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%
el scampio
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1961
Report 7 years ago
#1961
(Original post by Bookmark)
They took DNA samples from his living relatives.
That just proves the corpse was related to Bin Laden's family members!

Were the DNA tests overseen by an independent body who could check and verify the validity of the results?

If the answer is no, then it's all just taking a proven liars word for it. Which is something most intelligent people are not prepared to do.
0
reply
4TSR
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1962
Report 7 years ago
#1962
(Original post by KissMyArtichoke)
As I understand it, he was shot and killed in a fire fight/ stand-off, and not executed. There's a difference
He was unarmed when shot...
0
reply
green chica
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1963
Report 7 years ago
#1963
(Original post by Psuedo)
He should have been tried and punished by an international criminal court.

Discuss.
none of us were there, so we can't really say either way.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1964
Report 7 years ago
#1964
(Original post by 4TSR)
He was unarmed when shot...
He was resisting and a threat when shot.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1965
Report 7 years ago
#1965
(Original post by el scampio)
That just proves the corpse was related to Bin Laden's family members!

Were the DNA tests overseen by an independent body who could check and verify the validity of the results?

If the answer is no, then it's all just taking a proven liars word for it. Which is something most intelligent people are not prepared to do.
Well no. You can tell from the DNA sample how the person is related.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary to disprove what they have said. Neither am I sure why they would create such an elaborate story when they could say they shot him dead in a cave with no witnesses.
0
reply
JGR
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1966
Report 7 years ago
#1966
Capturing him alive would be very difficult, especially as he'd rather die than be captured.
It'd also be very politically thorny and cause a lot of other problems.

In the heat of battle, soldiers seek to preserve their own life and that of their allies. Bin Laden is by definition the enemy and so of course they're going to shoot at him if fire is being exchanged and he won't surrender, and they don't know for sure if he really is unarmed.

You can't expect soldiers to risk death for the sake of capturing someone who's intent on killing them.
0
reply
Smtn
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1967
Report 7 years ago
#1967
0
reply
4TSR
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1968
Report 7 years ago
#1968
(Original post by Tommyjw)
He was resisting and a threat when shot.
I was just correcting the post I quoted... he did not fire at soldiers, but resisted arrest. So saying he was shot because of a "fire fight" is slightly inaccurate and unfair...

Any evidence to the threat bit? considering the room was raided by navy seals? I mean how much threat can him, his wife and a few kids be to navy seals?
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1969
Report 7 years ago
#1969
(Original post by NGC773)
The only naive people in this thread is the people so gullable to jump straight on the conspiracy bandwagon
Yes because sources of authority have never lied or deceived :rolleyes:

And don't have a policy of doing so on a regular basis, and are continually proven to have lied and deceived. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
0
reply
el scampio
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1970
Report 7 years ago
#1970
(Original post by Smtn)
Bit old for TSR, aren't you?
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1971
Report 7 years ago
#1971
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Yes because sources of authority have never lied or deceived :rolleyes:

And don't have a policy of doing so on a regular basis, and are continually proven to have lied and deceived. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Define continually and prove it, with a timeline and plenty of facts to support it.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1972
Report 7 years ago
#1972
(Original post by Kaykiie)
Pretty sure I heard them say on the news that she was being used as a human shield and as a result, was killed.
Yes because we all believe that story that wasn't just made up to make them look bad :rolleyes: And to excuse shooting a defenceless woman :rolleyes:

Christ aren't people so naive they lap up the stuff the government tell them.

(Original post by Lizzzle)
This

Also, he needed to be buried within 24 hours of death the body cleansed and wrapped accordingly which reports are saying has been done.

And logistically if Saudi Arabia did accept his body, then it may have been too late to bury him within the 24 hour window
Why would you storm the house of a frail unarmed defenceless old man to murder him but then try to be so careful and considerate by fulfilling his wishes and giving him a proper burial? Massive contradiction.
0
reply
LawBore
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1973
Report 7 years ago
#1973
(Original post by SteveCrain)
Is that how long it takes to download photoshop pro 7.8?
So, whether they release photos or not you still won't believe it? Why, then, should they even bother?
0
reply
velocet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1974
Report 7 years ago
#1974
Why he shouldn't have been shot:

- US officials claim he was unarmed.
- In the room where he was shot it was claimed that his wife took a gun and fired on the Navy Seal team. It was reported that she was shot in a limb (leg if I remember correctly) and then the proceeded to shoot Osama above his left eye. No other immediate threat.
- It is against international law to kill someone on international territory without approval by the authority responsible for that region.
- There was no confirmation before he was shot that this was Osama Bin Laden

Of course the US knows it's exempt from international law. I don't remember Bush being taken to court because of use of White phosphorus in Iraq in residential neighbourhoods. Against the Geneva convention and use of condemned by human rights groups.
Killing Osama straight away was wrong and illegal, but what can anyone do about it?
0
reply
Kaykiie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1975
Report 7 years ago
#1975
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Yes because we all believe that story that wasn't just made up to make them look bad :rolleyes: And to excuse shooting a defenceless woman :rolleyes:

Not directed at the person I quoted, by Christ aren't people so naive they lap up the stuff the government tell them.
Then why quote me?
0
reply
velocet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1976
Report 7 years ago
#1976
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
No, what I am saying is that congress gave the soldiers legal authority to kill him in 2001.

Therefore, it was legal, at least under American law.
The Pakistani government were completely unaware of American Navy Seals in that location. The US were not at war with them at the time so they had no legitimacy to be there. It was illegal - remember, the killing did not take place in USA.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1977
Report 7 years ago
#1977
(Original post by velocet)
Killing Osama straight away was wrong and illegal, but what can anyone do about it?
Ofcourse someone as naive as you can't see the implications of him being taken back alive.


Oh and p.s.
Just incase you forgot
You weren't there.
What's that?
Yep, you were not there when it happened. So i guess you can take all of your 'he could definitely have been captured' BS back home.

I also wasn't aware you were a leading expert on international and law and thus know every single law on it, and every clause in those laws. But.. i guess you do, otherwise you wouldn't try and mention the law about it, would you?

P.s.s
If they had broken so many laws and such, the world leaders would have mentioned it and condoned it. But they didn't, i wonder why that is?
1
reply
JGR
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1978
Report 7 years ago
#1978
When you get to the scale of countries, international law can be bent to fit. Who's going to call them out on it?

It's not like any other nation or international body is going to criticise them on some pedantic interpretation of the law when they've just killed probably the most wanted man on the planet. Nobody would benefit from that and the US could just tell them to sod off (diplomatically) anyway.
0
reply
velocet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1979
Report 7 years ago
#1979
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Ofcourse someone as naive as you can't see the implications of him being taken back alive.


Oh and p.s.
Just incase you forgot
You weren't there.
What's that?
Yep, you were not there when it happened. So i guess you can take all of your 'he could definitely have been captured' BS back home.

I also wasn't aware you were a leading expert on international and law and thus know every single law on it, and every clause in those laws. But.. i guess you do, otherwise you wouldn't try and mention the law about it, would you?

P.s.s
If they had broken so many laws and such, the world leaders would have mentioned it and condoned it. But they didn't, i wonder why that is?
Going by your "you weren't there" argument. I could use your logic and argue you weren't there to deny I wasn't there and you have no way of proving I wasn't there. Please don't use such childish arguments and rather just evaluate what different media sources tell you and make up your own mind rather than following whatever you hear blindly. Rational people criticise and argue, believers/fanatics/daydreamers believe what they want to.

What's wrong with taking him back to an undisclosed location and/or giving him a trial. It was done for Saddam Hussein who was portrayed to be the new Hitler.

To your "broken laws... world leaders mentioned and condoned it". Read "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1980
Report 7 years ago
#1980
(Original post by velocet)
Going by your "you weren't there" argument. I could use your logic and argue you weren't there to deny I wasn't there and you have no way of proving I wasn't there. Please don't use such childish arguments and rather just evaluate what different media sources tell you and make up your own mind rather than following whatever you hear blindly. Rational people criticise and argue, believers/fanatics/daydreamers believe what they want to.

What's wrong with taking him back to an undisclosed location and/or giving him a trial. It was done for Saddam Hussein who was portrayed to be the new Hitler.

To your "broken laws... world leaders mentioned and condoned it". Read "Failed States" by Noam Chomsky.
Umm what?
You mean by the fact the media is all saying the same things? Because they all get news simultaneously? And because the news comes in slowly from US officials and such? Great logic there

How do you know they COULD of taken him like that? Every single one of your arguments is based on assumptions. No1 have i said they HAD to kill him, but their is justification for doing so.. whereas all you keep saying is 'they could have taken him, could have captured him' bla bla bla.
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! (206)
40.08%
No - but I will (31)
6.03%
No - I don't want to (35)
6.81%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (242)
47.08%

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