|
Keep it civil guys.
Alright I am sick of warning people: Trolling, flame baiting, and derailing will result in insta bans.
The same goes for conspiracy theorists and stupidity generally.
Confirmation was as follows
- On-site DNA test which came back as 99% positive.
- photos of face sent to CIA and confirmed with photo analysis
- confirmed by 20 year old wife who live in pakistan.
This thread is specifically dedicated to the details surrounding the raid/his death. |
On May 03 2011 01:50 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:41 jdseemoreglass wrote:On May 03 2011 01:36 Krehlmar wrote:
I just don't get why'd they go for a kill order... obviously not respecting human rights (sorry to break it to you revenge mongerers but death sentence without trial is never eligible in a true just state. For all we know he could be a puppet or even mentally retarded) and not caring for how it'll turn him into an martyr... yet they'd bury him within 24 hours to be at good faith with Muslim tradition. Becuase youknow it's ok killing him if you just bury him proper?
Meh, bad choice imo. The sympathy that keeps bubbling up for this mass murderer is truly baffling to me... He was a human therefor he has human rights which cannot be taken away. The behaviour of some people (in real life as well as on tl) leads me to believe the terrorists have won as they have destroyed the very foundation of society that was supposed to rule every since enlightment. If people say he should have been tortured for no reason at all (torture to extract information is immoral and wrong but torture out of saddistic pleasure is even below that) they are in no way different to al quida or osama himself.
This man right here is a hero of this topic.
Yes, you're so correct even rocks would weep at the bluntness of this tragedy.
There is no sympathy, but I do respect the rights we uphold in the west, and if we fall from grace just to get revenge we are no better than Osama or Alquida or godamn Megatron.
Had it been to save lives or whatnot I could understand the choice... but everyone agrees Osama is but a front figure now, and he won't stop being one as a dead martyr. Killing him in cold blood only makes us take another step away from what we once were and upheld.
|
On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america.
|
On May 03 2011 01:51 dormer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:36 Krehlmar wrote:
I just don't get why'd they go for a kill order... obviously not respecting human rights (sorry to break it to you revenge mongerers but death sentence without trial is never eligible in a true just state. For all we know he could be a puppet or even mentally retarded) and not caring for how it'll turn him into an martyr... yet they'd bury him within 24 hours to be at good faith with Muslim tradition. Becuase youknow it's ok killing him if you just bury him proper?
Meh, bad choice imo. Was the order to kill? I mean, I'd assume that they would try to capture him alive if possible, but kill him if necessary, and I really doubt that he would just go along with them without a fight. From Obama's speech: "And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaeda" But he later says, "After a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body." After the fight, not during? That seems strange. I don't know, but unless there's some evidence / source showing that they just killed him when it wasn't necessary, I don't see why you'd assume they were "obviously not respecting human rights."
Minor point - saying "after a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden" does not explicitly mean the firefight was over and then they killed Osama. It may just as well (and most likely does) mean that a firefight had ensued, and as it died down, they discovered that they killed Osama.
|
HE COULD NOT LEGALLY BE HELD FOR TRIAL. how hard is that to understand? he was captured, in a raid on pakistani soil, somewhere where we have NO juridiction? so tell me how do you hold a trial for someone that is being detained illegally, its the same situation that the gitmo prisoners are in.
|
I'm pretty sure if Osama had the choice he would not be takin alive. And he would have had an opportunity to hurt more people and their families, if we hadn't handled it the way we did. Eye for an eye, you fly a plane into our buildings, we fly a missile into your living room. I wonder what thoughts he had these last 10 years. I don't find pleasure in anyone's death, but the part of me that always wanted to get back at someone when they wronged me (almost never happens) finds some satisfaction this morning. I wonder how many people are mourning his death.
Edit: All the people saying we shouldn't have killed him are being ridiculous and don't understand the situation. How else did you plan on bringing him in? Knocking on his front fucking door? No there was nothing left for us and Osama, only death, ours or his. We knock on his door or lose one more Mothers Son in Afghanistan and I want you to imagine telling that Mother why her son had to die (because mam, thats the RULEZ, even though yes; they don't follow them, but understand rules are more important than human lives-end sarcasm.)
|
On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america.
You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world.
The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way.
|
On May 03 2011 01:53 VIB wrote:It's a report of 2008 interviewing a detainee who said he was working there in 2003. So US knew this since 2008.
Yeah I figured it out after a while. I'm a bit tired, sorry. Either way this does not mean it was 1. presented to the president (which was what he claimed, mind you) and 2. it's very likely that this wasn't the only source of "Hey, Osama's over here!" that led them to brief Obama on it in the first place, and for Obama to sign a kill order.
@jdseemoreglass, feel free to respond to this post:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=9070498
On May 03 2011 01:56 polysciguy wrote:
HE COULD NOT LEGALLY BE HELD FOR TRIAL. how hard is that to understand? he was captured, in a raid on pakistani soil, somewhere where we have NO juridiction? so tell me how do you hold a trial for someone that is being detained illegally, its the same situation that the gitmo prisoners are in.
The cooperation with the pakistani government completely flew over your head, eh?
Edit: (Much better to kill someone illegally btw, I agree completely...)
|
If he was alive a massacre of attacks would occur for his release. They made the right c all.
|
On May 03 2011 01:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:51 dormer wrote:On May 03 2011 01:36 Krehlmar wrote:
I just don't get why'd they go for a kill order... obviously not respecting human rights (sorry to break it to you revenge mongerers but death sentence without trial is never eligible in a true just state. For all we know he could be a puppet or even mentally retarded) and not caring for how it'll turn him into an martyr... yet they'd bury him within 24 hours to be at good faith with Muslim tradition. Becuase youknow it's ok killing him if you just bury him proper?
Meh, bad choice imo. Was the order to kill? I mean, I'd assume that they would try to capture him alive if possible, but kill him if necessary, and I really doubt that he would just go along with them without a fight. From Obama's speech: "And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaeda" But he later says, "After a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body." After the fight, not during? That seems strange. I don't know, but unless there's some evidence / source showing that they just killed him when it wasn't necessary, I don't see why you'd assume they were "obviously not respecting human rights." Minor point - saying "after a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden" does not explicitly mean the firefight was over and then they killed Osama. It may just as well (and most likely does) mean that a firefight had ensued, and as it died down, they discovered that they killed Osama.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
U.S. forces given 'kill' order; his body is buried at sea
CNN.
There's a quote from some whitehouse representative aswell.
On May 03 2011 01:56 polysciguy wrote:
HE COULD NOT LEGALLY BE HELD FOR TRIAL. how hard is that to understand? he was captured, in a raid on pakistani soil, somewhere where we have NO juridiction? so tell me how do you hold a trial for someone that is being detained illegally, its the same situation that the gitmo prisoners are in.
I'm a law student, trust me you can, I would call your statement retarded but most people don't realize how complicated yet uncomplicated it is so I won't get into it. USA is just not using any of the tools available to them because it does not suit their needs or their perception of justice which is sadly a paradox of their own justice...
|
On May 03 2011 01:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You are absurdly exaggerating here. Let's not lie to ourselves by suggesting that the desire for retribution is not a natural instinct of most mammals on this planet, in addition to empathy. It of course depends on the circumstances which emotion is felt. Which do you think would be the more likely emotional response to a man causing the death of thousands of your fellow citizens and other's throughout the world?
What in the hell are you talking about?
|
On May 03 2011 01:58 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america. You can't win a thread, nor can you win at politics without bludgeoning the opposing viewpoint to death. Which is, incidentally, how matters were generally dealt with in the last 5,000 years of human history and even to this day in some parts of the world. The fact that we can doubt, debate, argue, accuse, say our piece and generally be a bunch of assholes to one another without resorting to violence means we've come a long way. I didn't literally mean "win" a thread, the point is you reading through the posts so many people have unrealistic points of view its not worth arguing it.
|
On May 03 2011 01:58 HellRoxYa wrote:
The cooperation with the pakistani government completely flew over your head, eh?
That has been pretty hit or miss over the years. You willing to take the coin flip that it works out?
|
Because of Bin Laden, the US is involved in two wars it can't get out of, that have so far cost $1,188 billion.
This year, American tax payers will pay $172.4 billion to keep those wars going.
That money could pay for university scholarships for 21.9 million students for one year. Or for 2.6 million elementary school teachers. Or equip 39 million households with renewable solar power electricity. Or just be saved to stop the country from going bankrupt.
Who won what here, exactly?
|
you mean the same cooperation that we've had for the past few years with them? or was that the same cooperation that had us tell them of the operation pretty much as it was going down because we didn't want it getting back to bin laden? and either way, unless he's being brought before the ICC, pakistan would have to give their ok to an extradition to the US.
|
its simple the companies making those weapons and the people who benefit from seizing power from the people to "protect" them
its pretty obvious who won but people get irrational and cant see things for what they really are
|
On May 03 2011 02:00 Krehlmar wrote:
U.S. forces given 'kill' order; his body is buried at sea
CNN.
There's a quote from some whitehouse representative aswell.
Was it the...
![[image loading]](http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/08-15/horatio460.jpg)
Dead sea?
|
On May 03 2011 02:00 Krehlmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:54 JinDesu wrote:On May 03 2011 01:51 dormer wrote:On May 03 2011 01:36 Krehlmar wrote:
I just don't get why'd they go for a kill order... obviously not respecting human rights (sorry to break it to you revenge mongerers but death sentence without trial is never eligible in a true just state. For all we know he could be a puppet or even mentally retarded) and not caring for how it'll turn him into an martyr... yet they'd bury him within 24 hours to be at good faith with Muslim tradition. Becuase youknow it's ok killing him if you just bury him proper?
Meh, bad choice imo. Was the order to kill? I mean, I'd assume that they would try to capture him alive if possible, but kill him if necessary, and I really doubt that he would just go along with them without a fight. From Obama's speech: "And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaeda" But he later says, "After a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body." After the fight, not during? That seems strange. I don't know, but unless there's some evidence / source showing that they just killed him when it wasn't necessary, I don't see why you'd assume they were "obviously not respecting human rights." Minor point - saying "after a firefight, they killed Osama Bin Laden" does not explicitly mean the firefight was over and then they killed Osama. It may just as well (and most likely does) mean that a firefight had ensued, and as it died down, they discovered that they killed Osama. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1U.S. forces given 'kill' order; his body is buried at seaCNN. There's a quote from some whitehouse representative aswell. Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:56 polysciguy wrote:
HE COULD NOT LEGALLY BE HELD FOR TRIAL. how hard is that to understand? he was captured, in a raid on pakistani soil, somewhere where we have NO juridiction? so tell me how do you hold a trial for someone that is being detained illegally, its the same situation that the gitmo prisoners are in. I'm a law student, trust me you can, I would call your statement retarded but most people don't realize how complicated yet uncomplicated it is so I won't get into it. USA is just not using any of the tools available to them because it does not suit their needs or their perception of justice which is sadly a paradox of their own justice...
Yes, the task was to kill Bin Laden. My point is (and your link shows this as well) that his death was most likely part of the firefight; not an execution after the firefight finished.
On May 03 2011 01:58 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:53 VIB wrote:On May 03 2011 01:46 HellRoxYa wrote:That says 2003? It's a report of 2008 interviewing a detainee who said he was working there in 2003. So US knew this since 2008. Yeah I figured it out after a while. I'm a bit tired, sorry. Either way this does not mean it was 1. presented to the president (which was what he claimed, mind you) and 2. it's very likely that this wasn't the only source of "Hey, Osama's over here!" that led them to brief Obama on it in the first place, and for Obama to sign a kill order. @ jdseemoreglass, feel free to respond to this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=9070498Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:56 polysciguy wrote:
HE COULD NOT LEGALLY BE HELD FOR TRIAL. how hard is that to understand? he was captured, in a raid on pakistani soil, somewhere where we have NO juridiction? so tell me how do you hold a trial for someone that is being detained illegally, its the same situation that the gitmo prisoners are in. The cooperation with the pakistani government completely flew over your head, eh? Edit: ( Much better to kill someone illegally btw, I agree completely...)
Considering how the Pakistani Prime Minister (is this the right title?) was only informed of the operation after it was under way, I don't think cooperation is the correct term. Acquiescence to the situation may be more correct; if that's the case, an arrest may or may not have worked out afterwards.
|
|
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
K i cant handle it anymore sorry. If you don't understand why he was killed instead of captured, go read some books on international law, terrorism and politics. If you feel bad that he was killed "because he was human after all"....unreal. Locked.
|
On May 03 2011 01:54 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 01:51 CurLy[] wrote:
Are people seriously mad that he was killed?
Seriously?
Like for real?
Fuck you guys man... he killed THOUSANDS of people. Rot in pieces osama. Honestly people are so lost in their anti america hate that they will believe anything america does is wrong, you cannot win in a TL thread that has anything to do with politics and america.
My heart do not weep for Osama, but no matter WHAT atrocities someone has comitted he should be put to trial rather than just shot down. That is one of the fundamental parts of our civilisation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
