Bin Laden dead

Funny, that. It appears the more enemies you remove, the more enemies you still have left :dunno:
I can't find it at the moment, but there's a Flash game I played years ago where the objective was "bomb the terrorists". And for every civilian who died when you bombed the aforementioned terrorists, x number of civilians in the game would turn into terrorists.
 
Personally my vote is: shoot the MF, shoot him dead.

I do not like terrorists of any description. Randomly killing the innocent is disgusting, and it is not like that there is any doubt as to his guilt.
Herman G?ring. Adolf Eichman. Slobodan Milosevic. Three men we knew were guilty, who still got fair trials because THAT IS HOW WE DO THING'S IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD!

Why is this like pulling teeth? I feel like I'm talking lions into eating lettice..

In 1988 many Americans fancied themselves at slagging off the Ukanian forces for doing exactly (No really exactly) the same thing as they themselves have just done. Makes you think about my above post does it not?

Any hoo worth reading - supplant Al Caeda for IRA and you get the real gist. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/08/world/british-amend-account-of-killing-of-3-in-gibraltar.html?scp=11&sq=terrorists+Gibraltar&st=nyt
It was wrong then, and it is essentially wrong today.
 
Herman G?ring. Adolf Eichman. Slobodan Milosevic. Three men we knew were guilty, who still got fair trials because THAT IS HOW WE DO THING'S IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD!

While true, you have to remember that the situations were far different.

Goering surrendered willingly to the US Armed Forces. Milosevic was arrested by his own country's law enforcement agency. Eichman got pinched on his way home from work.

Bin Laden was killed after an intense firefight with armed radicals trying to protect him. One story says that Bin Laden was holding one of either his wives or daughters hostage when the SEALs found him.
 
Yes, and as I have stated earlier, the circumstances will have a bearing on that.

But I was responding to Cobols statement that "Personally my vote is: shoot the MF, shoot him dead.".

We don't do that. It's not how we operate in this part of the world, it's what they do, not us. You don't kill unless you have to. Let the courts doll out justice, not the executive branch.
 
...one guy shot back at dozens of Seals, and was dealt with swiftly.
Yep. And bin Laden didn't grab someone as a human shield, but one of his wives was shot in the leg.

Personally I would've preferred a trial, but I'm fine with this outcome as well. The verdict would've been a forgone conclusion and the whole thing would've been a media circus. It may not have been "right", but in some ways I think it's better that he's just dead. And while we can speculate all we want about the point of the mission (to kill or capture), we'll likely never know the truth.
 
Yes, and as I have stated earlier, the circumstances will have a bearing on that.

But I was responding to Cobols statement that "Personally my vote is: shoot the MF, shoot him dead.".

We don't do that. It's not how we operate in this part of the world, it's what they do, not us. You don't kill unless you have to. Let the courts doll out justice, not the executive branch.
Sorry this person deserved it - there is a difference between "normal" criminals and people who want to, and do kill multiple innocent people just to prove that what they 'believe' is correct.
 
Sorry this person deserved it - there is a difference between "normal" criminals and people who want to, and do kill multiple innocent people just to prove that what they 'believe' is correct.

There are different crimes, and we have different penalties for different offenses. But this isn't a harsh penalty, surely it's no worse a way to die than a normal execution.

You're confusing stuff now, what you are talking about is a difference in normal criminals and this guy. And sure, it is a difference. But are you really saying the one thing you'd like bin Laden not to have is a trial?

I'd understand it if you wanted to skin him, or trample on him with an elephant. But this is just an irrational argument.
 
As i said: Israel managed a fair trial for the architect of the Holocaust. That rests the case about the possibility to provide fair trials for evil men. What he did to their people was literally thousands of times worse than what all islamist groups combined did to western societies.

As a man that claims to study the effects of war and peace, do you feel that there was any chance that Eichmann could have stirred up significant additional against Israel and the Jews through the course of his defense?

And as someone as learned as you, do you feel that allowing Bin Laden the right to go on and rail against the West and those he despised would have whipped up any significant violence that could otherwise be avoided?

Israel captured Eichmann in a highly-illegal commando op while he was living undercover in Argentinia. No SS hats involved. Even the capure was comparable to Bin Ladens.

And what do you think the Israelis considered the chances that Eichmann would be wearing a suicide vest where he could easily blow up himself and his captors as an alternative to being brought in?

Also, in your learned capacity, with Eichmann, Goering, et al, did any of their former supporters commit acts of violence such as taking hostages, etc., to try and force their release in a "prisoner trade?" Would you, in your extensive knowledge, consider that such acts would be unlikely in the case of a Bin Laden capture?

Naive isn't descriptive enough. Extremely naive and totally unfamiliar with history would be closer to the mark.

Steve
 
Didn't someone try to get Carlos out that way? Pity we didn't shoot him in the face. Well, no, not really.

If it is possible, you get people to a court. If there are factors that make it impossible to take a man alive, that's one thing. If it's possible, you take him alive.

As for G?ring, they were scared stiff he would end up stirring up nazi sympathy in Germany.
 
Fear of reprisal is no reason not to take someone to trial, for two reasons. First off, this is Al Qaeda we're talking about. They're going to be killing people one way or the other. Second, we're not a bunch of chickenshits.
 
If it is possible, you get people to a court. If there are factors that make it impossible to take a man alive, that's one thing. If it's possible, you take him alive.

As for G?ring, they were scared stiff he would end up stirring up nazi sympathy in Germany.

Possible, sure. If Bin Ladin surrendered and was executed, that's wrong. On the other hand, until he is clearly unable to retaliate, blow himself up, etc., sorry. Someone willing to plan and condone the types of attacks of this scale has to be assumed will make a martyr of himself, and there's no reason for SEAL members to die with him.

If in doubt, with a person like this, shoot first to protect yourself and ask questions later.

Who exactly thought Goering would stir up sympathy? It certainly didn't come to pass in even the amounts that we've seen so far. Sympathy for Nazis post war was orders of magnitude smaller -- essentially, a fringe -- which is not something that can be said of anti-Western feelings in the Islamic world.
 
Knock him out with a damned bean bag. He's a sick old man, he's not a bloody commando. Might have turned out some nice intelligence as well.

Who thought that? The British, the Yanks and the Russians. We tend to think of him as a baphoon, but he was a very clever guy, good talker and an experienced political player.

We gave him a defence. If we gave it to Herman, we could've given it to Osama. If it's impossible, that's one thing, but if your choice is to shoot and kill no matter what, that's pretty stupid.
 
Sorry this person deserved it - there is a difference between "normal" criminals and people who want to, and do kill multiple innocent people just to prove that what they 'believe' is correct.


Problem is if you say "oh, this guy is the exception of the rule, his is especially evil" the whole system is worthless. The idea is that everyone is entitled to a trial, I'm not exactly disappointed Osama was killed but it still stands that if the option was there to capture him that should have been the route taken.

Either way various factors contributed to his death and there is no going back now, I see no reason to dwell on it.
 
When he gets to 'heaven' (as he believes) there will be several thousand people wanting a word with him, some of whom it is rumoured were at a PIRA meeting - so they will be in a good forgiving mood. ...

I'd pay to see a vid of that meeting.
 
My view on the subject is pretty simple after all is said and done. I totally agree with Nomix but I think interrogation is more fitting. IMO a trial is only nescessary when the accused might have a chance at innocence. In the case of someone like Bin laden they should be put to death regardless. It would have been nice to bring him in alive though, as risky as it may have been.
 
Top