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

God_X
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by PendulumBoB)
f it's God's will that Osama was killed, was 9/11, God's will? Is homosexuality God's will?
9/11 was God's warning for America, and homosexuality is a sin. It's God's will that homosexuals don't exist, so He will punish them.
0
reply
Hasan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
He didn't just kill 3000 Americans, he killed WAY more muslims than non-muslims and because of his legacy will continue to do so.
0
reply
Smtn
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
From the telegraph:

"Regarding the legality of the kill operation: it seems that under Article 51 of the UN Charter, nations are guaranteed the right of self-defence - and UN Resolution 1368, issued on 12 September 2001 while fires were still burning at Ground Zero, recognised that "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter" in the light of the attacs, and called upon states "to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks""
0
reply
hamijack
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by Rishz)
Am I the only one who feels a little sorry for him?
Yes.
1
reply
Nepene
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#85
Report 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by SmallTownGirl)
I agree with you OP. My first reaction was 'What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to fair trials? What happened to human rights?'
Police and military are allowed to kill people to avoid dying. Trying to kill a soldier or a cop is a probable death sentence. This applies in every country. Otherwise cops and soldiers wouldn't be able to fight criminals. What they did is perfectly legal under human rights and any legal system. Don't point a gun at a soldier.

I don't agree with what he is alleged to have do BUT he deserved a fair trial. If the US wanted him alive they would have gone with tranquiliser darts and only used guns to prevent escape of the alleged criminal. They knew he would try to escape or shoot them. He's been evading capture and trial. Claiming they wanted to take him alive isn't enough. They didn't put the plans in place.
Tranq darts don't work. They're slow working and are easily stopped by clothing and other things that muddle your aim. You are essentially saying the Navy Seals should risk their lives to protect Osama.

If he wanted to surrender, he was welcome to. If he wanted to fight it out he was welcome to.
0
reply
thurin
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by csea)
You do realise that this guy has killed thousands indirectly. He isn't the type of person you take to trial, he is a terrorist
Mandela was a terrorist. He had a cause too - an ideology. The only reason the two get different treatment is because we share one of the set of principles, but not the other. We have to be careful in justifying the murder of terrorists when we're transgressing on shaky moral foundations.

According to the media, the US Special Forces only killed him because gunfire ensued. That more than justifies the killing, even before you get down to the issue of human rights and the UN Charter. Allegedly, it became self-defence. However much that justifies the killing of Osama, it does not justify American unilateralism since 1945 shown in the video.
0
reply
Panda Vinnie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by Hasan)
He didn't just kill 3000 Americans, he killed WAY more muslims than non-muslims and because of his legacy will continue to do so.
This is true.

I'm pleased that both Obama and H.Clinton addressed this fact in their speeches, muslims suffered the most casualties in his vile attacks. In addition to the the deaths to the thousands of muslims is the effect it's had on the hundreds of millions (a billion?) muslims and their daily lives.

Their religion has basically been hijacked by the few moronic extremists and represent it to the world as a religion of terror.
0
reply
Rishz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#88
Report 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by hamijack)
Yes.
Great ¬_¬
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
This thread is idiotic.
Article 51 of UN charter means they can do it.
They only killed him because gun fire ensued.
0
reply
hamijack
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
(Original post by Tommyjw)
This thread is idiotic.
Article 51 of UN charter means they can do it.
They only killed him because gun fire ensued.
I saw on the BBC news feed that the operation was actually a kill operation and they had no intention of capturing him. I still think this is perfectly justified cos he's a combatant but the OP will probably just whine about it anyway.
0
reply
JammyDoughnut
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
They asked him to surrender, he said no. They shot him.

The law allows for defence within reason, which shooting a mass-murderor who is highly unlikely to go down without taking a life is.

/thread.
0
reply
Alpharius
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 7 years ago
#92
He was a religious extremist who had killed thousands of innocent people.

The OP needs to shut up. The world is better off without him and people like him.

I don't usually say this, but well done America.

And Pakistan are only screwing about it because they weren't told before it happened. If America had told them, they would have squealed to Osama. We all know how corrupt their government is...
0
reply
High VOLTAGE
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#93
Report 7 years ago
#93
If he did what he say he did then no doubt about it he is a bad man, but number one he had the right to be detained and interrogated, death would be easy, he wouldn't have to face up for the crimes he apparently committed.
THat being said we still haven't seen proof he is dead, i mean everytime there's some sort of MAJOR operation it is filmed and pictures are later taken as proof of death.
This is more like a campaign boost for OBama
0
reply
LawBore
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by Mithra)
Its hard to peacefully arrest someone pointing an AK47 at you.
Didn't you hear? the US should have left him alone as he is the only one fighting the ALLUMINATEASE.
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by The Premier)
the world is much safer since they have taken a title of world police - there are significantly less wars and the wars are much less damaging.


Are you serious?

How many wars has the US started since the 50s? How many countries has it invaded and bombed?
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
(Original post by big-boss-91)
america fights for freedom and human rights, osama fights for Allah and islamic rights.
Correction: America fights for American freedom and American rights, not human rights.
0
reply
HARRY PUTAH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
heres hoping the USA bombs your ****ty existence into nothing.



People who care about Osama? Ok go to the pakistani regions where he was killed and do a bit of western idealism. I am quite sure you will be mutilated and decapitated in the most glorious fashion.
0
reply
The Premier
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
(Original post by No Future)


Are you serious?

How many wars has the US started since the 50s? How many countries has it invaded and bombed?
Are you serious?!

To be fair i think this is such a simple and unjustified argument.
Lets examine the major wars fought by America since 1950 (i.e. wars involving major American forces for a prolonged time):
- Korean War - America fought [as a member of the UN] saving South Korea from an invading army. Regardless of your political ideology it is hard to justify a dictatorship invading another country.
- Vietnam War - see above, one country invaded another, America helped the defender
-Persian Gulf War - again saving the defender

(If the USA is wrong does this mean Nazi germany was correct and the UK was unresonable saving Poland, after all many more millions more died in WW2 than in Korea.)

-Afghanistan - replaced a dictatorship (that supported and funded the only major attack on US soil) with a democracy
-Iraq - overthrowing of a repressive, murderous regime

I'll accept the USA may not be perfect - but at least their reasons for military actions are significantly better than other world leaders:
UK - to open markets (The Opium Wars) or to expand its empire
Russia - to maintain an unpopular dictatorship (Afghanistan/ Prague/ Budapest)
China - just because (Tibet)

Of course these are simplified, but I'd rather we have America promoting democracy than let dictators invade and impose their ideology on others.
0
reply
RK92
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Swayum)
...
edit: just read a news article, will rewrite my post later.
1
reply
big-boss-91
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#100
Report 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by No Future)
Correction: America fights for American freedom and American rights, not human rights.
however flawed, its still much better than islamic rights
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! (62)
37.58%
No - but I will (6)
3.64%
No - I don't want to (10)
6.06%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (87)
52.73%

Watched Threads

View All