POST HERE For Discussion About The DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN (Updated)

Original post by Stefan1991

Yes because sources of authority have never lied or deceived :rolleyes:

And don't have a policy of doing so on a regular basis, and are continually proven to have lied and deceived. :rolleyes:

Define continually and prove it, with a timeline and plenty of facts to support it.

Reply 1963

Pindar

16

Original post by Kaykiie

Pretty sure I heard them say on the news that she was being used as a human shield and as a result, was killed.

Yes because we all believe that story that wasn't just made up to make them look bad :rolleyes:

And to excuse shooting a defenceless woman :rolleyes:

Christ aren't people so naive they lap up the stuff the government tell them.

Original post by Lizzzle

This

Also, he needed to be buried within 24 hours of death the body cleansed and wrapped accordingly which reports are saying has been done.

And logistically if Saudi Arabia did accept his body, then it may have been too late to bury him within the 24 hour window

Why would you storm the house of a frail unarmed defenceless old man to murder him but then try to be so careful and considerate by fulfilling his wishes and giving him a proper burial? Massive contradiction.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1964

LawBore

15

Original post by SteveCrain

Is that how long it takes to download photoshop pro 7.8?

So, whether they release photos or not you still won't believe it? Why, then, should they even bother?

Reply 1965

Why he shouldn't have been shot:

- US officials claim he was unarmed.
- In the room where he was shot it was claimed that his wife took a gun and fired on the Navy Seal team. It was reported that she was shot in a limb (leg if I remember correctly) and then the proceeded to shoot Osama above his left eye. No other immediate threat.
- It is against international law to kill someone on international territory without approval by the authority responsible for that region.
- There was no confirmation before he was shot that this was Osama Bin Laden

Of course the US knows it's exempt from international law. I don't remember Bush being taken to court because of use of White phosphorus in Iraq in residential neighbourhoods. Against the Geneva convention and use of condemned by human rights groups.
Killing Osama straight away was wrong and illegal, but what can anyone do about it?

Reply 1966

Kaykiie

15

Original post by Stefan1991

Yes because we all believe that story that wasn't just made up to make them look bad :rolleyes:

And to excuse shooting a defenceless woman :rolleyes:

Not directed at the person I quoted, by Christ aren't people so naive they lap up the stuff the government tell them.

Then why quote me?

Reply 1967

Original post by DorianGrayism

No, what I am saying is that congress gave the soldiers legal authority to kill him in 2001.

Therefore, it was legal, at least under American law.

The Pakistani government were completely unaware of American Navy Seals in that location. The US were not at war with them at the time so they had no legitimacy to be there. It was illegal - remember, the killing did not take place in USA.

Reply 1968

Original post by velocet

Killing Osama straight away was wrong and illegal, but what can anyone do about it?

Ofcourse someone as naive as you can't see the implications of him being taken back alive.

Oh and p.s.
Just incase you forgot
You weren't there.
What's that?
Yep, you were not there when it happened. So i guess you can take all of your 'he could definitely have been captured' BS back home.

I also wasn't aware you were a leading expert on international and law and thus know every single law on it, and every clause in those laws. But.. i guess you do, otherwise you wouldn't try and mention the law about it, would you?

P.s.s
If they had broken so many laws and such, the world leaders would have mentioned it and condoned it. But they didn't, i wonder why that is?

Reply 1969

JGR

9

When you get to the scale of countries, international law can be bent to fit. Who's going to call them out on it?

It's not like any other nation or international body is going to criticise them on some pedantic interpretation of the law when they've just killed probably the most wanted man on the planet. Nobody would benefit from that and the US could just tell them to sod off (diplomatically) anyway.

Reply 1970

Original post by Tommyjw

Ofcourse someone as naive as you can't see the implications of him being taken back alive.

Oh and p.s.
Just incase you forgot
You weren't there.
What's that?
Yep, you were not there when it happened. So i guess you can take all of your 'he could definitely have been captured' BS back home.

I also wasn't aware you were a leading expert on international and law and thus know every single law on it, and every clause in those laws. But.. i guess you do, otherwise you wouldn't try and mention the law about it, would you?

P.s.s
If they had broken so many laws and such, the world leaders would have mentioned it and condoned it. But they didn't, i wonder why that is?

Going by your "you weren't there" argument. I could use your logic and argue you weren't there to deny I wasn't there and you have no way of proving I wasn't there. Please don't use such childish arguments and rather just evaluate what different media sources tell you and make up your own mind rather than following whatever you hear blindly. Rational people criticise and argue, believers/fanatics/daydreamers believe what they want to.

What's wrong with taking him back to an undisclosed location and/or giving him a trial. It was done for Saddam Hussein who was portrayed to be the new Hitler.

To your "broken laws... world leaders mentioned and condoned it". Read "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.

Reply 1971

Original post by velocet

Going by your "you weren't there" argument. I could use your logic and argue you weren't there to deny I wasn't there and you have no way of proving I wasn't there. Please don't use such childish arguments and rather just evaluate what different media sources tell you and make up your own mind rather than following whatever you hear blindly. Rational people criticise and argue, believers/fanatics/daydreamers believe what they want to.

What's wrong with taking him back to an undisclosed location and/or giving him a trial. It was done for Saddam Hussein who was portrayed to be the new Hitler.

To your "broken laws... world leaders mentioned and condoned it". Read "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.

Umm what?
You mean by the fact the media is all saying the same things? Because they all get news simultaneously? And because the news comes in slowly from US officials and such? Great logic there :wink:

How do you know they COULD of taken him like that? Every single one of your arguments is based on assumptions. No1 have i said they HAD to kill him, but their is justification for doing so.. whereas all you keep saying is 'they could have taken him, could have captured him' bla bla bla.

Reply 1972

Danny.

14

Jesus, we have some utter morons on here. He is dead, stop with all your conspiracy theory ****e. I suppose you all think Michael Jackson is still alive too? Cus " WHERE IS DA PROOF?! I WANNA SEE A PIC OF HIM DEAD!11" Maybe you also think 9/11 was a conspiricy by the U.S aswell.

Body buried at sea so his grave was not a shrine to all those ****ing nutters out there.
I have no doubt pictures will be leaked as well.

Why would they even make this up? If he is still alive then he should make another video. He is dead, end of. Jesus, so many people want to be "alternative" and "against the man" it's just ****ing sad.

Reply 1973

flying nipples

7 am waking up in the morning gotta be fresh gotta go downstairs gotta have my bowl gotta have cereal seeing everything and time is going ticking on and on everbody's russian gotta get down to the bus stop gotta catch my bus i see my friends kicking in the front seat sitting gotta make my mind up which seat can i take? its friday friday

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1974

Original post by Tommyjw

Umm what?
You mean by the fact the media is all saying the same things? Because they all get news simultaneously? And because the news comes in slowly from US officials and such? Great logic there :wink:

How do you know they COULD of taken him like that? Every single one of your arguments is based on assumptions. No1 have i said they HAD to kill him, but their is justification for doing so.. whereas all you keep saying is 'they could have taken him, could have captured him' bla bla bla.

I'm saying it lacks transparacy. I know they "COULD of taken him like that" because if they can't take an unarmed suspect from his home with no other threat then I don't think they sent in Navy Seals and just sent in a few kids who like to play Call of Duty.

My arguments are based on the statements the Obama administration have announced. If you can't provide logical responses to my arguments then don't.

Reply 1975

Original post by velocet

My arguments are based on the statements the Obama administration have announced. If you can't provide logical responses to my arguments then don't.

What arguments are you on about? You have stated no argument :facepalm:

God your posts of full of such embarrassing holes.

Reply 1976

Original post by Tommyjw

What arguments are you on about? You have stated no argument :facepalm:

God your posts of full of such embarrassing holes.

That the US broke international law in going into Osama Bin Ladens place of residence in Pakistan where they had no jurisdiction.

That's my argument, another thing I pointed out (there's actually no argument about it) that the U.S is self exempt from international law.

Reply 1977

DorianGrayism

19

Original post by velocet

That the US broke international law in going into Osama Bin Ladens place of residence in Pakistan where they had no jurisdiction.

That's my argument, another thing I pointed out (there's actually no argument about it) that the U.S is self exempt from international law.

Sure, I agree. International Law was put in for good reason.

However, the US really doesn't care about International Law. Even when it is in obvious violations like in Nicaragua.

Reply 1978