The Student Room Group

It's ok for USA to do anything, right?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Avatar for Sharri5
Sharri5
Original post by Rishz
Am I the only one who feels a little sorry for him? :frown:


yes
Original post by tface
bin Laden was trained by the CIA if I am not mistaken. This has something to do with it. I don't really know much so I might be wrong.

From the very link you posted.
In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein.
Original post by ibysaiyan
In other words, every serial killer/prisoner must be executed.


-ibysaiyan


not prisoner, you can go to prison for many things which shouldn't constitute death. And is it really bad for serial killers to be executed.I know this is going into morals and ethics and all but in reality, i presume it's cost the government less money than keeping him in prison, would give the families of the killed a sense of justice. To be honest, they don't deserve to die so painfree(by injection), i presume serial killers didn't kill them particularly painlessly. Why should they have the right to live, having taken away the lives of so many others. You may point out that killing is killing, but sometimes, you just have to accept that killing for the greater good, (not the twisted, often religiously thought, greater good) is right.
To qualify for human rights you need to be human first.
Original post by kopite493
tbh this sounds pretty fair to me

the man is responsible for the deaths of 1000's of people id say killing him was him getting off lightly


LOL you're an idiot. If you could bend the rules whenever you wanted to then it wouldn't be called THE LAW.
Original post by TurboCretin
To qualify for human rights you need to be human first.


How many lives has the Iraq war destroyed? what makes bush or Blair any worth of a human?
Reply 126
Avatar for Tommyjw
Tommyjw
18
Original post by A level Az
LOL you're an idiot. If you could bend the rules whenever you wanted to then it wouldn't be called THE LAW.


If you COULDN'T bend the rules then the whole of America would be paying a MASSIVE amount in transport and security for him. Do you know how much he would have to be protected?
Plus the risk factors involved with keeping him somewhere and people knowing it and possibly even knowing where. We would have to know when he was getting a trial, it was said that it would be incredibly dangerous and that is obvious.
Original post by ibysaiyan
How many lives has the Iraq war destroyed? what makes bush or Blair any worth of a human?


Nothing to do with what I said.
Original post by ibysaiyan
How many lives has the Iraq war destroyed? what makes bush or Blair any worth of a human?


How many more lives would have been destroyed if Saddam had continued as Iraqi leader? Obviously Bush and Blair thought it would be more. Granted this was not the reason cited for going to war, but it was obviously a factor.
Original post by Tommyjw
If you COULDN'T bend the rules then the whole of America would be paying a MASSIVE amount in transport and security for him. Do you know how much he would have to be protected?
Plus the risk factors involved with keeping him somewhere and people knowing it and possibly even knowing where. We would have to know when he was getting a trial, it was said that it would be incredibly dangerous and that is obvious.


No, they could have kept it under the radar and done it all secretly and announced that Bin Laden had been put in prison later, as opposed to shooting him and then telling the world how great they (the U.S) are. They found out where Bin Laden was in September, and nobody managed to leak it then, so I highly doubt it would have been that difficult for them to keep the knowledge of his capture from the claws of media, and he could have been given a fair trial, which would have most likely put him in guantanamo bay and thus given him the punishment he deserved, as opposed to just shooting him in the head which would have probably been an instant death.
Original post by midpikyrozziy
How many more lives would have been destroyed if Saddam had continued as Iraqi leader? Obviously Bush and Blair thought it would be more. Granted this was not the reason cited for going to war, but it was obviously a factor.


Leaving the crisis as it's...

It has only deepened the hostility of Muslims towards the USA and its allies.


:no:
Original post by TurboCretin
Nothing to do with what I said.


Of course it does.Good job at dodging away my post.
Original post by ibysaiyan
Of course it does.Good job at dodging away my post.


My post pertained to Bin Laden. I wasn't saying anything about Bush or Blair. I don't know whether they were right to engage in Iraq. I do believe Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, but this is besides the point of my post.

Bin Laden was a symbol of extremist Islam, but more importantly he actively targeted defenceless civilians in a long series of barbaric acts against humankind. I don't think his human rights were stripped from him, I think he surrendered them.
Original post by ibysaiyan
Leaving the crisis as it's...

It has only deepened the hostility of Muslims towards the USA and its allies.


:no:


That may be true, but I think it's unfair to liken Bush and Blair to war criminals. Whether or not the situation would have been better left alone, it wouldn't have been great either way, and I genuinely believe their intentions were mostly good. Whether oil came into it or not I couldn't say, but I still don't think they deserve the abuse they're getting for taking us to war.
Original post by A level Az
LOL you're an idiot. If you could bend the rules whenever you wanted to then it wouldn't be called THE LAW.


what are you talking about my post says i agree in an eye for an eye

nothing about bending rules :/

and the man had 10 years to surrender all that would have come from not shooting him was that hed be killed by an injection which is much more expensive than a bullet after he lost a trial which would have cost a ridiculous amount to fund consider the known answer
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 135
Avatar for Tommyjw
Tommyjw
18
Original post by A level Az
No, they could have kept it under the radar and done it all secretly and announced that Bin Laden had been put in prison later, as opposed to shooting him and then telling the world how great they (the U.S) are. They found out where Bin Laden was in September, and nobody managed to leak it then, so I highly doubt it would have been that difficult for them to keep the knowledge of his capture from the claws of media, and he could have been given a fair trial, which would have most likely put him in guantanamo bay and thus given him the punishment he deserved, as opposed to just shooting him in the head which would have probably been an instant death.



Rofl youa re so idiotic.

Why would they PURPOSELY ignite all the hatred and such theya re going to get from Al Qeada? Everyone knows they are more likely than not going to attack someone because of this. Why would the US lie about killing him, knowing the consequences?

Think logically you idiot, it helps, you are an embarrassment.
Original post by kopite493
what are you talking about my post says i agree in an eye for an eye

nothing about bending rules :/

and the man had 10 years to surrender all that would have come from not shooting him was that hed be killed by an injection which is much more expensive than a bullet after he lost a trial which would have cost a ridiculous amount to fund consider the known answer


An eye for an eye is bending the rules.

Original post by Tommyjw
Rofl youa re so idiotic.

Why would they PURPOSELY ignite all the hatred and such theya re going to get from Al Qeada? Everyone knows they are more likely than not going to attack someone because of this. Why would the US lie about killing him, knowing the consequences?

Think logically you idiot, it helps, you are an embarrassment.


What the hell? I didn't say the US should lie about killing him, I said they should have captured him and not told the world until he was in a secure prison. And Al Qaeda will always be a threat whether Bin Laden lives or dies, so them kidnapping people to get him back isn't really a factor.

Read properly you idiot, it helps, you are an embarrassment.
Reply 138
Avatar for Tommyjw
Tommyjw
18
Original post by A level Az
What the hell? I didn't say the US should lie about killing him, I said they should have captured him and not told the world until he was in a secure prison. And Al Qaeda will always be a threat whether Bin Laden lives or dies, so them kidnapping people to get him back isn't really a factor.

Read properly you idiot, it helps, you are an embarrassment.


There is no 'secure prison' when you are harboring the world's most wanted person and a person with such great symbolic view as him.
Original post by A level Az
An eye for an eye is bending the rules.


no an eye for an eye is a punishment

one which worked for 1000's of years until we realised innocent people where being killed

where-as in cases like bin laden we don't have to worry about that as he has openly admitted repeatedly he is behind and is proud of that fact

know if you care to actually post why this is wrong then feel free to have a discussion on it then do rather than posting immature pictures which sadly seem to undermine any actual argument you could have

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you