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

Poll: Osama's death?
He was killed on the 1st of may. (121)
46.36%
He was killed earlyer than the 1st of may (65)
24.9%
He is still alive (37)
14.18%
He is a myth (38)
14.56%
slavetosociety
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2041
Report 7 years ago
#2041
(Original post by moonkatt)
Is this not what falsifying Osamas death would also do to their reputation? Do you not think if it turned out to be false that Pakistan could see what happened as an act of war? Obama definately wouldn't risk that.
Pakistan already sees the lack of Trust the US has with them due to the fact they did violate border laws, killed Bin Laden and didn't let the Pakistani Government know about it. Ofcourse, the US says that they couldn't trust the Pakistani government fearing the info could be leaked and Bin Laden could have escaped but this obviously jeopardises their relationship.
I seriously doubt any action will be taken except question the Pakistani officials who helped Bin laden - and they'll be released soon after.
Think about it this way; the US and UK have given billions and billions and billions of aid to help Pakistan.
If found that Pakistan has been secretly diverting its aid to fund the hiding of most wanted terrorists, the people of the UK and the US would be outraged since its their tax payers money after all.
Hence the UK and US would have to come up with some excuse to pardon Pakistan and keep justifying that they are fighting the so called "war on terror".
0
reply
Kitty Pryde
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2042
Report 7 years ago
#2042
(Original post by slavetosociety)
I think I can speak for every 1 billion muslims around the world (and I am not muslim!) that the Iraq war was based around a LIE and that the Bush Family indeed had connections with the Saudis and the Bin ladens.

You can't really speak for all the muslims and they don't all have the same opinion. I know my boyfriend (who is muslim btw) doesn't think the war was based on a lie.
0
reply
RMorley
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2043
Report 7 years ago
#2043
As I think the majority have said, in the most ideal world, he would have been tried however, I don't think it is particularly wrong in this instance because:

1) Risk to the military opposed to shooting him
2) No jury in the US would find him not guilt so that isn't really a fair trial
3) Attacks on the court or kidnappings
4) He would arguably become more of a Martyr.

I don't think we will ever find out what the orders were on that night, for obvious reasons. However I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was a kill no capture mission and bear in mind the huge effect that 911 had on the on how the US military views itself, I think unless he had his hands on his head, the second they walked, in he was dead.
0
reply
Bax-man
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2044
Report 7 years ago
#2044
(Original post by concubine)
If you think that it would have been for the greater good that he was taken alive (something which would have ultimately led to many more deaths), you should have been shot along with him.


There was no need for a trial, and the world is better off without him locked up somewhere in some legal sexytimes that would have led to all manners of shenanigans.
You are spouting the horrid notion that the state is justified in executing without judicial procedure someone because the President says so and because they're generally disliked. You can see why this is a completely absurd position to take.

Moreover, you can't claim with any kind of certainty that more deaths would result from bin Laden's capture rather than death - do terror cells care whether he is killed rather than locked in a prison? No. Even if your statement were true, does that matter? Is justice based purely on utilitarianism? I would argue that justice is something far more.

This statement also goes to anyone else supporting Obama having arbitrary and extra-judicial powers of murder.
0
reply
slavetosociety
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2045
Report 7 years ago
#2045
(Original post by Kitty Pryde)
You can't really speak for all the muslims and they don't all have the same opinion. I know my boyfriend (who is muslim btw) doesn't think the war was based on a lie.
Oh please... In due time what I say will be right. I'll even create a thread about how ignorant people were just to prove a point
0
reply
honoris
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2046
Report 7 years ago
#2046
How do you propose the soldiers could've asked Osama to have politely put his weapon down
0
reply
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2047
Report 7 years ago
#2047
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13184524

The SAS are facing a recruitment crisis, as there seems to be so many experts at combat and non lethal take downs I thought that TSR may be an untapped well of talent that the boys in Hereford could make use of, perhaps show the SEALS how it all should be done, seeing as people on here seem to know better.
0
reply
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2048
Report 7 years ago
#2048
(Original post by honoris)
How do you propose the soldiers could've asked Osama to have politely put his weapon down
by telling them they all know that he had secret dealings with the Bush administration, and that it will end up in Bush being taken to trial for war crimes, even though no evidence exisits. They will have several hours of speculation from people on youtube to back this up.

/sarcasm.
0
reply
MovingOn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2049
Report 7 years ago
#2049
(Original post by CharlieBee_90)
They told him to surrender, if he had he would have been arrested and put on trial. He refused, so they shot him. He basically took the easy way out and he knew it.
Surrender what? He wasn't armed and I'm sure the forces have encountered many criminals who didn't fall to the floor and surrender when caught.


I think he should have been tried in the interest of avoiding the situation where state assassination is acceptable. Sure, we all know he was guilty, but if you say everyone has the right to a fair trial then you can't make exceptions. Additionally, he has had the easy option out: shot dead without being made to hear and see all the evidence and consequences of his actions (victims families).
0
reply
Ste.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2050
Report 7 years ago
#2050
I think there is good and bad in his killing.. We know he personally won't plan anything.. and the worlds most hated man is now dead! he was just like Hitler!

But now we have to think.. we his ''friends!'' or gang should I say! plot something for killing him!

I personally can't see this ending any time soon.. US may of killed him... But I think we will have now annoyed alot of people!!!


Ste
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2051
Report 7 years ago
#2051
(Original post by MovingOn)
Surrender what? He wasn't armed and I'm sure the forces have encountered many criminals who didn't fall to the floor and surrender when caught.


I think he should have been tried in the interest of avoiding the situation where state assassination is acceptable. Sure, we all know he was guilty, but if you say everyone has the right to a fair trial then you can't make exceptions. Additionally, he has had the easy option out: shot dead without being made to hear and see all the evidence and consequences of his actions (victims families).
The forces had no idea if (and had reasonable reason to suspect) he might have had a gun concealed or even a bomb. They went in their knowing he would rather die than be taken alive, that proposes a massive risk.

A risk that NO-ONE on this forum can start be a little armchair general and assume they would just walk up to him and try and restrain him.

Even if they had captured.. people are bing way too naive. Do you realise the possible things that could happen if Al Qeada knew we had him? Taking American prisoners in order to swap? Killing until he was released etc?
0
reply
popop124
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2052
Report 7 years ago
#2052
(Original post by 4TSR)
He was unarmed when shot...
really? Source?

- doesn't sound like a much of fight to me then - at least once those with firearms were down

My question is: why didn't they just CS gas the whole building?
0
reply
metalthrashin'mad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2053
Report 7 years ago
#2053
(Original post by Alison1992)
if they captured him, people would go after him, increasing terror risks
what other kind of punishment to you propose
we knew he was guilty
what jury is ever going to find him innocent?
the soldiers would have been at a lot more risk trying to get him out alive, what about security?
personally, i think it would have caused a greater uproar but according to my mother i am 'very harsh' in most of my opinions
That is exactly what I would have written
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2054
Report 7 years ago
#2054
(Original post by Tommyjw)
The forces had no idea if (and had reasonable reason to suspect) he might have had a gun concealed or even a bomb. They went in their knowing he would rather die than be taken alive, that proposes a massive risk.

A risk that NO-ONE on this forum can start be a little armchair general and assume they would just walk up to him and try and restrain him.

Even if they had captured.. people are bing way too naive. Do you realise the possible things that could happen if Al Qeada knew we had him? Taking American prisoners in order to swap? Killing until he was released etc?
There is no way he could be given a fair trial anyway. Good luck finding an impartial jury. Extradition would have been equally condemned, because they would have just gone in and flown him out which wouldn't have been in line with an extradition treaties set up with Pakistan (if indeed there are any worth the paper they are written on). There was no reason to believe he wasn't vested up, like you say, too. This is why the Navy Seals were sent in. I don't think he, or anyone surrounding him and therefore supporting him, deserves even a glimmer of an attempt at killing yet more of America's people. After all America has done in this world I can't believe people would be moaning and complaining about this relatively minor 'hypocrisy' on their part.
0
reply
MovingOn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2055
Report 7 years ago
#2055
(Original post by Tommyjw)
The forces had no idea if (and had reasonable reason to suspect) he might have had a gun concealed or even a bomb. They went in their knowing he would rather die than be taken alive, that proposes a massive risk.

A risk that NO-ONE on this forum can start be a little armchair general and assume they would just walk up to him and try and restrain him.

Even if they had captured.. people are bing way too naive. Do you realise the possible things that could happen if Al Qeada knew we had him? Taking American prisoners in order to swap? Killing until he was released etc?
I wouldn't suggest that I would walk up and restrain him, but then I'm not a highly trained military person. They are well rehearsed in arresting people who have the potential to be armed, infact every person who is arrested has the potential to be armed, hence why the forces are trained in this area.

Just because he has been shot dead certainly hasn't eliminated any risks to America or Europe. If anything, the way in which he was killed without a fair trial and disposed of is more likely to antagonize any individuals who want to carry out reprisals. There were risks either way it went.
0
reply
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2056
Report 7 years ago
#2056
(Original post by MovingOn)
I wouldn't suggest that I would walk up and restrain him, but then I'm not a highly trained military person. They are well rehearsed in arresting people who have the potential to be armed, infact every person who is arrested has the potential to be armed, hence why the forces are trained in this area.
No, the police are highly trained to arrest people, generally, people in the armed forces are trained to kill people. I served in the infantry for several years and while I was taught arrest and restraint, that was for in situations where we were carrying out policing duties. It is nigh on impossible to controllably restrain and arrest someone in a firefight. In that situation you remove the threat, ie you kill, even the armed police would have dealt with this in a similar manner.

People forget while theyre sat in their houses over here where the police can effectively deal with criminals and people can easily be arrested and taken to trial for their actions that halfway across the world its a lot different, there is a different price on life and its a lot more violent.
0
reply
Hamesh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2057
Report 7 years ago
#2057
I don't understand how respect is given to bury him within 24 hours because out of religious beliefs but placed in an unknown part of the sea for fear of a shrine being built. Isn't the latter also conveying respect? How did the US and Pakistani soldiers draw the line for respect?

Since Osama is given a position of being head of a group which is the biggest enemy of the USA that has the potential of launching an attack on its soil at any second and with the President Obama decreeing him as an extremist & not a part of Islam, isn't this demonstrating respect for him as a 'Muslim'? I also assume because of the position given to him, that 'Muslims' that are in the custody of the USA and in the wars it is currently embroiled in, that they are given the same level of respect, if not more so because they can be perceived as holding a less extreme threat than that of Bin Laden's, the figurehead?
0
reply
MovingOn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2058
Report 7 years ago
#2058
(Original post by moonkatt)
No, the police are highly trained to arrest people, generally, people in the armed forces are trained to kill people. I served in the infantry for several years and while I was taught arrest and restraint, that was for in situations where we were carrying out policing duties. It is nigh on impossible to controllably restrain and arrest someone in a firefight. In that situation you remove the threat, ie you kill, even the armed police would have dealt with this in a similar manner.

People forget while theyre sat in their houses over here where the police can effectively deal with criminals and people can easily be arrested and taken to trial for their actions that halfway across the world its a lot different, there is a different price on life and its a lot more violent.
In that case it seems there should have been other forces present to carry out the arrest. I'm not sure what you mean by firefight; Osama was unarmed and no American seals were harmed.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2059
Report 7 years ago
#2059
(Original post by MovingOn)
In that case it seems there should have been other forces present to carry out the arrest. I'm not sure what you mean by firefight; Osama was unarmed and no American seals were harmed.
Just asking, do you listen to the news?

It wasn't only Osama, there were others in there with guns. To which it took 40 minutes to get through and get to Osama.
No-one was harmed because the seals are an incredibly well trained team of individuals. That is their job. Trained Seals vs 'terrorists with guns'.

P.s. You can't just 'take other forces' . There is so many things wrong with assuming you can just pop a witness or police officer in one of the helicopters.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2060
Report 7 years ago
#2060
(Original post by theGreatRuler)
And what a trustworthy source that is!
Well yeah it is. All politicians are self interested. No way Obama is going to risk his presidency on a lie that would be so easy to disprove
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (307)
37.48%
No - but I will (62)
7.57%
No - I don't want to (61)
7.45%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (389)
47.5%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise