this thread ... how many people are like ... yeah, iraq was a mistake ... which we didn't do it ... it's terrible ... well - fuck, how many innocent people have died because of that ...
I know you're not saying its our fault (and I agree with most of what you say), but I believe what Mike was saying is that nobody should judge how people react to bin ladens death. people all over the world have the right to react however they want, and emotions might take the forefront on this one, especially for many New Yorkers. Despite all the atrocities that the US has participated in, 9-11 was one of the most HORRIFIC days in the history of the US. And I think what made it more emotional for many was that it happened in a time where technology enabled too many angles, views, and accounts of an absolute nightmare...there were people flying out of windows of the trade center, exploding on the ground..and people who are considered Heros risked their lives to save them, and perished in a pile of rubble that descended form one of the biggest building in the world.
I think my point and MikeP's was that many of us are aware of Iraq and other atrocities, but a lot of us still see bin laden as an evil person who contributed to the scariest things we've ever seen in a two hour period. I agree that this is subjective too, but there's a time and a place to bring up all the other bullshit.
and it's all because of lies told to the people by YOUR gov't ... the guys behind that are kicking back now doing speaking tours and enjoying the royalties of their decisions and all you guys can say is ... oh well?? ... again - if americans want to rid evil ... they need to acknowledge and act on the actions that were committed in the name of the US ... there is next to little or no citizen engagement on the issue in iraq ...
My question to this was...what else can we do? I can only assume this is a rhetorical question at this point, You keep bringing this up, but we've acknowledged that the US govt does some bad things. I wish we never went into Iraq or dipped our business in many other countries, but I can vote and I can speak my mind, but I am no politician. Beyond that, I can only suggest that we need to find a better way to educate our citizens and make them think about it objectively.
wow, with all of the circular arguments this thread has jumped the shark 20 pages ago...
It's the way of the Train, my friend...
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
wow, with all of the circular arguments this thread has jumped the shark 20 pages ago...
As long as everyone realizes that the views they are presenting are opinions. How much can we really know, while nestled comfortably on our suburban streets, or in our 3rd floor walk-ups? Our firm stances (narrow belief systems) can be imprisoning.
Kudos to those who spend their lives reading, researching, and studying politics and world affairs, but think about it, what do we really know?
Just a thought. My focus lately has been on my own insignificance in the big picture: 100 years from now it will be as if I never existed. This is bigger than me, bigger than all of us, so I am trying to gain some real perspective. When I was a child, I lived in an egocentric universe, and unfortunately that way of thinking continued into my teens and early twenties. Even more unfortunately, I see many people who have not been able to abandon the egocentric (narcissistic) point of view.
Let's all open our minds and have some good, intellectual discussions. Discussions, not arguments. Civil discourse will get us a lot further than foolish diatribe.
The ICC would have been the best option, but as redrock pointed out, that may not have been possible either
Not for anything before 1st July 2002. Everything after that, yes.
you posted that date in military fashion, are you military or x-military ?
not looking for argument or to push my thoughts , just asking.
Godfather.
Ummm... no :? I wrote the date in the standard format that one uses for writing dates in full (e.g. as part of a sentence or as the date for a standard English letter).
Edit: just googled... it's because I put the day before the month (and not vice-versa) and that's what American military do? I wrote it English/European/non-American way!
Meanwhile Obama is now using this for political gain and is traveling to New York.
Why shouldn't he? Because you don't like him?
People always talk about "political gain", but sometimes it's not political gain it's just a resume builder. You do the same with achievements in your job and you bring them out to show people when you want a better job, more pay, or even just to keep your job from year to year. What's the problem with this?
He got it done. Ultimately it was the military obviously and personally those Navy Seals, but he was the head guy when it got done.
Meanwhile Obama is now using this for political gain and is traveling to New York.
I am going to have to disagree. I think that this is what the American people, and New Yorkers especially, want right now.
If I remember correctly, you are a fan of Ron Paul. What if, instead of Obama, it was Paul who was making this trip to Ground Zero? Would you have a different opinion?
I am not saying that you are wrong, and it is clear that politicians use situations for political gain, but isn't it possible that Obama is doing what he thinks, and I think, the American people want?
wow, with all of the circular arguments this thread has jumped the shark 20 pages ago...
As long as everyone realizes that the views they are presenting are opinions. How much can we really know, while nestled comfortably on our suburban streets, or in our 3rd floor walk-ups? Our firm stances (narrow belief systems) can be imprisoning.
Kudos to those who spend their lives reading, researching, and studying politics and world affairs, but think about it, what do we really know?
Just a thought. My focus lately has been on my own insignificance in the big picture: 100 years from now it will be as if I never existed. This is bigger than me, bigger than all of us, so I am trying to gain some real perspective. When I was a child, I lived in an egocentric universe, and unfortunately that way of thinking continued into my teens and early twenties. Even more unfortunately, I see many people who have not been able to abandon the egocentric (narcissistic) point of view.
Let's all open our minds and have some good, intellectual discussions. Discussions, not arguments. Civil discourse will get us a lot further than foolish diatribe.
you nailed it, XLNT post I don't even need to open your link to understand your point.
Thanx,
If you want to have even a shred of moral authority in condemning OBL's actions and motivations, then don't suggest that we should sink to his level be denying fair justice. Make damn sure he gets fair justice, a fair trial, and a fair penalty for his crimes. And don't make the mistake in thinking a fair trial means he gets privileges. It's not "happy land bullshit", it's not "screaming and crying", it's not sympathy for Osama bin Laden. It means making sure that cold, hard, rational, civilised and intelligent justice is done - not mindless wild-west vengeance.
This post pretty much parellels my reasons for being opposed to the death penalty.
I imagine Obama had several minor heart attacks when he watched that chopper go down on the live feed from the situation room!
What's going on??? Is that normal?? Wait, is it on fire?????? WTF is happening!!!
An interesting photo.
this is a great pic. everyone looks so concerned and unsettled. they know that it is a make or break situation and that they are on the cusp of doing something historic. i'll bet more than a few sphincters are puckered up in that room...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
So you condemn OBL's actions in not giving his victims a "fair trial" (we'll leave aside the begged question of what exactly they would be being "tried" for...). And yet you use that as justification for acting in the same way ourselves? Pot... kettle... black etc.
If you want to have even a shred of moral authority in condemning OBL's actions and motivations, then don't suggest that we should sink to his level be denying fair justice. Make damn sure he gets fair justice, a fair trial, and a fair penalty for his crimes. And don't make the mistake in thinking a fair trial means he gets privileges. It's not "happy land bullshit", it's not "screaming and crying", it's not sympathy for Osama bin Laden. It means making sure that cold, hard, rational, civilised and intelligent justice is done - not mindless wild-west vengeance.
EDIT: Actually, GF, reading back on your post, it seems that you didn't bother reading mine - just saw the words "fair trial" and had a knee-jerk reaction. I really would like to hear what you have to say in response to the content of my post, because from here it would appear that both you and Thoughts_Arrive have completely misunderstood the entire notion of a fair trial. I think if you really do think it through, you should see that denying people a fair trial - especially those you know to be guilty, especially those who you think have committed the worst crimes - pretty much amounts to shooting yourself in the foot.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
You're contradicting yourself!
Just responding to you guys from yesterday ...
firstly, how can anyone speak to ALL americans? ... can I say americans like baseball? ... well ... no ... not based on your conditions for generalization ... this is the thing - you say i choose to believe the worst ... well, then the same goes for you ... you choose to believe the best ... like i said ... no one wants to hear about the evil things their country does ... but the simple fact is this: america has done many evil things and if you believe that 9-11 happened because of your freedoms then you are sadly mistaken ...
JP - listen ... i'm not saying its your fault or mikep's fault ... but one has to acknowledge our role in society as party of the citizenry ... just read this thread ... how many people are like ... yeah, iraq was a mistake ... which we didn't do it ... it's terrible ... well - fuck, how many innocent people have died because of that ... and it's all because of lies told to the people by YOUR gov't ... the guys behind that are kicking back now doing speaking tours and enjoying the royalties of their decisions and all you guys can say is ... oh well?? ... again - if americans want to rid evil ... they need to acknowledge and act on the actions that were committed in the name of the US ... there is next to little or no citizen engagement on the issue in iraq ...
The whole fair trial in a democratic society thing is so far off base it's beyond laughable. He was an enemy war combatant. Even if he were captured alive, he gets a war trial, not a civil trial. Just like Hitler's brigade. However, as someone pointed out, why would we in the strategy of a war against terrorism provide the head (figure or otherwise) to have the opportunity to continue to speak his propaganda. Yes, terrorism is not a country or even a tangible item. But, it is still a war none the less, and he was so clearly on the terrorism side that this is not a judicial point of discussion.
Beyond that, the fact that he himself was not armed is somewhat irrelevant in that he had guards that were. So, by extension, he is. I don't care if he put his hands up against the wall and spread his legs. He employed people to protect him with guns. Therefore, he is armed. Just because he was not holding the gun does not change that fact.
But, who cares? Again, this was part of a war operation. You can disagree with the war on terrorism. You may even argue against the tactics. But, all discussion should be framed with that point of reference and not that this was some innoncent, civil society person who did not declare war himself.
I am not Obama supporter, but this was the correct order to give. Kill not capture. And if there are segments of the world that hate us for that, so be it. It's not a popularity contest.
50,000 watts of solid truth Brother !
Godfather.
I completely agree with this post.
Also, as far as we know, bin laden did not surrender. He may not have been armed, but he didn't surrender.
I don't see how anyone not in that compound at that time, nor anyone who hasn't fought terrorism first hand, can possibly give an opinion on what "should have" been done.
I am talking from everyone else's standpoint, reminding everyone to not have double standards.
Fuck the trial, I'd torture him there and then then kill him.
in this situation with obl it is totaly different,as I said he declared war on the US and he died as a result of a military action, this is not the same as john geasy,jeffry dalmer or even gottie this man openly declared war
then planned and plotted the death of thousands of americans and his own countrymen not even to mention the attacks he had masterminded in other countrys, he and alqeda commited acts of war.
you seem to be a pretty smart guy and usally I respect your word along along with a few others even it sounds like I don't but this time I think your wrong (with all due respect), I don't care if obl was unarmed and having sex with one of his wifes that donn't change the fact that he asked for a war and acted in an evil mannor,he basicly got what he asked for, do you recall the story's of Bonny and Clyde or John Dillenger,..no court date
cause they commited crime's that could not afford a chance of killing again, not wild-west vengeance at all
and not wild-west vengeance in the case of obl either it was justice.
Godfather.
You just reminded me of an interesting article I read. I wish I still had the link. Would bin laden ever have been able to receive a 'fair trial'? Really think about it. I'm NOT justifying him being shot (this has nothing to do with the question), just questioning the alternative.. but really, how would his trial proceed? Civilian or military? could they find neural jurors? Its a scary though -- the circus that would surround a bin laden trial.
I do find it upsetting that bin laden might have been shot in the head and was unarmed. I am trying to keep from judging yet however, because there was apparently a firefight and it was night time. We don't know what went down for sure yet. As well trained as a SEAL is, if there are bullets flying and you are pursuing the most wanted man in the world, I don't know if all the training in the world could keep you focused. Again, not justifying it, just trying to make sure I understand all sides.
ooOOoo... I think you mean me! I said I would not say anymore on the subject I mentioned in that particular post, not about the thread.
Fair trial is a basic principle - nothing laughable about that. An enemy combatant? He didn't belong to any army....
Anyway, I really don't think anyone was thinking about a civil trial - more an ICC trial (though it can only investigate crimes post establishment. As far as I can see, most americans believe that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 and they wanted to 'get him' for that (though no real proof was ever submitted by the US). The ICC wouldn't have been able to investigate that particular event but would have all others.
I disagree that it is totally different. If he could have een captured alive - and if he was unarmed, it's pretty likely this was possible - then he should have been. The US govt initially said as much themselves, before the news that he was unarmed.
War or no war (and it's highly questionable that this can be called a war in the convetional sense of the word and its implications), this is starting to sound, as more and more contradictory details emerge, like a summary (and therefore illegal) execution. And you know well that I don't consider that execution can ever constitute justice.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I'm sorry that is the opinion you have of me, it is incorrect. I don't chose to believe the best. Ihope for the best, but I believe things after i've looked at them objectively. I do want to hear the evil things. I want to know it all..
And I certainly don't believe 9-11 happened because of my freedoms.
I know you're not saying its our fault (and I agree with most of what you say), but I believe what Mike was saying is that nobody should judge how people react to bin ladens death. people all over the world have the right to react however they want, and emotions might take the forefront on this one, especially for many New Yorkers. Despite all the atrocities that the US has participated in, 9-11 was one of the most HORRIFIC days in the history of the US. And I think what made it more emotional for many was that it happened in a time where technology enabled too many angles, views, and accounts of an absolute nightmare...there were people flying out of windows of the trade center, exploding on the ground..and people who are considered Heros risked their lives to save them, and perished in a pile of rubble that descended form one of the biggest building in the world.
I think my point and MikeP's was that many of us are aware of Iraq and other atrocities, but a lot of us still see bin laden as an evil person who contributed to the scariest things we've ever seen in a two hour period. I agree that this is subjective too, but there's a time and a place to bring up all the other bullshit.
My question to this was...what else can we do? I can only assume this is a rhetorical question at this point, You keep bringing this up, but we've acknowledged that the US govt does some bad things. I wish we never went into Iraq or dipped our business in many other countries, but I can vote and I can speak my mind, but I am no politician. Beyond that, I can only suggest that we need to find a better way to educate our citizens and make them think about it objectively.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's the way of the Train, my friend...
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
you posted that date in military fashion, are you military or x-military ?
not looking for argument or to push my thoughts , just asking.
Godfather.
As long as everyone realizes that the views they are presenting are opinions. How much can we really know, while nestled comfortably on our suburban streets, or in our 3rd floor walk-ups? Our firm stances (narrow belief systems) can be imprisoning.
Kudos to those who spend their lives reading, researching, and studying politics and world affairs, but think about it, what do we really know?
Just a thought. My focus lately has been on my own insignificance in the big picture: 100 years from now it will be as if I never existed. This is bigger than me, bigger than all of us, so I am trying to gain some real perspective. When I was a child, I lived in an egocentric universe, and unfortunately that way of thinking continued into my teens and early twenties. Even more unfortunately, I see many people who have not been able to abandon the egocentric (narcissistic) point of view.
Carl Sagan put it best: http://mwangy.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/pale-blue-dot/
Let's all open our minds and have some good, intellectual discussions. Discussions, not arguments. Civil discourse will get us a lot further than foolish diatribe.
Ummm... no :? I wrote the date in the standard format that one uses for writing dates in full (e.g. as part of a sentence or as the date for a standard English letter).
Edit: just googled... it's because I put the day before the month (and not vice-versa) and that's what American military do? I wrote it English/European/non-American way!
Why shouldn't he? Because you don't like him?
People always talk about "political gain", but sometimes it's not political gain it's just a resume builder. You do the same with achievements in your job and you bring them out to show people when you want a better job, more pay, or even just to keep your job from year to year. What's the problem with this?
He got it done. Ultimately it was the military obviously and personally those Navy Seals, but he was the head guy when it got done.
I am going to have to disagree. I think that this is what the American people, and New Yorkers especially, want right now.
If I remember correctly, you are a fan of Ron Paul. What if, instead of Obama, it was Paul who was making this trip to Ground Zero? Would you have a different opinion?
I am not saying that you are wrong, and it is clear that politicians use situations for political gain, but isn't it possible that Obama is doing what he thinks, and I think, the American people want?
What's going on??? Is that normal?? Wait, is it on fire?????? WTF is happening!!!
An interesting photo.
you nailed it, XLNT post I don't even need to open your link to understand your point.
Thanx,
Godfather.
This post pretty much parellels my reasons for being opposed to the death penalty.
I bet they were actually watching 'Bruno'.
Actually, with the way everyone in that picture is looking, I really thought it was a live feed on what Bill Clinton was doing at that moment.
this is a great pic. everyone looks so concerned and unsettled. they know that it is a make or break situation and that they are on the cusp of doing something historic. i'll bet more than a few sphincters are puckered up in that room...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."