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

Sharri5
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#121
Report 7 years ago
#121
(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?'

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.

Even if he was put on trial and found guilty he shouldn't have been killed, or tortured. He would have needed to be kept in a high-security cell as he would have been a dangerous criminal. But I believe no-one should be executed - no matter what they've done.
So if you were a part of this operation, you would have felt that going in there with tranquilzers instead of bullets would be smart?
0
reply
Sharri5
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#122
Report 7 years ago
#122
(Original post by Rishz)
Am I the only one who feels a little sorry for him?
yes
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#123
Report 7 years ago
#123
(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.
0
reply
Moscardini
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#124
Report 7 years ago
#124
(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.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#125
Report 7 years ago
#125
To qualify for human rights you need to be human first.
0
reply
A level Az
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#126
Report 7 years ago
#126
(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.
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#127
Report 7 years ago
#127
(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?
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#128
Report 7 years ago
#128
(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.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#129
Report 7 years ago
#129
(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.
0
reply
midpikyrozziy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#130
Report 7 years ago
#130
(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.
0
reply
A level Az
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#131
Report 7 years ago
#131
(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.
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#132
Report 7 years ago
#132
(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:
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#133
Report 7 years ago
#133
(Original post by TurboCretin)
Nothing to do with what I said.
Of course it does.Good job at dodging away my post.
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#134
Report 7 years ago
#134
(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.
0
reply
midpikyrozziy
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#135
Report 7 years ago
#135
(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.
0
reply
kopite493
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#136
Report 7 years ago
#136
(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
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#137
Report 7 years ago
#137
(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.
0
reply
A level Az
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#138
Report 7 years ago
#138
(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.

0
reply
A level Az
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#139
Report 7 years ago
#139
(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.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#140
Report 7 years ago
#140
(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.
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! (490)
37.69%
No - but I will (100)
7.69%
No - I don't want to (88)
6.77%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (622)
47.85%

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