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

kopite493
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#141
Report 7 years ago
#141
(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
0
reply
SteveCrain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#142
Report 7 years ago
#142
(Original post by Swayum)
Oh ok so suddenly we're changing our justice system to include an eye for an eye? So next time someone shoots someone, we'll just shoot him too? Next time someone rapes someone, we'll just rape that person too?
Osama was eliminated because he posed a continuing threat. Heard of prevention?
0
reply
prospectivEEconomist
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#143
Report 7 years ago
#143
OP, who gives a **** about his human rights, honestly? This world isn't fair.
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#144
Report 7 years ago
#144
They should have dumped his body in the Bay of Pigs.
0
reply
cometgirl
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#145
Report 7 years ago
#145
.. And you have the 'human right' to impose what YOU think is justice?
Wake up to reality. We NEED a country like America to play the global policeman. They are well within their rights to kill any man who declares that it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the USA, the Jews and any Muslim who is 'disobeying' their faith by not complying. If you are so concerned with 'ethics' and what is 'morally right' then surely it would be more unethical to let such a man continue to pose such a momentous threat that has such enourmous global repercussions.
In this case American values DO permit retribution for Bin Laden's crimes.
0
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#146
Report 7 years ago
#146
(Original post by Swayum)
Oh ok so suddenly we're changing our justice system to include an eye for an eye? So next time someone shoots someone, we'll just shoot him too? Next time someone rapes someone, we'll just rape that person too?
Now this i agree with.

Oh and last i checked he was a wanted war criminal maybe they werent able to take him alive and decided killing him there was the thing to do

next youl advocate the prosecution of soldiers who kill enemy soldiers.

(Original post by No Future)
America also has blood on its hands, but nobody would say it was ok to assassinate those responsible without trial.
urm they didnt assinate him, he was killed in a firefight

(Original post by Swayum)
Yeah, he's a bad person. But America has killed far more than 3000+ innocent people on several occasions (see my video above). You may say that "well, USA killed Osama in a war/for justice", but the same holds for their side, right? Osama and co are killing in the name of war and THEIR justice as well. Why is American justice the RIGHT one? Why does America police the world? It's not even the point though - the point is human rights.
so one hand you bleat about human rights, then on the other hand you suggest that America (who do follow human rights) are doing it wrong?

He's dead and no one save those who would follow him (and lets hope they get taken out to) will be sorry.

Anyway I've stuck this thread for about three pages now but tbh PC blabber like this just makes me feel like im going to throw up
0
reply
Rob da Mop
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#147
Report 7 years ago
#147
On the one hand it was more expedient that he be killed quickly and effectively. No chance of hostage taking for negotiations and no costly farce of a trial. We also have to face it. This was a kill mission, they were never going to take chances.

On the other hand due process exists for a reason. It's very well to say that he was definitely guilty, and I accept that he was, but where does this sort of certainty stop? What about the summary justice? In the USA they do have the death penalty, but in the UK somebody convicted of 3000 murders is still only given life in prison (quite rightly, IMO). Who says that form of justice is right?

Anyway, I think that in the end as undesirable as this outcome might be from an ideological perspective the assassination was the most logical choice, and not to be regretted. The thing I'm really not happy with is the way everybody has reacted - cheering in the streets etc. A man died FFS! He might have been a murdering *******, and the world is a better, and in the long term safer, place without him, but he was still a human being. He's not even been of any significance other than a symbol since 2001. Some quiet satisfaction at the harm to the enemy cause is justified, but really, almost a party outside the White house? That's just sick.
0
reply
The Premier
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#148
Report 7 years ago
#148
If he was captured where would he be sent?
Pakistan or Afghanistan?
If he was there not only would that be a massive risk of him escaping [or being released], but there would be serious threats of attacks. Let's be fair these extremists kill others for all sorts of reasons.

More realistically he would be sent to the US, which would lead to more protests and eventually his execution. While in jail he would have to have protection from others and be kept at the American taxpayer's expense - this in itself would hardly be a good campaign move for Obama.

To be fair what could be done other than execution. NATO's allies in the area are shady and the local governments should be treated with even more suspicion, especially if we take into account where Osama was found.
0
reply
Stalin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#149
Report 7 years ago
#149
I wholeheartedly agree.
0
reply
RollerBall
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#150
Report 7 years ago
#150
(Original post by No Future)
I won't feel sorry for them when their economy crumbles and Asia rules the world.
I forgot Asia and China's excellent history of human rights. I'm sure everyone will agree that America is the lesser of two evils there.
0
reply
Dude Where's My Username
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#151
Report 7 years ago
#151
Nice to see you put the human rights of a mass murdering terrorist before 3,700 innocent city workers Swayum :yawn: And the Left wonder why they're called Loony.........
0
reply
angrydanmarin
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#152
Report 7 years ago
#152
Although common morality dictates that we should have captured and trialed him, it was not worth the risk of what would have happened if we did so. Yes, he does have human rights, but the Americans were looking at this with a utilitarian perspective which on the occasion, overlaps human rights.

On the one hand, we have one man with the right to life.
On the other hand, we have a risk of thousands of people losing their life. Although what was done was not entirely moral, it was the lesser of two evils.
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! (377)
37.48%
No - but I will (76)
7.55%
No - I don't want to (71)
7.06%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (482)
47.91%

Watched Threads

View All