[lostalex]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

german soldier's who oversaw the death's of hundred's of thousand's of jew's during the war got a trial.

umm, no. The ones who continued fighting and did not surrender did not get a trial, they were killed on the battlefield.

OBL did not surrender. If he did, he would have gotten his trial. He choose to continue fighting on the battlefield, and therefore it was absolutely lawful for him to die in the battlefield.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

1) They would never be the single orders in this situation because the battle field is a dynamic environment of semi-organised chaos. But I think dead or alive is a pretty blunt objective. It's not like they say "preferably alive, but y'know, sh*t happens".

2) I'm a real advocate for human rights, and in an ideal world he should have had his day in court. The thread is about whether it was lawful or not to kill him, and it absolutely was lawful.

3) Because that's what "dead or alive" means. It's the "dead" part of the sound byte.


The guy who actually shot OBL said he was either trying to push his wife in front of him or was actually hiding behind her when he went in to the room. I'm paraphrasing. That would clear up any legal argument if any were needed as a last defence. But the killing was lawful, so of course it's not necessary, but we're playing what ifs.

How is it legal, which court decided that the US had the right to run an armed operation in another country without the permission from that country's government.

Originally Posted by lostalex

He declared war on America, so normal laws don't apply. The laws of war are different.

If he wanted a fair trial, he had 10 years to surrender himself and get a trial. Clearly he didn't want a trial, if he did he had plenty of opportunities to turn himself in to the justice system.

A fair trial? When rightly or wrongly he believed his actions were justified.

Why should he submit himself to a trial by the US, when he beleived them to be the enemy. Can one man "declare war" on a country?

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, no. The ones who continued fighting and did not surrender did not get a trial, they were killed on the battlefield.

OBL did not surrender. If he did, he would have gotten his trial. He choose to continue fighting on the battlefield, and therefore it was absolutely lawful for him to die in the battlefield.

Was he given a chance to surrender? Did the Seal team annouce who they were and under what jurisdiction they were operating. He was taken out in a house not on a battlefield.

Its interesting to note that as soon as the "hit" had been confirmed and he had been identified the SEAL left the area without waiting for the local police to investigate.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Karl

thank's karl, now if you can try to work your way upto using word's that will be great!

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Was he given a chance to surrender?

Yes. He had 10 years to surrender. He had plenty of opportunities and chances. He chose instead to hide like a rat, hide like a coward. He was the 21st century Hitler, and he died like the cowardly rat he was.

If he believed he was innocent, he could have surrendered himself to the international court system and proven his case, HIS case was only that Americans are evil infidels and that he has every right to kill as many Americans as he could.

He was a violent racist piece of ****.

[MTVN]

Strictly speaking I'd say it wasn't legal, no. It was done without consulting Pakistan or getting their consent

I remember Chomsky making an interesting point about the killing; how would people be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic, all while thinking they had no responsibility before the operation to inform anyone about it. (I know it's not a perfect comparison but it's about the principle of violating a states sovereignty to kill someone whom you consider a mass murderer/criminal)

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Strictly speaking I'd say it wasn't legal, no. It was done without consulting Pakistan or getting their consent

I remember Chomsky making an interesting point about the killing; how would people be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic, all while thinking they had no responsibility before the operation to inform anyone about it.

how would people react? well if George Bush had ordered the murder of every muslim in the world, then they would be justified. If Goerge Bush attempted a genocide and "holy war" the way that Osama Bin Laden had, and the United States protected him from justice, then they would absolutely be justified.

George Bush did not attempt a genocide though, George Bush was nothing like Osama Bin Laden, the comparison makes no sense. George Bush was only defending his own people. Osama Bin Laden was trying to impose his fascist islamic beliefs onto the entire world. He was the 21st century Hitler. George Bush was on the defensive, OBL was trying to kill every American.

[Nedusa]

Was it Lawful to kill Bin Laden........No of course it wasn't he was never tried convicted and found guilty of any crime. He was shown as the public face of Al-Qaeda a known terrorist organisation but we don't really know what crimes he may or may not have been involved in. Was he involved in 911...who knows ?? there was never any trial so his innocence or guilt could never be proved either way.

If the CIA had overwhelming evidence he was involved then capture him and make him stand trial and if proved guilty then it would be lawful to execute him, but recent events in Pakistan were unlawful in the extreme.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Was it Lawful to kill Bin Laden........No of course it wasn't he was never tried convicted and found guilty of any crime. He was shown as the public face of Al-Qaeda a known terrorist organisation but we don't really know what crimes he may or may not have been involved in. Was he involved in 911...who knows ?? there was never any trial so his innocence or guilt could never be proved either way.

If the CIA had overwhelming evidence he was involved then capture him and make him stand trial and if proved guilty then it would be lawful to execute him, but recent events in Pakistan were unlawful in the extreme.

Umm, he admitted he was behind the 9/11 attacks... so he was guilty...when someone tells you they are guilty, why would you not believe him? do you think he was lying?

And since the CIA and the military had tried to catch him before, but the PAKISTAN military would warn them, because clearly the pakistan military is helping the terrorists, why would the US trust them??

you make no sense.

Do you not understand that Pakistan is a terrorist state that supports the taliban??

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by lostalex

how would people react? well if George Bush had ordered the murder of every muslim in the world, then they would be justified. If Goerge Bush attempted a genocide and "holy war" the way that Osama Bin Laden had, and the United States protected him from justice, then they would absolutely be justified.

George Bush did not attempt a genocide though, George Bush was nothing like Osama Bin Laden, the comparison makes no sense. George Bush was only defending his own people. Osama Bin Laden was trying to impose his fascist islamic beliefs onto the entire world. He was the 21st century Hitler. George Bush was on the defensive, OBL was trying to kill every American.

It makes sense because both were responsible for mass murder, Bush's total actually far exceeding that of Bin Laden's as well. Bush was only defending his own people? It's a pity that cost over 100,000 innocent lives in Iraq then isn't it

If Bush's actions were defensive then I would hate to see him on the offensive

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It makes sense because both were responsible for mass murder, Bush's total actually far exceeding that of Bin Laden's as well. Bush was only defending his own people? It's a pity that cost over 100,000 innocent lives in Iraq then isn't it

If Bush's actions were defensive then I would hate to see him on the offensive

If BUsh's or America's actions were on the offensive, believe me, there would not be a muslim alive today.

America has been incredibly restrained in our reaction since 9/11 believe it or not, compared to what we could have done to them, are you kidding" you don't think we could have destroyed them by now?

If you don't think we have been restrained in our war, then you very much underestimate the capability of the US military.

We could have made every desert in the middle east into glass if we wanted to.

[MTVN]

Oh no I'm sure you could if you wanted to, and I'm sure that you probably do want to

[lostalex]

If you really want to educate yourself, look into how many chinese firms have gotten oil contacts. Look at where that oil is going. Look at who's benefited the most from these wars. It's not America. it's China.

Follow the money.

Originally Posted by lostalex

If you really want to educate yourself, look into how many chinese firms have gotten oil contacts. Look at where that oil is going. Look at who's benefited the most from these wars. It's not America. it's China.

Follow the money.

I think his killing was a lawful action, but I don't think you can blame China for the fact both our governments lied us into the illegal Iraq war.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Umm, he admitted he was behind the 9/11 attacks... so he was guilty...when someone tells you they are guilty, why would you not believe him? do you think he was lying?

And since the CIA and the military had tried to catch him before, but the PAKISTAN military would warn them, because clearly the pakistan military is helping the terrorists, why would the US trust them??

you make no sense.

Do you not understand that Pakistan is a terrorist state that supports the taliban??

I did not realise Bin Laden admitted the 911 attacks, but even then I would still prefer to see some evidence linking him with these attacks before closing the investigation. They should have captured him in Pakistan in cooperation with the Pakistan authorities since Pakistan is fighting the same terrorist threat as the US,Europe and the rest of the World.

Oh and by the way it makes no sense to describe Pakistan as a terrorist state, they are a Sovereign Nation....!!!!!

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I did not realise Bin Laden admitted the 911 attacks, but even then I would still prefer to see some evidence linking him with these attacks before closing the investigation. They should have captured him in Pakistan in cooperation with the Pakistan authorities since Pakistan is fighting the same terrorist threat as the US,Europe and the rest of the World.

Oh and by the way it makes no sense to describe Pakistan as a terrorist state, they are a Sovereign Nation....!!!!!

He admitted it on numerous occasions. I believe the evidence can be found in financial records, in links to the terrorists and OBL's group, in documentation left behind by the hijackers. There is la fair bit of evidence. He also admitted the 93 WTC bombings.

[MTVN]

Pakistan is not a terrorist state, it was thanks to them and with their assistance that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, was captured there. Ideally that is also how the Bin Laden operation would have been carried out

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Pakistan is not a terrorist state, it was thanks to them and with their assistance that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, was captured there. Ideally that is also how the Bin Laden operation would have been carried out

sorry but you are wrong, Pakistan, atleast the military is NOT a trusted ally. The pakistani's have tiped off terrorists a bunch of times before America was going to make a strike, that's why America didn't inform the Pakistani's about the strike to get Bin Laden, cause we'd tried to get him before, and everytime all of a sudden, they disappeared, and wow, when the pakistani's did tell us where a terrorist was, it turns out it was a wedding ceremony and they had us bombing political dissidents or someone that the pakistani military wanted to get rid of. They purposefully told us to bomb a location full of civilians, tellingt us it was terrorists, just to make the US look bad.

They have screwed us over sooo many times. they cannot be trusted.

The US had to learn the hard way that the pakistani's cannot be trusted, cause they'll just use us to kill the people they din't like, while still protecting the Taliban.

So obviously the Pakistani's cannot be trusted. Pakistan is a ****cake of horribleness, and i don't know how the military even tolerates them at this point.

[MTVN]

It is not a terrorist state though, and they have at times been very valuable to the West assisting in the "war on terror". I don't doubt though that there is a lot of anti-American sentiment among the population and within parts of the establishment itself, little wonder really with all the drone attacks

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It is not a terrorist state though, and they have at times been very valuable to the West assisting in the "war on terror". I don't doubt though that there is a lot of anti-American establishment among the population and withing parts of the establishment itself, little wonder really with all the drone attacks

so are you denying that they have actually told us targets, that turned out to be civilians, like weddings, just to make the US look bad?

They have done that. They told us, bomb this location to get this terrorist, and then it turn out to be a wedding or a mosque or some other civilian place. They do it on purpose.

They have screwed us over so many times, they cannot be trusted anymore.


If we trusted them about the Bin Laden raid, there's no way we would have got him. They would have warned him. You know that's true.

[MTVN]

What was the incident with the Wedding?

Would you deny that Pakistanis have legitimate reason to also not trust the US?

[lostalex]

i don't give a crap anymore, i'm just saying, we know not to trust Pakistan anymore.

For Bin Laden to be right under their noses for so long, he was literally right next to their biggest military training camp, you won't convince me that they didn't know he was there.

America didnt tell them cause we KNOW NOW that PAkistan is not on our side.

If we had tried t work with Pakistan on the Osama Bin Laden raid, you know that he would have gotten away. They cannot be trusted period.

[lostalex]

The truth is Muslims think that it's a war of the West against Islam. And plenty of people in their ranks will still be anti-west. no matter how much we try to tell them that it's not a war against Islam. They are brainwashed. like a cult.

Originally Posted by lostalex

The truth is Muslims think that it's a war of the West against Islam. And plenty of people in their ranks will still be anti-west. no matter how much we try to tell them that it's not a war against Islam. They are brainwashed. like a cult.

When Dubbya is on TV calling it a crusade, then I can sort of sympathise with my non-pork eating brothers and sisters.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

When Dubbya is on TV calling it a crusade, then I can sort of sympathise with my non-pork eating brothers and sisters.

really? can you? when's the last time a christian strapped a suicide vest on in a muslim market place? when's the last time a christian hijacked a plane in the name of jesus? get real.

i understand you want to be empathetic Jesus, but really... get real.

[GypsyGoth]

I'm glad Bin Laden is dead, I think killing him was the right thing to do.

Was it lawful? Not by amreican laws, but by Bin Laden's own laws, it probably was. He seemed to think it's fine to kill anyone just to make a point.