Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[Mr.Canada]

Osama Bil Laden Killed.

CBC Story

Good riddance!

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I don't think the Pentagon is a legitimate target unless the US is at war with another country.

So if we were at war with another country it would be legitimate to target the Pentagon, even though the people in it are unarmed; therefore, by the same token, since we were at war with bin Laden, war had been declared, his compound was just as legitimate a target, and killing him was just as legitimate as killing the military leaders at the Pentagon would be.

But to be clear, you don't think the Pentagon was a legitimate target on 9-11?

While I am somewhat satisfied with OBL's death, I think it is legitimate to decry his assassination as going against certain western values. Torture and/or assassination may be convenient, but to justify them as they have been justified goes against a long list of values that even American Republicans used to espouse (or, at least, I think they may have at one time?).

It wasn't so much an assassination as it was an ambush on his compound. I see no difference between ambushing his compound in time of war than targeting the Pentagon would be, which you see as legitimate in times of war. How is it different? He wasn't killed by a sharp shooter walking down the street. It was a military operation. Ambushes have been part of military operations as long as wars have been fought.

The point of being the "good guys" is that we, through our messy democratic system, come up with systems that deal with justice.

This was war. Bin Laden wasn't just a serial killer, he had openly declared war and we declared war back when our country was attacked. The purpose, the goal of war, is not to capture each of the enemy alive and bring them to trial. That's not how war is fought. It would be impossible. Bin Laden was killed during a military operation, same as many others have been killed during military operations.

Yes, it is a nice neat package to send a team of well-trained soldiers into another country to kill some bastard.

It was a well planned, well executed, well informed military operation.

But that's something I expect from the "bad guys."

So the "good guys" in war have never been part of such a military operation? They've not taken advantage of such intelligence, such military advantages? They've never carried out ambushes? That's how many a battle has been won.

What I expect from "us" good guys is to capture him if possible (and it sounds like it could have been done) put him on trial, and then hang him as part of serving justice.

Why should it be expected that he be captured? Others have been killed in military operations during this war. Why the criticism, in particular, for bin Laden's death? Why the expectation that he be taken alive? A trial wasn't particularly necessary to determine guilt since we had him on tape admitting to the planning of 9-11, along with declarations to kill as many Americans/westerners as possible. This was, and is, war. There are different 'rules' than going after a murderer in society. If they felt there was any chance that he could pick up a weapon and kill any one of them, as happened in the Khadr ambush, they were more than justified in killing him.

Yes, I know, that involves a lot of effort but it would make "us" look better and make the Islamic fascists look like the turds that they are.

If they don't already look like the turds they are, if we don't already look better than people who purposely target and kill civilians, people who kidnap and cut off heads, people who rejoice at the death of innocent civilians, I doubt this would make us look better to those people either. Seriously. Who can't see that we are better than they are? Who can't see that he deserved to die? What good would it do to go through the motions of a trial and then put him to death -- we know he wouldn't have been found anything but guilty of premeditated murder of thousands -- and then having people in a tizzy over the death penalty?

For me, I consider the execution without judge/jury to be a minor fault of the operation, but it is a fault nonetheless.

And I don't see it as an execution. He wasn't shot while surrendering. I see it as a death of the enemy during a military operation during war. As I said, many people have died in such an ambush during wars, but for some reason, some people think it was a fault of the U.S. to have killed bin Laden that way. I think there's such a thing as bending over backwards to try to appease people who will never be appeased, and I think that's a fault that would result in losing a battle/the war or result in too many of our troops being needlessly killed. Why should the death of even one more person be chanced for the benefit of bin Laden?

Edited May 8, 2011 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

America blunders as per usual. This feud between America and Muslim radicals has become exactly like the feud between the Arabs and the Jews. How long do you think this will last? Probably for a long long time. It seems that America has learned one thing from Israel - that killing individuals at home and abroad is the most direct route to some sort of salvation that never comes.

It is evident that even the president is caught up in American movie mythology. Watching Biden on the phone talking to some person and saying "We killed him" --- such an arm chair version of bravery on some undefined battle field is utterly stupid. As if Biden or Obama - or Hillary is truely brave and honourable..They are no different than Bin Laden - they have others do their dirty work while they remain safe and at a distance. I am not impressed.

[Oleg Bach]

IF Obama and Osama squared off in a confined space and had a knife fight - and Obama won the match - then I would be impressed with his prowess.

[Oleg Bach]

Killing some old man with a grey beard sitting in a "mansion" (sure looked like a hovel to me) - was kind of cheezy. Bin Laden appeared to be some eccentric old jerk who was willing to live in dirt while having a fantacy of being some sort of powerful figure - Osama and Obama - are two sides of one coin - both are into leadership for the wrong reasons. GLORY! "THOSE WHO LIVE BY THE SWORD" as they say. Sure thousands died during the 9 11 slaughter...and hundreds of evil sympathizers were immediately shipped back to Saudi Arabia. Instead of sending them all to have a holiday in Cuba - they made sure they were sent home to drink tea and cruse the desert roads in their Porche or Mercedes.

Oil rules - Our oil merchants protected the Saudi financers of the attack- So they kill a figure head - but don't bother invading Saudi Arabia - instead off they go on a diversionary expedition to Afghanistan and Iraq - and all the while the money that allowed the slaughter stays in tack in Saudi...I don't get it..but I suppose that wealth and power trump loyalty to your own nation.

[BubberMiley]

Somebody ca declare war on you and you're not allowed to kill them?

Even in war, you're not supposed to shoot unarmed people.

But, I agree, bin Laden is an exception. He was the boogieman that made jbg unable to wear fresh underwear for years after 9/11. It's a happy day when he gets a bullet to the head, even when it's done in the most cowardly of ways.

[GostHacked]

Notice how quite Pakistan is over all of this. A raid into soverign Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Notice how the story of Bin Laden has changed so much since the initial report.

Notice how you are being told to still be scared because Al-Queda still wants to attack. Emphasizing rail lines.

Notice how DHS is telling you to expect more security over soft targets like shopping malls.

Notice how Obama is riding this bitch out for all it's worth. Polling better now!

Notice no one is worried about the radiation from Fukushima. It's still happening!

Notice no one is concerned about Libya or Syrian. Humanitarian aid anyone?

Notice how you have been purposefully been distracted? Obama and CO, are going to milk this for another week yet.

[Oleg Bach]

Notice how quite Pakistan is over all of this. A raid into soverign Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Notice how the story of Bin Laden has changed so much since the initial report.

Notice how you are being told to still be scared because Al-Queda still wants to attack. Emphasizing rail lines.

Notice how DHS is telling you to expect more security over soft targets like shopping malls.

Notice how Obama is riding this bitch out for all it's worth. Polling better now!

Notice no one is worried about the radiation from Fukushima. It's still happening!

Notice no one is concerned about Libya or Syrian. Humanitarian aid anyone?

Notice how you have been purposefully been distracted? Obama and CO, are going to milk this for another week yet.

Notice how you noticed. Good work - at least someone out there is thinking - what do we care about most - radiation leaking into our world - or some dog eared president who ordered the killing of some eccentric Saudi rich guy who loved to toy with the west? I would say that Obama will ride this "bitch" and continue to mind f*** those of less intelligence than yourself...kind of scarey when you are out numbered by the stupid people 10 to one - and Obama is jerking the chains of all the dumb dogs that he can sic on you when it suits him ---Politics seems to consist of a shrewd bastard taking advantage of those of lower intellectual capcity - the horrible part is that there are so many drones ---and so many twits - and as I always say - evil and stupidity are kin.

[Guest American Woman]

Notice how quite Pakistan is over all of this. A raid into soverign Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Notice how the story of Bin Laden has changed so much since the initial report.

Notice how you are being told to still be scared because Al-Queda still wants to attack. Emphasizing rail lines.

Notice how DHS is telling you to expect more security over soft targets like shopping malls.

Notice how Obama is riding this bitch out for all it's worth. Polling better now!

Notice no one is worried about the radiation from Fukushima. It's still happening!

Notice no one is concerned about Libya or Syrian. Humanitarian aid anyone?

Notice how you have been purposefully been distracted? Obama and CO, are going to milk this for another week yet.

Speak for yourself. I haven't been distracted. I can actually focus on more than one thing at a time.

But again, how many times has the story changed since corrections were made to the original? Corrections that were made early on.

Furthermore, informing us that information was gathered that indicated striking rail lines was in the planning was just that -- information.

But yeah, Obama is riding this bitch out. As people bitch that he isn't telling us enough.

And of course Obama really, really wanted to distract from Fukushima. Suuure he did. As the people with actual attention spans realize it's still going on.

And of course all the activity we were involved in regarding Syria and Lybia has come to a dead halt. Suuuure it has.

Because the death of bin Laden has been in the news for a week now.

And because Obama's polls have risen during this week, what his polls are reading now is going to mean oh-so-much a year and a half from now.

Suuuure it is.

The only people who are seeing things this way are the people looking really, really hard for something to see other than what this is: the death of bin Laden at the hands of the navy SEALS per a U.S. military operation.

Edited May 8, 2011 by American Woman

[Shady]

Even in war, you're not supposed to shoot unarmed people.

Not if your order is to kill regardless. Do you think the allies would have held back killing Hitler if they had him in their sights, but he wasn't holding a weapon? Seriously, people like you make me sick to my stomach.

Under your ridiculous scenario, anybody can declare war on a country, carry out attacks killing thousands of people. But if they never pick up a weapon, they can never be killed. That's beyond retarded.

[BubberMiley]

Not if your order is to kill regardless. Do you think the allies would have held back killing Hitler if they had him in their sights, but he wasn't holding a weapon? Seriously, people like you make me sick to my stomach.

Why do I make you sick to your stomach? I have repeatedly stated I agree with the decision to shoot him in the head. That doesn't change international law or that fact that you totally don't understand it though.

[Shady]

Notice how quite Pakistan is over all of this. A raid into soverign Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Actually, if you've been paying attention, they haven't been that quiet about it at all.

Notice how you are being told to still be scared because Al-Queda still wants to attack.

You don't think terrorists still want to attack?

Notice how DHS is telling you to expect more security over soft targets like shopping malls.

Cite? I haven't heard that. I think you're just completely making it up now.

Notice how Obama is riding this bitch out for all it's worth.

Of course. It's a pretty big deal. What's your point?

Notice no one is worried about the radiation from Fukushima. It's still happening!

Nobody is worried? Cite? Again, you're just making things up.

Notice no one is concerned about Libya or Syrian. Humanitarian aid anyone?

What's going on in Libya and Syrian has been on the news before and during the Bin Laden death. The Syria sitation was pointed out during the Libya intervention as an example of hypocrisy. Are you calling for another military intervention?

Notice how you have been purposefully been distracted? Obama and CO, are going to milk this for another week yet.

And maybe another week after that. What's your point? Believe it or not, most people can read about, or watch about more than one story and/or issue at a time. Is that tinfoil welded into your head now, as oppose to just being a hat? STFU stupid deather.

[Shady]

Why do I make you sick to your stomach? I have repeatedly stated I agree with the decision to shoot him in the head. That doesn't change international law or that fact that you totally don't understand it though.

Please cite to me international law regarding a declaration of war.

[msj]

So if we were at war with another country it would be legitimate to target the Pentagon, even though the people in it are unarmed; therefore, by the same token, since we were at war with bin Laden, war had been declared, his compound was just as legitimate a target, and killing him was just as legitimate as killing the military leaders at the Pentagon would be.

I doubt people in the Pentagon are unarmed and I don't see how that's relevant. A minor quibble.

Yes, his compound was a legitimate target.

If his death came about during a "firefight" then it would be a legitimate death.

It didn't so it isn't.

If the allies stormed a Nazi position, for example, and the Nazi's just stood there then it is legitimate to wonder why allied soldiers choose to mow them down with machine guns rather than take them as POW's. (This is only used as a fictional example and I am not referring to any real events).

But to be clear, you don't think the Pentagon was a legitimate target on 9-11?

For North Korea, Iran or any other crazy country declaring war? Yes.

For some idiot with a few hundred idiot followers? No.

It wasn't so much an assassination as it was an ambush on his compound. I see no difference between ambushing his compound in time of war than targeting the Pentagon would be, which you see as legitimate in times of war. How is it different? He wasn't killed by a sharp shooter walking down the street. It was a military operation. Ambushes have been part of military operations as long as wars have been fought.

See comment above.

Even in war there is something called the Geneva Convention.

I know it isn't convenient to follow it at times, though.

And surely there is some technicality that will allow this execution be exempted.

But my point has to do more-so with politics than with following some convention.

This was war. Bin Laden wasn't just a serial killer, he had openly declared war and we declared war back when our country was attacked. The purpose, the goal of war, is not to capture each of the enemy alive and bring them to trial. That's not how war is fought. It would be impossible. Bin Laden was killed during a military operation, same as many others have been killed during military operations.

Once again, even war has rules about taking POW's etc.

This was clearly an execution without any court system finding OBL guilt of being a "serial killer."

While I don't doubt OBL was a "serial killer" Islamic fascist bastard it is still better to take him into custody and hang him for it (and I generally don't like capital punishment - but he is an exception).

It was a well planned, well executed, well informed military operation.

Yes, it was.

Emphasis on "exectued."

So the "good guys" in war have never been part of such a military operation? They've not taken advantage of such intelligence, such military advantages? They've never carried out ambushes? That's how many a battle has been won.

See above.

Yes, ambushes happen.

When an opportunity to take someone prisoner arises then it should be taken rather than carry out an execution order.

That opportunity was available and was discarded based on orders to kill and only kill.

Why should it be expected that he be captured? Others have been killed in military operations during this war. Why the criticism, in particular, for bin Laden's death? Why the expectation that he be taken alive? A trial wasn't particularly necessary to determine guilt since we had him on tape admitting to the planning of 9-11, along with declarations to kill as many Americans/westerners as possible. This was, and is, war. There are different 'rules' than going after a murderer in society. If they felt there was any chance that he could pick up a weapon and kill any one of them, as happened in the Khadr ambush, they were more than justified in killing him.

See above.

If he was killed in a firefight then fine.

To execute him otherwise is questionable, to say the least.

If guilt was so easy to attain (and I agree it is/was) then why not take him because the opportunity was there.

It would have been easy.

Not as easy as shooting him and disposing of his body, but still, easy.

If they don't already look like the turds they are, if we don't already look better than people who purposely target and kill civilians, people who kidnap and cut off heads, people who rejoice at the death of innocent civilians, I doubt this would make us look better to those people either. Seriously. Who can't see that we are better than they are? Who can't see that he deserved to die? What good would it do to go through the motions of a trial and then put him to death -- we know he wouldn't have been found anything but guilty of premeditated murder of thousands -- and then having people in a tizzy over the death penalty?

If "we" (as in the West) want to be seen as valuing the rule of law then we should follow the rule of law (and expect others to do the same.

Yes, "we" are better than the terrorist turds. But by a smaller degree than we used to be.

And I don't see it as an execution. He wasn't shot while surrendering. I see it as a death of the enemy during a military operation during war. As I said, many people have died in such an ambush during wars, but for some reason, some people think it was a fault of the U.S. to have killed bin Laden that way. I think there's such a thing as bending over backwards to try to appease people who will never be appeased, and I think that's a fault that would result in losing a battle/the war or result in too many of our troops being needlessly killed. Why should the death of even one more person be chanced for the benefit of bin Laden?

Well, who knows if he was going to surrender or not. I would guess that he would prefer to be killed anyway.

But to send special ops in with an order to kill OBL is nothing less than an execution.

They knew he was there (or had a high probability) and they sent in the good boys to kill.

If that is not one definition of an execution I don't know what is.

Look, AW, you can justify this execution anyway you want - but surly you can find better reasons than the crap you have spewed above?

The difference between me and you, AW, is that I want Islamic Fascism to go on trial.

I want the educated world (granted, this excludes many in the ME) to see Islamic Fascism for what it is.

This is not just about revenge against one man/symbol: it's about victory for western values such as freedom of religion (and from religion for us Canadians), liberty, and equality.

[BubberMiley]

Please cite to me international law regarding a declaration of war.

Will you ever win?

The Third Geneva Convention: Article 3, section 1, subsection a (banning "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"), subsection d ( prohibiting "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"), and Article 13 in its entirety.

So I make you sick because I think they were justified in breaking the law in this instance? Don't you make yourself sick by refusing to admit reality when you don't like it?

Edited May 8, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

Look, AW, you can justify this execution anyway you want - but surly you can find better reasons than the crap you have spewed above?

I see. When I state my opinion in a civil way I'm "spewing crap." Nice talking to you.

[msj]

I see. When I state my opinion in a civil way I'm "spewing crap." Nice talking to you.

Pardon me, should have been a there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even in war, you're not supposed to shoot unarmed people.

This is false....not only can they be shot, but they can be bombed too!

[BubberMiley]

This is false....not only can they be shot, but they can be bombed too!

Can you elaborate how this instance didn't break the provision "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"?

Personally, I would be happy if you could because I think the killing was justified. I don't enjoy being the hypocrite who thinks the Geneva Convention should be respected except this time.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt people in the Pentagon are unarmed and I don't see how that's relevant. A minor quibble.

Civilian and military personnel at the Pentagon are unarmed (for obvious reasons), save for security staff and posted guards.

If the allies stormed a Nazi position, for example, and the Nazi's just stood there then it is legitimate to wonder why allied soldiers choose to mow them down with machine guns rather than take them as POW's. (This is only used as a fictional example and I am not referring to any real events).

Allied soldiers "mowed down" many unarmed "Nazis", as the reverse is true as well.

This is not just about revenge against one man/symbol: it's about victory for western values such as freedom of religion (and from religion for us Canadians), liberty, and equality.

Then why did Canadians illegally kill Serbs from the air in 1999? Were they just religious Canadians?

Edited May 8, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Can you elaborate how this instance didn't break the provision "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"?

There was no court, and even if there was, jurisdiction problems abound. Civilized "peoples" have been killing people post Geneva Convention(s) with impunity either as domestic police actions or international operations.

Personally, I would be happy if you could because I think the killing was justified. I don't enjoy being the hypocrite who thinks the Geneva Convention should be respected except this time.

But a hypocrite you would be...either you are all in on the Convention or it is rendered meaningless, as is the case here.

[BubberMiley]

There was no court, and even if there was, jurisdiction problems abound. Civilized "peoples" have been killing people post Geneva Convention(s) with impunity either as domestic police actions or international operations.

Just because people get away with it doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just because people get away with it doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

The "law" is rendered moot when it is only used for punitive geo-political objectives by those who would gain from such actions, the very same actors who are very guilty of violating the "law" time and time again.

[GostHacked]

Actually, if you've been paying attention, they haven't been that quiet about it at all.

I've been paying attention, thanks Shady!

You don't think terrorists still want to attack?

Depends on who the real terrorists are.

Cite? I haven't heard that. I think you're just completely making it up now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqooBmYfQ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLSgmZss3gg

At bus stations now.

At the local theater

Want more? Or should I take my tinfoil somewhere else?

Just because you have not heard, (are you really paying attention??) does not mean it's not happening. You already see this at stadiums now. You can count on check point security at malls in the next couple years.

And maybe another week after that. What's your point? Believe it or not, most people can read about, or watch about more than one story and/or issue at a time. Is that tinfoil welded into your head now, as oppose to just being a hat? STFU stupid deather.

Can't call me a stupid deather because I believe he has already been dead for years.

[dre]

The "law" is rendered moot when it is only used for punitive geo-political objectives by those who would gain from such actions, the very same actors who are very guilty of violating the "law" time and time again.

Well international law isnt normally enforced by any central international bodies. When you sign treaties those treaties become part of your own domestic laws and are enforcable by your own courts.

Your suggestion that these laws make no difference and nobody follows them anyways is simply not true. In WW2 both sides persecuted the war by punishing as many civilians as possible. Up until the geneva conventions targeting civilians, or executing and burying captured soldiers in mass graves was standard operating procedure. Countries that signed voluntary treaties like the geneva conventions may still break the rules sometimes, but in general they ALL behave better than they did before.

If people think the killing of Bin Laden is illegal they should pursue it in a US court, and any resulting ruling would impact how the US government acts in the future.

Personally I think the whole thing is ass backwards, just to be clear. Rules against assasinating officers and civilian leaders are only there becaause the leaders on both sides were able to EASILY agree that they should be spared real consequences of the wars they start. Its "civilized" to send armies of underprivileged grunts to kill each other but god forbid a high ranking officer or a politician break a nail.

Id rather ONLY have the politicians and high ranking officers get targeted. Thats how war should be fought. Id rather have THOSE guys dying than most of the people that end up dying now. It would make the world a better place if the decision makers were the ones that actually had to pay for the decisions.

In any case.... Good fuckin riddance! Glad the guys dead. Buh-bye shit-head.

As for all the conspiracy theories... well just never really know. Theres no credible source of information. We simply dont know what happened, and probably never will.