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:
?
#1761
Report 7 years ago
#1761
Bin Laden's dead?! Nawww... Get the **** outta here! :awesome:

Now watch as Pakistan sneakily tries to cover its tracks for harbouring a most wanted terrorist for 6 years :daydreaming:
0
reply
Lizzzle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1762
Report 7 years ago
#1762
America's economy is improving, unemployment rates are decreasing and it's slowly building itself up.
It's not moving as fast as some would like - but it's actually improving and has been gradually improving for some months now.

Of course Fox news and many other Murdoch affiliated-news corporations don't like to report on such news.
Focusing on whether Obama is actually American, where is birth certificate is, whether he's muslim, why he always goes on golf holidays etc etc.

Until the right-wing get a charismatic candidate to step up, a name Americans can remember - a face thats recognisable and something that makes him memorable they wont win.
0
reply
lolcopter1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1763
Report 7 years ago
#1763
Bye ****

Also conspiracy theorists, **** off you fat specky greasy 4 eyed *****.
1
reply
vilongo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1764
Report 7 years ago
#1764
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Well.. in reality this news won't 'secure the election'
The election is what.. over a year from now?

America is much more concerned with it's Economic situation. If Obama get's that right than yes, he will be re-elected. In my mind the Economy is the deciding factor.
Correction: idiot people who didn't go to a lawyer before taking a toxic loan :rolleyes:(aka bat **** people) are the only one concerned with the economy. Life in America hasn't really changed for the middle class. Yes, recession make expenses, payments, and payrolls a little difficult , but honestly, its bot that bad. You're consumed with tabloid bull **** brah.
Trust, when I say osama will be the election winner, its because I know osama will be the election winner.the only way for Obama to lose this election is of he ****s up econimically, . If he really do end up in another great depression. Average American aren't concerned much with politics if you haven't noticed. They go about their comfortable lives, hear that osama is dead, and yell "obama!"
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1765
Report 7 years ago
#1765
(Original post by vilongo)
Correction: idiot people who didn't go to a layer before taking a toxic loan :rolleyes:(aka bat **** people) are the only one concerned with the economy. Life in America hasn't really changed for the middle class. Yes, recession make expenses, payments, and payrolls a little difficult , but honestly, its bot that bad. You're consumed with tabloid bull **** brah.
Trust, when I say osama will be the election winner, its because I know osama will be the election winner.the only way for Obama to lose this election is of he ****s up econimically, . If he really do end up in another great depression. Average American aren't concerned much with politics if you haven't noticed. They go about their comfortable lives, hear that osama is dead, and yell "obama!"
Oh you KNOW.
Ok, sorry, wasn't aware you were from the future.
Considering it's a year and a half way.. i'd like your opinion on how it is such a major influence
P.s. you don't know anything about economics, else you would know that the economy is a MAJOR factor. So ya know.. deal with it, go learn.
0
reply
SteveCrain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1766
Report 7 years ago
#1766
I think the navy seals eliminated the woman as part of a protocol to ensure the alarm was not raised. Human shield seems a tad unbelievable when their position is considered.
0
reply
nosaer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1767
Report 7 years ago
#1767
(Original post by DH-Biker)
Not really.

The Third and Fourth Conventions state:

"Willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments"

Classes as a "Grave Breach".

America wouldn't dare attempt a "grave breach" as I keep saying, the UN would hinder every military action they did.
OK, the fourth GC is irrelevant because it applies to civilians, and at any stretch, cant be applied to Al Qaeda. Its the third GC we're interested in here.

The third GC outlines the rights that are afforded to prisoners of war. OBL or indeed any Al Qaeda aren't afforded any prisoner of war status so not protected under the 3rd GC. In fact, the US uses this as partial justification for what it does at Gitmo. If the 3rd GC applied, Gitmo wouldn't be around, legally speaking at least. What Al Qaeda fighters have been termed, is not POWs but some bizarre term of 'unlawful enemy combatant', which basically allows America to do with them as they please. This is exemplified in the Military Commissions Act 2006 which was drafted for this very reason which states:
The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
If the Geneva convention applied in this case, this act wouldnt have needed to be brought in.

And America will do whatever the hell it damn pleases. When it comes to national security, the gloves come off. Whether it be renaming torture as "Enhanced interrogation techniques" or shipping detainess to third world prisons for some full-fat torture under their CIA rendition programme.
0
reply
nosaer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1768
Report 7 years ago
#1768
(Original post by Aj12)
did't Bush get around that by declaring the Taliban terrorists and Guerllias rather than soldiers in uniform?
Yep, despite the rubbish DH-Biker is telling you, the third geneva convention has such conditions, which neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda fulfill and hence aren't given POW status. Unlawful enemy combatants is the term you're looking for.
0
reply
vilongo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1769
Report 7 years ago
#1769
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Oh you KNOW.
Ok, sorry, wasn't aware you were from the future.
Considering it's a year and a half way.. i'd like your opinion on how it is such a major influence
P.s. you don't know anything about economics, else you would know that the economy is a MAJOR factor. So ya know.. deal with it, go learn.
You must be a troll.
I don't speak matter of factly as you wish, I speak intuitively since its morning and iam drinkibg cranberry juice,, while i enjoying this lovely cook book. But if you want me to go on economist mode, you can just ask.

I'll say this one more time, with confidence: accomplished efforts like osamas assassination , is considered publishc knowledge , which most of the public will defiantly consider at the ballot box for as long as the man, who was accredited for the effort, is in office. Obama has many small wins in the minds of Americans, especially if you're black. The right wing has tried using charisma with Populism 3 times already, and all has failed because the middle class is totally jaded to right-wing rhetoric, and because the republican brand, when said, has negative connotations, the republicans are now going to appeal to the tea party (aka republicans in a new dress) in order to get away from the bush era. And their own hope is that the economy goes to hell in the next year. The only other way to destroy Obama is to convince his constituency that he, in fact, isn't a democrat at all. That he's really bush in a brand new suit. And that would be matter of fact BTW. But, its a Double edge sword for republicans because they know that they're benefiting more from Obama being in office than any real democrat.
0
reply
nosaer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1770
Report 7 years ago
#1770
(Original post by moonkatt)
There is a difference between sentencing a prisoner to death, who is already locked up and is not presenting a threat to anyone and having to open fire and kill someone who is trying to kill you in a firefight.
One of those differences is the former at least receives due legal process and a fair trial.
0
reply
Rant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1771
Report 7 years ago
#1771
(Original post by DH-Biker)
Ignorance is defined as "lack of knowledge"; I'm not ignorant. In fact, if anything, I would say I'm more knowledgeable then you.
If you meant ignorant as my persistence in supporting my own point which you deem to be wrong, then yes I am that too.

What you define as wrong, doesn't necessarily make the other person wrong to support it. If I believed in burning black people, that's an example. If I believed every Muslim was a Terrorist who should be shot out of this country and out of existence, that would be wrong.
Me wanting my Brother and Step-Brother to come home alive isn't wrong. Regardless of your views on the War, my hope that I get to see either of them again doesn't equate to my ignorance.

War is the openly declared state of organized combat.

There is no "term" for Terrorism, but the generally accepted definition; Someone who performs acts to inspire fear or terror with backing of a religious, political or ideological goal. Of course following the famous phrase, "One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom-Fighter".

They aren't committing murder. Charging for murder does happen in War, but when an enemy is firing at you, you killing that enemy doesn't equate to murder. People do die in War, Rant, (shock horror!) and claiming it all "murder" is like standing at a Formula One race handing out speeding tickets because everyone there goes fast.

Innocent civilians have died, yes. Then again, so have 4,000 of ours and America's innocent civilians. We haven't had friendly-fire accidents near that scale. So yes, whilst there have been a few friendly fire incidents on civilians, they were accidental, and down to a lack of certainty on a target; that certainty can fail to be achieved given a number of factors.

Innocent civilians die in warfare too, Rant, (again, shock horror! Dangerous this war business, init? :rolleyes:) unanticipatedly and unfortunately. It isn't nice, and it isn't good, but then again we haven't killed 4,000 in attacks on London and New York and the countless other Terrorist Attacks carried out by that group and its splinter factions.

That doesn't make it right, but the Coalition alone can't bear the responsibility for killing civilians solely in this war. In fact, it was the enemy's killing of civilians which started it.
I don't wish death on your brothers - or anyone. No one deserves to die. That also means their victims don't deserve to die.

These soldiers are signing up to go to another country and kill people. Imagine if people were doing that here. A foreign army coming in to kill British people who were deemed "terrorists" - even if the majority of people were under the reigns of an oppressive regime, there would be some who would willingly take up arms to defend what they regarded as an invasion of their home.

The fact is, there is no justification for this war or any war except when there is no other way of stopping a lunatic from mass murder on a global scale (i.e, Hitler). If you're going to turn around and use the old "hey, but we wanted to get rid of Saddam/Osama/Taleban" excuse then go "liberate" all the other countries that have oppressive dictators. Wonder where that will end.

When you and your nationalist cronies mourn the deaths of British soldiers, I switch over the channel. I don't want to see the funeral of some murderer raised to cult status, as if they're actually heroes. They're not and never will be. They're killers. A killer is a murderer, whether it's one madman, a state, a government and the tools thereof. Sure, you can say they have diminished responsibility because they must be monumentually stupid to have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into actually signing up, but they still signed up knowing they were going to kill.

Killing is wrong.


Maybe some people disagree on soldiers being murderers, as you implied, but I think the majority of the population of the world would agree that killing another human being is wrong.
0
reply
el scampio
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1772
Report 7 years ago
#1772
How do you know they killed him? Seen any photo's or heard any eye witness accounts?

I thought not.
0
reply
ibysaiyan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1773
Report 7 years ago
#1773
(Original post by Rant)
I don't wish death on your brothers - or anyone. No one deserves to die. That also means their victims don't deserve to die.

These soldiers are signing up to go to another country and kill people. Imagine if people were doing that here. A foreign army coming in to kill British people who were deemed "terrorists" - even if the majority of people were under the reigns of an oppressive regime, there would be some who would willingly take up arms to defend what they regarded as an invasion of their home.

The fact is, there is no justification for this war or any war except when there is no other way of stopping a lunatic from mass murder on a global scale (i.e, Hitler). If you're going to turn around and use the old "hey, but we wanted to get rid of Saddam/Osama/Taleban" excuse then go "liberate" all the other countries that have oppressive dictators. Wonder where that will end.

When you and your nationalist cronies mourn the deaths of British soldiers, I switch over the channel. I don't want to see the funeral of some murderer raised to cult status, as if they're actually heroes. They're not and never will be. They're killers. A killer is a murderer, whether it's one madman, a state, a government and the tools thereof. Sure, you can say they have diminished responsibility because they must be monumentually stupid to have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into actually signing up, but they still signed up knowing they were going to kill.

Killing is wrong.


Maybe some people disagree on soldiers being murderers, as you implied, but I think the majority of the population of the world would agree that killing another human being is wrong.
Well said...
Why the red gems though ?
0
reply
moonkatt
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1774
Report 7 years ago
#1774
(Original post by nosaer)
One of those differences is the former at least receives due legal process and a fair trial.
yes, but theres not really time to do that when someone is shooting at you trying to kill you. Thats what I'm getting at. He gave up the option of a trial (whether it would be fair or not) when they decided to fight against special forces soldiers. It would be the same here if you were to go bezerk with a weapon and start shooting at the police officers there who were planning on arresting you, in the end they have to defend themselves.
0
reply
pinkpenguin
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1775
Report 7 years ago
#1775
Btw, this is an interesting clip from the 2008 campaign.



I think this thing completely misses the point that McCain was a dumbass by not saying he would go after Bin Laden all guns blazing.

Obama's decision to focus resources there was just plan simple politics, as well as being a more than satisfying thing to do and a psychological blow to the war on terror.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1776
Report 7 years ago
#1776
(Original post by Rant)
Maybe some people disagree on soldiers being murderers, as you implied, but I think the majority of the population of the world would agree that killing another human being is wrong.
Not in war.

Guess we shouldn't have any soldiers.. and thus let any opposing force take over us because we 'don't want to kill people' :rolleyes: . What a ridiculously stupid view.
0
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1777
Report 7 years ago
#1777
(Original post by nosaer)
OK, the fourth GC is irrelevant because it applies to civilians, and at any stretch, cant be applied to Al Qaeda. Its the third GC we're interested in here.

The third GC outlines the rights that are afforded to prisoners of war. OBL or indeed any Al Qaeda aren't afforded any prisoner of war status so not protected under the 3rd GC. In fact, the US uses this as partial justification for what it does at Gitmo. If the 3rd GC applied, Gitmo wouldn't be around, legally speaking at least. What Al Qaeda fighters have been termed, is not POWs but some bizarre term of 'unlawful enemy combatant', which basically allows America to do with them as they please. This is exemplified in the Military Commissions Act 2006 which was drafted for this very reason which states:


If the Geneva convention applied in this case, this act wouldnt have needed to be brought in.

And America will do whatever the hell it damn pleases. When it comes to national security, the gloves come off. Whether it be renaming torture as "Enhanced interrogation techniques" or shipping detainess to third world prisons for some full-fat torture under their CIA rendition programme.
The Fourth Convention has complete necessity here. It implies the terms and conditions civilians are given during capture, occupation of land/population center/etc.

If we assume Osama fell under the term "non-combatant" given he wasn't part of a permanent military armed force, then he falls directly under the protection of the Fourth Act, and will fall under the following term,
In the event civilian forces present an opposing threat, be it under any self-designated reason why they engaged in hostilities, they automatically represent themselves as "Civilian Combatants". This will apply to any civilian contractor (Mercenaries that aren't under the occupation of a higher organization, for example they can't be under ExOps or Blackwater, a free-lance Merc will face such a category, however), civilian of internal or external birth, a citizen of that nation, a combatant who has retreated/been dismissed/etc (essentially a soldier who isn't anymore for whatever reason), a civilian who accidentally engages the opposing or defending force
The list goes on.

The point is, Osama, if he had been designated under the Civilian aspect which he wouldn't have been, a combatant is a combatant as far as the Third is concerned, and following paragraphs from the First and Second relevant to this scenario.

If he had been considered under Civilian designation, even with the tags mentioned above, he still wouldn't have been able to be touched. The Fourth Convention attempted to halt anyone in any nation facing the prospect of trial, torture, prison, execution, etc.

Granted, you're right, in some cases they would dismiss these and go for it anyway.

For example, if a man had a direct knowledge to the locations of nuclear devices set to go off.

Would Osama have proved such a VISI? No. By the admission of another captured Al-Qaeda member, Osama had been "thrown out of the loop" when it came to strategic planning and tactical moves on the Coalition and The West.

Granted, its possible they'd have forced open a loop-hole to gain information about the upper-echelon and elite of Al-Qaeda which is still very much unaccounted for. Could they have done this without breaking some form? No. Would they have attempted it? Possibly.

No matter which way you slice this, he would have been designated as either a combatant or a civilian under-warfare. Either which way, he is still well within the confines of anyone even so much as suggesting his torture.

I'm not saying they wouldn't; they've waded through red tape before and they'll no doubt do it again. Its entirely possible they would have, if he had been captured alive, been subjected to torture. Although its very, very unlikely.
0
reply
Lizzzle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1778
Report 7 years ago
#1778
For all those who said that a trial would have been legal and just, aren't thinking practically.

Bin Laden is one of the most hated men in history.

His trial probably could never have been held in America - and if it was the amount of money that would need to be spent on security would be far too high, plus it would have to be paid for by taxpayers who are already out of pocket (less jobs, rising taxes etc) which would cause even more uproar and disgust.
At the trial what would happen? Could it possibly be a fair trial? I don't think so, whoever the judge is, the jury any lawyers and media present wouldn't allow the trial to be fair. If he was sentenced to be executed when would it happen? How? Surely that sort of public execution is a violation of human rights also?
If he wasn't sent to death and he was to spend the rest of his life in prison - there would need to be around the clock security for him there too. And the costs of that would be far too high.
Plus holding him in prison would surely attract even more attention from extremists?

If the trial wasn't held in America, then where? Saudi Arabia?
Yemen?
Pakistan?
Afghanistan?
Would he be tortured in jail if he were to be sentenced to prison in any of those countries?

Of course these are whatifs, nobody was there, none of us are navy seals, at the moment we don't know if he had a weapon but we do know he resisted arrest, in a time of need he would seemingly be desperate to do anything. Plus videos of the compound show blood all over the floor and well.. everything... everywhere.

There is a time to be fair and just and think of human rights, but there are always exceptional circumstances.
1
reply
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1779
Report 7 years ago
#1779
(Original post by nosaer)
Yep, despite the rubbish DH-Biker is telling you, the third geneva convention has such conditions, which neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda fulfill and hence aren't given POW status. Unlawful enemy combatants is the term you're looking for.
Rubbish?

Hardly.

They've had the mother of all trials concerning their treatment of Iraqi prisoners after Operations Desert Storm and Shield.

A HVP or a VSOI wouldn't have been under any less of a limit.

They aren't designated "Unlawful Enemy Combatants"; given they aren't wearing Uniform, Camo or designated via symbols of a battalion and representative of a nation, means they are designated as "Civilians under combat initiative / Civilians under non-Military Hierarchical orders (including Religious extremism, and using that as a justification of an attack, for example this situation)".

Therefore, they fall under the protection and paragraphs of the Fourth Convention concerning Civilians; as you say; and are therefore to be treated as such regardless of any initiative to commit acts against, engage against or cause harm within an opposing military or civilian person/personnel.

However, as I said in my other reply, he wouldn't have been counted as such.

Regardless of his HVP / VSOI status, he would fall under jurisdiction of the Third; and again wouldn't have to fear torture.
0
reply
Rant
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1780
Report 7 years ago
#1780
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Not in war.

Guess we shouldn't have any soldiers.. and thus let any opposing force take over us because we 'don't want to kill people' :rolleyes: . What a ridiculously stupid view.
You're not too smart, are you?
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! (552)
37.81%
No - but I will (115)
7.88%
No - I don't want to (102)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All