BIN LADEN IS DEAD

wolfamongwolves

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.

SoonForgotten2

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

I hope you're trying to be that ironic.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?

Thoughts_Arrive

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.

Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.

Thoughts_Arrive

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

I hope you're trying to be that ironic.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?

Yes.

redrock

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Just saw on the news footage of Pakistani men weeping over the death of their "martyr" Osama.
Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

I hope you're trying to be that ironic.

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the highly trained Navy Seals be able to incapacitate an unarmed man who may be resisting capture without blowing off a portion of his head?

I think it's just a ploy to rile us all.... this type of comment is best ignored.

Soonforgotten - navy seal can incapacitate if they wish (as it would seem it's one of the guards that rushed not Bin Laden himself) but incapacitating was not their intention. A shot to the head to kill, another for good measure - to make sure.

"But last night the picture had changed. Mr Carney said bin Laden was unarmed and was fired upon after one of his guards attacked one of the US team.

“[The Seal] was rushed by one individual in the room and the resistance was constant from the moment they landed to the end of the operation,” "

Yesterday, however, they were briefing that he was in fact shot twice in the head to ensure he was dead in what special forces describe as a “double tap”, with one of the shots hitting him side-on in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491108/Osama-bin-Laden-day-two-and-a-new-version-of-how-events-unfolded.html

Then again...

al-Arabiya is now reporting that the al-Qaida leader's 12-year-old daughter, told Pakistani officials US forces captured her father alive before shooting him dead:The [Pakistani] official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden's sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

While any account given by Bin Laden's family is likely to be treated with scepticism (especially coming via Pakistani security officials), the changing account given by the White House may lend this version of events more credence than it would otherwise have been granted.

redrock

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.

Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.

Without getting into a debate on another subject, you support an individual who has been found guilty of crimes against humanity - against innocent people by a court, and thus punished. Does that mean you do not deserve to live? See.... goes all ways. They believe in a cause (rightly or wrongly), they mourn the death of one they see as a charismatic leader (again, rightly or wrongly). No difference.

I will not say anymore on this.

Digital Twilight

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/fe ... 66914.html

wolfamongwolves

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

Bunch of evil sick fucks, they all need to be mowed down by machine gun bullets.

What's the difference between that way of thinking and that of Osama bin Laden? Not much.

Osama targeted innocent people.
These supporters support evil acts thus do not deserve to live.

The principles of radical Islamism that Osama bin Laden believed in held that Western lifestyles were corrupt and evil, and those who lived by them, rather than being innocent, were therefore also evil, and thus did not deserve to live.

Like I said, that sounds very similar to the line of thinking you are using.

It is massively over-simplified, completely unrealistic and ignores all the complexities and nuances of the context. Fact of the matter is this: the notions of good and evil are subjective. Don't doubt for a second that OBL believed that what he was doing was good, and was God's will. One man's evil is another man's good. In neither his case or yours can it be a legitimate justification for killing people.

Thoughts_Arrive

He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.

wolfamongwolves

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.

Now I agree with you.

Thoughts_Arrive

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.

Now I agree with you.

I wonder if certain other individuals agree, the one's that criticized my views of not letting pedophiles the right to a fair trial.

redrock

I think most of us would agree that we would have liked to have Bin Laden captured and put on trial. But that was not the intention of the US.

wolfamongwolves

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

He was unarmed, he should've been captured and put on trial.

Now I agree with you.

I wonder if certain other individuals agree, the one's that criticized my views of not letting pedophiles the right to a fair trial.

I would criticise that view. Unless everybody, regardless of their crime, no exceptions whatsoever, is entitled to a fair trial, the legitimacy of the legal system is undermined.

And surely it makes much more sense to ensure that the worst offenders do get a fair trial. If they are guilty, a fair trial will convict them legitimately, and guarantee they get exactly the penalty they deserve for exactly what they did. Denying them a fair trial, on the other hand, is completely counter-intuitive and counter-productive, and removes any possibility of actual justice.

Look at it this way: Saddam Hussein did not get a fair trial, and was therefore able to denounce the court's decision as illegitimate, as biased and partisan, and make a case for himself as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. If he had a fair trial, it would still have found him guilty, but he would not have had the grounds to claim that victimisation. Surely that is far preferable?

SoonForgotten2

redrock wrote:

I think it's just a ploy to rile us all.... this type of comment is best ignored.

Soonforgotten - navy seal can incapacitate if they wish (as it would seem it's one of the guards that rushed not Bin Laden himself) but incapacitating was not their intention. A shot to the head to kill, another for good measure - to make sure.

"But last night the picture had changed. Mr Carney said bin Laden was unarmed and was fired upon after one of his guards attacked one of the US team.

“[The Seal] was rushed by one individual in the room and the resistance was constant from the moment they landed to the end of the operation,” "

Yesterday, however, they were briefing that he was in fact shot twice in the head to ensure he was dead in what special forces describe as a “double tap”, with one of the shots hitting him side-on in the head. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491108/Osama-bin-Laden-day-two-and-a-new-version-of-how-events-unfolded.html

Then again...

al-Arabiya is now reporting that the al-Qaida leader's 12-year-old daughter, told Pakistani officials US forces captured her father alive before shooting him dead:The [Pakistani] official said a 12-year-old daughter of bin Laden was among the six children rescued from the three-storey compound.

The daughter has reportedly told her Pakistani investigators that the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. According to sources, Bin Laden was staying on the ground floor of the house and was dragged on the floor to the helicopter after being shot dead by US commandos.

There were conflicting reports about the second person the US forces took along with them. Some Pakistani officials say it was one of Bin Laden's sons injured by the US commandos and thrown onto a separate military chopper; others say he was killed in the operation and it was only his dead body that they took along.

While any account given by Bin Laden's family is likely to be treated with scepticism (especially coming via Pakistani security officials), the changing account given by the White House may lend this version of events more credence than it would otherwise have been granted.

Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.

redrock

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.

I believe that, as far as the US are concerned, the operation went perfectly to plan (well.. except for the helicopter incident). They did what they set out to do - nothing botched on their side (contrary to a couple of other seal incursions in the past).

dimitrispearljam

no need to make this conversation again...like we did with israelians commantos attacking those ships
Marines and special forces trained to DO what they been told...
the order was shoot to kill...and i fully understand that order...they will not let this murderer to play his game..a dead body cant speak...

Godfather.

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.

SoonForgotten2

redrock wrote:

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Leave it to the US to botch what should have been a straightforward positive outcome. Way to go.

I believe that, as far as the US are concerned, the operation went perfectly to plan (well.. except for the helicopter incident). They did what they set out to do - nothing botched on their side (contrary to a couple of other seal incursions in the past).

Oh, I'm not saying that they didn't do what they intended. I'm saying that they were in a position to take the moral, ethical high road. They were in a position to be better than their target. Instead, vengeance and blood lust won out. Instead, those who dislike or hate the USA can point to this as further evidence of what is wrong about the USA. I have no doubt this was their plan. Their plan was simply wrong.

Thoughts_Arrive

Godfather. wrote:

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.

Me and you are on the same wavelength

SoonForgotten2

Godfather. wrote:

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.

No one is arguing bin Laden wasn't a horrible person who did evil deeds. The point is that any democratic goverment should be better than that. That is especially true of a country like the USA which wants to import it's brand of democracy elsewhere. Set your thrist for vengeance aside and ask yourself if killing an unarmed man, no matter what that man has done, is really good for the reputation of the USA. It is the reputation and behaviour of the USA that puts it's citizens at risk. I'm not saying that is fair, but it is the truth. The US was never an innocent target.