osama bin laden is dead

[Evil Robot II]

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
http://www.chrisfusco.com/assets/images/terrorist_hunting_permit.jpg

[Esuohlim]

I HEARD THE NEWS ON MARLEE MATLIN'S TWITTER

[Dimnos]

America fuck yeah! :picklehat

[Tadao]

I feel safe

[kahljorn]

no more pink boots :(

[Zhukov]

“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

"justice has been done"

When a man is executed without a trial, then justice has been done, apparently.

I'm no fan of Bin Laden; just playing devil's advocate here.

[Mockery]

http://www.i-mockery.com/blabber/pics/mission-accomplished-fixed.jpg (http://www.i-mockery.com/blabber/2011/05/02/mission-accomplished/)
http://www.i-mockery.com/blabber/2011/05/02/mission-accomplished/

[Tadao]

lol Good job inventing an idiot trap RoG

[Pentegarn]

Apparently there's a bunch of malware sites set up with this topic title

[Pentegarn]

“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

"justice has been done"

When a man is executed without a trial, then justice has been done, apparently.

I'm no fan of Bin Laden; just playing devil's advocate here.

Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

The 6th Amendment is for US citizens, which Bin Laden is not one of

Killing Bin Laden is a military action

The unprovoked attack on the world trade center that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for cost 3000+ people their lives and ruined countless other lives that were associated with it. Bin Laden however is one man

In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.

[Pentegarn]

All that being said, I have heard this pronouncement before and I will believe he is dead when his corpse is paraded in front of me

[Zhukov]

Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

The 6th Amendment is for US citizens, which Bin Laden is not one of

Killing Bin Laden is a military action

The unprovoked attack on the world trade center that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for cost 3000+ people their lives and ruined countless other lives that were associated with it. Bin Laden however is one man

In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.

Ok, I don't think admitting a crime means that it's ok to dispense with a trial. I think it would have been justice to capture him, get him to admit his crime in front the international courts, then sentence him. I don't see the laws allowing the inhumane treatment of accused (not proven) 'terrorists' as justice, and I don't see the on the spot execution of a wanted man as justice either, no matter how bad a crime he has done.

Am I going to lose sleep over Osama not getting a fair trial? Hardly, but the world is getting more and more lax on what exceptions it can take to it's morals.

[Evil Robot II]

lol @ rog for editing the common spelling mistake

[The Leader]

Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

But... He didn't. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Did Saddam get a fair trial?

[Esuohlim]

did youguys hear micheal jackson died

[Tadao]

What did Gilbert have to say on the issue?

[Colonel Flagg]

All that being said, I have heard this pronouncement before and I will believe he is dead when his corpse is paraded in front of me

Only possible if you like deep sea diving in the Arabian Sea.

@-Rog- Very nicely done. :lol

[Colonel Flagg]

What did Gilbert have to say on the issue?

AFLAC!

[Colonel Flagg]

“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

I wonder if there was a deleted phrase, such as "After a firefight they (found they had) killed Osama ....". It's more likely to have happened that way. :Occam'sRazor

In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.


That's not twisted at all; sadly, it makes perfect sense. :(

[Zhukov]

Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

I can't see Osama fighting on the front lines during a battle, anyway.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

[WhiteRat]

Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

I can't see Osama fighting on the front lines during a battle, anyway.

Osama tactical expert found!

edit! oopsies!

[Zhukov]

Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

:lol

[Colonel Flagg]

Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

Damned, I must be getting too old for this forum. I know this is funny, yet I can't see the punchline for the trees. :tear

[Colonel Flagg]

Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

You honestly believe the soldiers wouldn't rather have had him alive, so they could parade him in front of the world as CAPTURED!! like they did with KSM and Saddam?

Still it's a moot point, and one not really worth arguing, in my opinion.

[Seven Force]

Idk if it's been mentioned yet but we killed Osama the same day that Bush had that "Mission Accomplished" speech. 8 years to the day. Kinda funny.

[Tadao]

I still feel safe

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Woot!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's funny, but I-Mockery was one of the first websites I came to when I got the news about 9/11. I was with my girlfriend at the time, and we had slept in that day; until around 10am, I think. (I was in college then, so that probably wasn't "sleeping in" so much as just waking up as scheduled.)

Seemed appropriate to pop in here and, I dunno, do a dance of joy. Or something.

[Tadao]

It was my ex-wifes birthday. I remember waking up and she's all "The whole world is going to shit today" and I was all "What's new?" Then we watched the second tower fall. I also did an amazing photochop the night before on Fark and was mad that Osama took away my prize. Fucking jerk. I never entered a contest after that.

[Seven Force]

I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

[Geggy]

I JUST POSTED A BUNCH OF PICTURES,

STRANGELY ENOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING,

THANK GOD TADAO WAS HERE TO EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TEXT.

[Seven Force]

Thanks goodness cause if he didn't...

[Tadao]

All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

[WhiteRat]

All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

http://i.imgur.com/jj0sn.gif

[Pentegarn]

All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

Some dude at a gas station I was at today said almost that exact same thing

[Pentegarn]

http://i.imgur.com/jj0sn.gif

:lol

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'M GLAD TO SEE GEGGY IS STILL HERE.

[kahljorn]

who knows if it was really osama bin laden, anyway. also who knows if he really did it or if he just said he did or if it was just some dude that looked like him that said it.

no way of knowing now that he was executed (if we could've even known then).

Gotta agree with the trial comment although I also think jerks should just be killed. ITS A DILEMMA

[Pentegarn]

Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

[Esuohlim]

I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

SO WAS I, OLD BALLS

[Pentegarn]

I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

I was at work when it happened

I didn't have grey hairs then though

[Pentegarn]

So my brother says toi me, "I'm just picturing a family having a nice day on the beach and all of the sudden Bin Ladin's body washes ashore"

I :lold

[Colonel Flagg]

I was at work when it happened

I didn't have grey hairs then though

So was I, but I had grey hair then too. :(

[Pentegarn]

Yeah I couldn't speak for your hair ;), but I was sure you were working too

[Tadao]

Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

Are we not men?

We are Devo!

2 Wrongs make a Wright.

[Zhukov]

Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

[Seven Force]

id "like" your post if I could

[elx]

I was in fourth grade on 9/11! it was awesome :)


Idk if it's been mentioned yet but we killed Osama the same day that Bush had that "Mission Accomplished" speech. 8 years to the day. Kinda funny.
same day hitler was found dead too, just 66 years later

[WhiteRat]

:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

[kahljorn]

I don't think you realize how the LAW works. Even if you think he's a foreigner or whatever so the six amendment didn't apply to him or whatever theres still certain ways to treat other soldiers in war ;/ PLUS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THEM
and yea if we can just kill osama whats to stop us from just killing people like saddam without a trial? Or any other leader of a country that we deem wrong? Or anybody really. All we gotta do is attack our own country, put a fake beard on some dude and some 80's boots and be all, "I HATE AMERICA AND IM THE ONE THAT DID IT" and we have a license to kill?

plus how are we any different than them? Not like he didn't see it as an action of war when he attacked us: attacking something that might have been perceived as an important part of our infrastructure, which could be said to be endemic of his problems with us (globalization), and luring us into a war that fucked our economy over (and maybe the world trade center being sploded added to that).

anyway i dunno why I'm arguing this i dont care :( well a small part of me cares

[WhiteRat]

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.

Best watch yo back.

[Pentegarn]

:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

Those 3000 people killed were an act of war.

Killing Bin Laden (which as it turns out was an act of self defense on the part of the troops as he was shooting at them after all) was part of the war he started.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they'd likely find bin Laden's family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

So maybe, before you tell people to quote 'fuck off' and basically put words in my mouth that I never said (you are saying that nobody should get a trial) in a very weak attempt to make me look bad, you should use that thing between your ears eh?

[kahljorn]

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.

Well if you unmarginalize him I'm pretty sure it just makes my point stronger...

[Geggy]

I JUST POSTED A BUNCH OF PICTURES,

STRANGELY ENOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING,

THANK GOD TADAO WAS HERE TO EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TEXT.

sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

[Seven Force]

It sounds retarded I know, but we should of just went ahead with the trial if it was possible. I think everyone deserves a right to due process, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly against that person. Even if they're not a citizen. Killing the guy won't bring the countless dead back, it just satisfies our lust for revenge. We need to rise above that if we want to claim we're a civilized society.

On the other hand, if people think that Osama was going to go without a fight they'd be sorely mistaken. Odds are he wanted to be a martyr. It sucks but sometimes that's how shit goes down.

[Seven Force]

Whiterat: I don't think with a fair trial he'd go free. There really wouldn't be any chance of that happening with a mountain of evidence against that (not including his little homemade videos). People would be outraged, and they'd have a right to be, especially the families of the victims, but I think they'd get over it once they find him guilty in international court and kill him anyway.

[Tadao]

sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

Most of the time words say more than pictures. Like just now, when you expressed your thoughts on the matter.

[Tadao]

The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

[Tadao]

When Sadam was sitting in court rooms being tried, the whole word believed that he was captured. Even though he is know for having multiple doubles. The point is that moving pictures captures little tells, photos show nothing viable. Most of the world believes Sadam is dead.

What we have here is a bunch of ammo for the Tea Party and Birthers to go on and on about how there is no proof and how do we really know. Yay! I wanna hear that for 4 more years.

I believe that our government is fully capable of faking this whole thing to get 'Merica up and running again. Do I care? No, not really. At this point in Americas life, this is probably the best thing for us, real or fake. It's just stupid that they didn't take every measure to prove to the Arab and Western worlds that he was defiantly captured and defiantly dead. :conspiracy

[Esuohlim]

osama bin laden is dad

[Esuohlim]

So my brother says toi me, "I'm just picturing a family having a nice day on the beach and all of the sudden Bin Ladin's body washes ashore"

I :lold

All scarin' the kids :(

All ruinin' the meticulously built sandcastles :(

[Seven Force]

Those kids are gonna be messed up somethin' fierce I tell ya

[Zhukov]

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

Am I naive enough to believe that Osama would have gotten an un-biased trial and that he would have had a fair chance of being found not guilty? No. Am I sick of world leaders talking about justice when they in fact mean a lack of it? Yes.


As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)
What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.


You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?) You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.



Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

[Tadao]

If I remember correctly, he was wanted dead or alive.

[Zhukov]

Doesn't really change what I said. If he was executed then that isn't what your country should be parading as justice.

If he wasn't executed then whatever. No argument.

Actually, no, wait; killing someone on the battlefield isn't justice either - that's just dying.

[Tadao]

Why shouldn't we parade executing him as justice? I mean this is only out of curiosity. I know what I would do to someone who killed my family, and I would call it justice.

[Zhukov]

Because that's not what you pretend your country is based on. This isn't what you would do to someone who killed your family, this is how a system of morals and ethics of an apparently progressive country should treat someone.

Seriously though, it's Osama bin Laden. I'm not surprised he's dead, I'm not angry he's dead, I'm not that interested on defending his personal rights in the eyes of the USA; it's more the comment that justice was done. That gets a scoff from me.

[WhiteRat]

That gets a scoff from me.

Why I never!

[Tadao]

I wouldn't trust the US penal system to punish the guy who killed my family. I would try to kill him before he got captured.

[kahljorn]

maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

[WhiteRat]

maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.

[Pentegarn]

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims

You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.

We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.

[Pentegarn]

The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

I can see merit in this. Killing him and dropping his corpse in the sea only makes the "lack of evidence is evidence" crowd have ammo. And in this case I am inclined to agree with them, I want to see his dead ass for myself so I know he is dead.

[kahljorn]

Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.

Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.

[Tadao]

Like we did for Saddam. ;)

[WhiteRat]

Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.

9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w20/Gathomblipoob/Steiger.jpg

[kahljorn]

:lol

Like we did for Saddam. ;)

Almost said that but then decided somebody might say, "BUT SADDAM GOT A TRIAL" and then I'd have to say more stuff i dont wanna.

[Esuohlim]

WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DEBATE IF OSAMA WEREN'T FOUND, TALK ABBOTTABAD PLACE TO HIDE HUH :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Tadao]

I don't know if I should hug you or punch you.

[Pentegarn]

9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w20/Gathomblipoob/Steiger.jpg

Buddy of mine once said "Hey, if you nuke the middle east till all that sand is just a solid sheet of glass, it'd be easier to see through that glass where all the oil is"

I :lold

[Tadao]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Wednesday he's decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden because their graphic nature could incite violence and create national security risks for the United States.

"There's no doubt we killed Osama bin Laden," the president said in an interview with CBS News. Obama said he had seen the death photo and there was no need to release the photograph or gloat. "There's no need to spike the football," he said.

The president said that for anyone who doesn't believe bin Laden is dead, "we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference."

"There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is you won't see Osama bin Laden walking on this earth again," said Obama.
The president made his comments in an interview Wednesday with CBS' "60 Minutes". Presidential spokesman Jay Carney read the president's quotes to reporters in the White House briefing room, ahead of the program's airing.


Here we go. If you have evidence, show it. This is not they way you deal with an information hungry society. All that transparency shit? Yeah fuck you. You've got to be hiding something. You say that it might insight retaliation? There will be retaliation either way, but now there will be more terrorist that believe he is still alive and more everyone else who believe you faked the whole thing.

If you did in fact kill Osama and you want to pull troops from those areas, then this is the dumbest thing to do. So now I have to think that there are lots of hidden agendas going on. All the way from faking it to get re-elected to with holding proof so that Al Qaeda gets riled up.

Fuck you government. Fuck you in the ass!

[Pentegarn]

I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.

I do agree that a simple photo is not enough evidence because of how easy it is to photoshop things, which is why I say have a 'here's bin Laden's corpse on a marionette' parade

As for the "Spiking the football" comment, I think that falls short of the point. The reason we want the photo out there is not to quote 'spike the football' (though I am in favor of allowing people who want to to spike what's left of his head like a football) but because this is not the first time the government has claimed to have killed bin Laden. Their track record in accuracy regarding the living status of bin Laden has always been suspect at best. So why not put the evidence you have out there? You have had his body, show it off

[Tadao]

It's like saying to the people "Here is the good thing that we did, now here is the ammo to say that we didn't do it."

[WhiteRat]

Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.

[kahljorn]

the really stupid thing is that osama has like 50 million look-a-likes. the only way they could prove it is if: dudes got a dental record, his fingerprints are in a system o rhis dna. Maybe a birthmark?

only other way is if his organization collapses but i dunno even about that ;/

I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.i dunno about that man i think almost anything can incite muslim extremists to violence. but maybe im just being a jerk.

[Dr. Boogie]

Yeah, the whole "now the terrorists will really hate us" bit just seems like belaboring the obvious. It's not like we were about to sign some big accord with Al Qaeda.

[Shyandquietguy]

I think they should've put him in jail with a house arrest band you see in the movies and if Al Queada would ever break him out they would have to find hotel after hotel until they can break off the band. That way Osama learns a lesson and Al Queada can say Osama's awesome.

Then we get oil.

Well, I'm on the fence about the whole if Osama was given a chance to stay alive. Al Queada would probably be shit storming like hornets getting their nest wiped with a dick and be hurling bags of bombs in the streets until they get results or until we raze their last monster generator. But the question would be if that increase in violence would be worth letting the fucker go insane in solitary.

God damn it. I'm finally getting out of a political shell and all I have for security quality is the damn TSA thinking I was either drunk or holding a cough from a bad joint while I was being sent on medical leave from school due to a mid-life meltdown.

Fucking assholes.

[Zhukov]

And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims
Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first. I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.



So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting. No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.



And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.


Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.

Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.

Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.

[kahljorn]

i was gonna say, we should've told pakistan to arrest him and charge him with a crime. If they didn't then we would have an excuse to blow them up. Is there any kind of international law for aiding and abiding terrorists?

Although the crime was committed on american soil so i guess that gives us jurisdiction or whatever.. i dunno i dont know how that works exactly. Pakistan prolly should've extradited him to us. Personally i think putting pressure on Pakistan would've been more worthwhile than putting Osama to death.

[Pentegarn]

It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.


No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.





Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.



Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.

I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.

And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously

By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.

[Zhukov]

I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.

A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.

And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously :lol



By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.
Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.

All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.

-------------------------------------

So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?

[Tadao]

Man I miss the cartoon Heckle and Jeckle.

[Pentegarn]

A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.

Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this. You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better.

And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial?


Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.

You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.


All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.

Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.

-------------------------------------

So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?


That's a different discussion altogether, and one I touched on when I said that we have been lied to about bin Laden's living status before. But in the end I agree with how Churchill ordered his troops to handle Hitler. He basically said kill on sight because we do not want him using a trial to further spread his propeganda, we all know what he is,and we all know he needs to go. Just like bin Laden today.

[Zhukov]

You're cracking me up here.

Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this.

No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.

You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better. We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.

I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.

And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial? No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.




You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.

Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.

For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.





Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.
Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.

[Zhukov]

*note, that list is not ALL the countries that execute. There are countries that retain it but do not use it, and there are countries that have it for 'special circumstances'. There are 41 countries that regularly use it, that list was the main offenders.

[Pentegarn]

Ah so it was a selective list used to try to make America look bad, i.e. you're posting MO in the philo board.

[Pentegarn]

You're cracking me up here.

Trust me, you are cracking without my help

No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.

So now you object to them calling it 'pure and good' justice. I recall the word justice use, but not the words pure and good being used in the sentence you initially objected to. Well if you are not making your point, why not change what it is mid debate? Good strategy. Here's some irony/hypocrisy for you, remember when you posted this?

So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?

Seems your official story just changed. Funny you took that line of debate then did the very same thing just now

We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.

I like how you selectively read what I say, did I not say the war on terror is like the war on drugs? A pointless endeavor? But that is besides the point, I never claimed executing him would stop terrorism, I said it was a justified thing to do. Did hitler dying stop people from practicing Nazism? No. Did Hitler need to be killed? Yes, and the only reason he never was was because he beat his hunters to the punch and killed himself (allegedly)

I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.

Funny, you could have fooled me. But this goes back to that whole talking out of both sides of your mouth thing.

No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.

No I was making a point about your inconsistent views, of course you would try and excuse/justify how communism's ugly birth was executed. (pun intended)

Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.

and America does that too with many more criminals than it executes, but I notice how you seem to ignore that little fact

For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.

I already pointed out how selective you are, no need to mention it again


Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.

I already established his victims more than once, you ignore them because they some of them are American business owners and to you they have no rights for the crime of (gasp!) being rich

But as I said, you care about criminals, not victims, otherwise why fight so hard for bin Laden? Who fights this hard for a monster anyway? What sort of depraved human really takes the line you are taking? What went so wrong with you in your life that this... this is how you think and feel about society?

[Kitsa]

"They Knew he was There" (http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/06/the-emperors-clothes.html)

[Pentegarn]

At least part of the Pakistani government not only knew, but helped hide the fact that he was there.

[Zhukov]

We need an emoticon of this gent :\ with his arms outstretched and his open palms pointing towards the sky. Possibly called 'Ma, what are they givin' me?'

Pentegarn I'm not interested in this argument anymore. I've already expressed my thoughts and your disagreement isn't going to change them.



[Kitsa's article=QUOTE]It’s too frightening to make sense of. The world’s most-wanted terrorist. A man who triggered the longest war in American
history.[/QUOTE]
Vietnam?

[Zhukov]

Wow. Fucked that quote. Thanks edit capabilities.

[Kitsa]

I guess before even going into the article, I was like "No shit they knew he was there." How could they not know?

I know that Benazir Bhutto thought he was dead way back in '07, but when I go back for facts it's all hashed up in a conspiracy theorist frenzy. Apparently he outlived her :(

[Evil Robot II]

How do we know BL was a reaal person and not just made up by Nick
Rockeffelor?

[WhiteRat]

I guess before even going into the article, I was like "No shit they knew he was there." How could they not know?

I know that Benazir Bhutto thought he was dead way back in '07, but when I go back for facts it's all hashed up in a conspiracy theorist frenzy. Apparently he outlived her :(

He was also supposed to be on dialysis but no evidence of such was found in his compound, although it appears that Bin Laden sufferd from Sleep Apnea as one of the videos clearly shows a CPAP machine. My older brother is a sleep technician and quickly pointed that one out to me.:lol

[Tadao]

I would have trouble sleeping too if I was the most wanted man in the world.

[MLE]

CPAPs are loud as fuck.

[Chojin]

didn't read the whole thread, but lol what would the point have been in giving him a trial? would he have presented some shocking evidence to prove his innocence?

this isn't 'where in the world is carmen sandiego'

[Zhukov]

No, but mostly there would have been some evidence to prove his guilt in a recognised court of law, and also executing people on the spot is not the 'justice' of a nation that pretends to care about human rights.



As a bonus, his capture could also have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[WhiteRat]

No, but mostly there would have been some evidence to prove his guilt in a recognised court of law, and also executing people on the spot is not the 'justice' of a nation that pretends to care about human rights.



Uh, yes it is. Most Americans are fine with this and care little of what the rest of the world thinks on this issue.

[Tadao]

If you care so much about his trial, maybe your country should have looked for him?

[Zhukov]

Uh, yes it is. Most Americans are fine with this and care little of what the rest of the world thinks on this issue.

How about it's the justice of a nation who's government cares little of what the world thinks on the issue?

Tadao; that cuts deep

[Pentegarn]

Dear Zhukov,

You are right, a fair trial always comes out the way it should. Justice always prevails in a court of law.

Warmest regards,

OJ Simpson's murder trial

[Tadao]

I just don't see why we Americans are so cool with no explanation of what went down. I want to know if Osama was killed in self defense. Our Seals are trained to do exactly what we tell them to do, so a bullet in his head was most likely ordered. From what I understand with what little has been said, it was not needed. I'd rather we took him alive and killed him in public. It works. Humans have been doing that since forever.

[Colonel Flagg]

Dear Zhukov,

You are right, a fair trial always comes out the way it should. Justice always prevails in a court of law.

Warmest regards,

OJ Simpson's murder trial

Dear Zhukov and Pentegarn:

Sometimes a trial does provide justice. And sometimes the guilty party is sentenced to death. Carrying out the sentence, however, is sometimes not at all easy or straightforward, and you may be left with an incredibly long and drawn out circus.

Love, Mumia Abu-Jamal

[kahljorn]

didn't read the whole thread, but lol what would the point have been in giving him a trial? would he have presented some shocking evidence to prove his innocence?

Innocent until proven guilty. Due process. othersuchlegalterms. What if Osama never even did that shit and the government set him up? Its not like we really have any evidence that he perpetrated 9/11 anyway. What is it video evidence? or again what if that dude wasn't even actually osama?

or what if he would've sold out every other terrorist organization in the world or knew about north koreas plot with the actors guild or whaever it was called.

[Tadao]

I'm guessing Bush made a deal with Osama to take the blame, the public is to helpless and needs a bad guy caught, Obama fakes a capture and kill, Osama gets a new face and a much deserved break.

[Pentegarn]

Dear Zhukov and Pentegarn:

Sometimes a trial does provide justice. And sometimes the guilty party is sentenced to death. Carrying out the sentence, however, is sometimes not at all easy or straightforward, and you may be left with an incredibly long and drawn out circus.

Love, Mumia Abu-Jamal

:lol

[Colonel Flagg]

I'm guessing Bush made a deal with Osama to take the blame, the public is to helpless and needs a bad guy caught, Obama fakes a capture and kill, Osama gets a new face and a much deserved break.

I was thinking the EXACT SAME THING! :conspiracy

[WhiteRat]

How about it's the justice of a nation who's government cares little of what the world thinks on the issue?



Oops, forgot to mention government as well!

OB(gyn)L declared war 15 years ago, he got one, and now he's dead. I really don't see what the issue is here but since you will keep whining about a "fair trial" I guess on that issue I can say no one really gives a fuck what other countries think about it.

[Zhukov]

Pentegarn: are you saying that if Osama had gotten a trial you are worried that he would have gotten off? Haha, I don't think so, but if he did and your trial is fair then, well, that's fair.

I don't think so though.


White Rat: You're right, few people in America give a fuck about Osama getting a trial, let alone a fair one. That doesn't make it right. It makes the situation a worrying one; your government can execute people on the spot and nobody cares. The most likely situation is that this isn't a one of special occasion, it's the precedent for the same thing happening again and again in the future.

Accused "terrorists" are already incarcerated indefinitely and subject to torture without their guilt being proven, and while many people around the world are outraged, it's still going on because not enough people in the US care about the rights of people that their government tells them are evil.

I do believe Osama was a terrorist, and certainly a criminal, but executing him on the spot prevents the other side of the 9/11 story (and other stuff) from being known, and it allows your government to pick and choose who it dishes out rights too.

I thought Americans were meant to be wary of 'big government'? Why do so many people stand idly by while the government gives itself more and more ways to control them?

[Colonel Flagg]

Accused "terrorists" are already incarcerated indefinitely and subject to torture without their guilt being proven, and while many people around the world are outraged, it's still going on because not enough people in the US care about the rights of people that their government tells them are evil.

Define "many". By any measure there are many in the States who feel the same way, but there are more groups of dissaffected, misinformed or mindless lemmings that will remain silent and let the goverment do what it wants. You probably have this problem in Australia too.

I do believe Osama was a terrorist, and certainly a criminal, but executing him on the spot prevents the other side of the 9/11 story (and other stuff) from being known, and it allows your government to pick and choose who it dishes out rights too.

As others have pointed out, Wikileaks will probably have the video of the takedown posted on YouTube within a few months anyway, so what's the diff? Even so, this still will only be one version of the truth i.e. one viewpoint of the operation.

I thought Americans were meant to be wary of 'big government'? Why do so many people stand idly by while the government gives itself more and more ways to control them?

See comment #1 above.

Damn. This discussion reminds me of something .... (F-)

[Zhukov]

Well, video of them shooting him isn't going to explain in detail how he masterminded 9/11. I'm not saying that is the reason he shouldn't have been killed, I'm saying that is something that has been lost because of it.

I also don't mean to just be picking on the USA; if Australia was in the same position and it all went down the same way then I'd be surprised if his execution would arouse outrage from the majority of the population here either. I was impressed by the support of David Hicks (Australian held in Guantanamo Bay and tortured) but it was more the fact that he was a white Australian in trouble, and there is little support for other detainees.

There are 'many' people inside the US that would be unhappy about the incarceration and torture of "suspected" terrorists, I don't deny it.



Australians aren't wary of big government; they are just apathetic about everything unless it's Islam and Asians TAKING JOBS.

[Tadao]

There are things that can be controlled and things that can't. From what I see, the known things that can be controlled were handled with the utmost of secrecy for no credible reason.

That pisses me off.

[WhiteRat]

Pentegarn: are you saying that if Osama had gotten a trial you are worried that he would have gotten off? Haha, I don't think so, but if he did and your trial is fair then, well, that's fair.

I don't think so though.


White Rat: You're right, few people in America give a fuck about Osama getting a trial, let alone a fair one. That doesn't make it right. It makes the situation a worrying one; your government can execute people on the spot and nobody cares. The most likely situation is that this isn't a one of special occasion, it's the precedent for the same thing happening again and again in the future.

Accused "terrorists" are already incarcerated indefinitely and subject to torture without their guilt being proven, and while many people around the world are outraged, it's still going on because not enough people in the US care about the rights of people that their government tells them are evil.

I do believe Osama was a terrorist, and certainly a criminal, but executing him on the spot prevents the other side of the 9/11 story (and other stuff) from being known, and it allows your government to pick and choose who it dishes out rights too.

I thought Americans were meant to be wary of 'big government'? Why do so many people stand idly by while the government gives itself more and more ways to control them?

I guess what i'm trying to make clear is that Osama was a military target. 9/11 and his 1997 declaration of war aside, he was also responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole that killed 6 sailors in 2000. Sure he was without a nation's flag but he "commanded" an army of pseudo-solders that has been fighting US and global forces for years. This is why I don't see a problem with how he was killed, and judging by popular American opinion, they feel it's justified.

Bin Laden was public enemy number 1. Like I said before, I don't think it's right to marginalize his actions and effect on the US and to a lesser extent, the world. Maybe since you aren't American you aren't effected by his actions and simply can't understand the effect he's had on this country. Simply put, this was a "special case". Bin Laden wasn't some white Australian guy or some extremists that were rounded up in Afghanistan or Yemen or some other middle east hotspot. It was OBL. I really shouldn't have to explain more, like I said, it's fucking BIN LADEN.

Yeah a lot of people want Gitmo to go. What does that have to do with Bin Laden being killed?

Please explain what you mean by "other stuff" regarding the "other side" of 9/11. If this is a truther thing you need not reply.

[kahljorn]

if its an act of war it goes back to what zhukov said i think about how can you declare war on an individual :O plus how can you go to war inside another persons country. Plus how is going to war sending an assassin team? Etc.

[WhiteRat]

if its an act of war it goes back to what zhukov said i think about how can you declare war on an individual :O plus how can you go to war inside another persons country. Plus how is going to war sending an assassin team? Etc.

I'm not going to defend every single action that the US government has done. I'm not going to get drawn into a massive debate about the legality of invading Iraq (i'm assuming that's what you mean?) or the War on Terror in general. That's a whole different beast that I just don't care to get into. I've said what I've wanted about Bin Laden's death and that's the bottom line because Stunning Steve Austin said so!

[kahljorn]

No, I wasn't talking about Iraq. I'm talking about how can we "go to war" inside of pakistan against someone that isn't pakistan. But maybe they gave us permission I dunno.

but ok yea that's kind of how i feel about it.

[Pentegarn]

Pentegarn: are you saying that if Osama had gotten a trial you are worried that he would have gotten off? Haha, I don't think so, but if he did and your trial is fair then, well, that's fair.

I don't think so though.

People said the same thing about OJ Simpson. The evidence was all there. DNA matches, fingerprints, several witness giving all sorts of accounts pointing to motive. It should have been an open and shut case. But because the defense decided to make the case about the police who arrested him, the parameters of justice were warped and distorted. With the right defender, and people who dislike America pushing their agenda in the arena of public opinion, he may well have gotten off on a technicality. And if it were a world trial, ran by the joke we all call the UN, well I shudder to think how badly that would have gone. Simply put my point here is that a trial does not always bring justice, despite your protests to the contrary.

You talk of wanting his side of 9/11, but he has given it, multiple times on multiple propaganda tapes. He hates America enough to kill thousands of people he has never met and is too cowardly to face. You have already heard this and I assume you are smart enough to know if he were on trial you would hear it again. What you really seem to want is to give him another chance to spread anti-America propaganda. Why is this?

You say if he got a fair trial and got off it would be fair, but how can this be? Even you cannot deny he was responsible for the death of thousands. If he walked for that on some sort of technicality in a 'fair trial' would you really feel justice were served? Would you go to the terrorist internet forums and tell them that their use of the word justice is wrong?

[WhiteRat]

This lady looks awfully familiar but I can't for the life of me remember where i've seen her!
http://i.imgur.com/OK9FM.png

[Colonel Flagg]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7042/49994088.jpg

[Tadao]

:lol

[Pentegarn]

Colonel that was awesome, this is why you earned your rank, sir!

[Colonel Flagg]

I'm only funny about once every 6 months, so I'd better do it right, eh? :)

[Pentegarn]

Least you got that, better than funny once by accident and not for why you intended :lol

[Zhukov]

I guess what i'm trying to make clear is that Osama was a military target. 9/11 and his 1997 declaration of war aside, he was also responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole that killed 6 sailors in 2000. Sure he was without a nation's flag but he "commanded" an army of pseudo-solders that has been fighting US and global forces for years. This is why I don't see a problem with how he was killed, and judging by popular American opinion, they feel it's justified.

I see a problem with this because I don't think he was a military target (but that's not my point) and it's scary to see who can become a military target. Suspected terrorists are a military target, if you can stretch the law for them, then you can stretch the law for whomever you want.

Popular opinion. OK, I get that, and I'm not out in the streets marching for Osama's rights, and I understand that not many people in the US (or in other western countries) would, I suppose that I'm worried that a nation of people can say "fuck ethics, but just this once, ok kids?".

Bin Laden was public enemy number 1. Like I said before, I don't think it's right to marginalize his actions and effect on the US and to a lesser extent, the world. Maybe since you aren't American you aren't effected by his actions and simply can't understand the effect he's had on this country. Simply put, this was a "special case". Bin Laden wasn't some white Australian guy or some extremists that were rounded up in Afghanistan or Yemen or some other middle east hotspot. It was OBL. I really shouldn't have to explain more, like I said, it's fucking BIN LADEN. No, I do 'get' that it was Osama Bin Laden, most wanted no1 and all that, and I hope you don't think that I am blase about 3000 odd people dying like some people; I'm not. I'm not a big fan of "special case" scenarios, because they turn into the norm for whomever is the topical enemy of the month for governments the world over.

Yeah a lot of people want Gitmo to go. What does that have to do with Bin Laden being killed?

It's an example of rights being disregarded for special circumstances. Special circumstances that will happen time and time again, for more and more people.


Please explain what you mean by "other stuff" regarding the "other side" of 9/11. If this is a truther thing you need not reply.
Truther thing? I was saying that if you captured him then you could learn just HOW he planned it. Everyone knows OSAMA DID IT, but I certainly don't know how he planned it. If someone already knows then I guess I missed that info.



Pentegarn: We aren't talking about OJ Simpson, and do you not understand the faulty logic in saying: 'person X murders someone, person x is given a fair trial, person x is found not guilty'....? Hint: It's not a fair trial. If a fair trial produces an outcome (like Osama getting off - yeah right) then that is fair. That's the essence of a fair trial, it produces a fair outcome. Why are we talking about Osama being found innocent, why are you making up these ridiculous hypothetical situations?

Another thing, I doubt Osama would be given a good chance to sway people to his branch of fundamentalist Islam by US military controlled TV. Even if he did spout a truly mesmerizing monologue, something tells me they would edit that bit out. You know, maybe. Anyway, what difference does it make if propaganda tape after propaganda tape is shown on FOX news? Hasn't stopped them before, and it hasn't made that much of a dent in the American spirit, has it? Are you worried about something?

Leave the discussion of your views up to more intelligent people, for your own good.

[Pentegarn]

Pentegarn: We aren't talking about OJ Simpson, and do you not understand the faulty logic in saying: 'person X murders someone, person x is given a fair trial, person x is found not guilty'....? Hint: It's not a fair trial. If a fair trial produces an outcome (like Osama getting off - yeah right) then that is fair. That's the essence of a fair trial, it produces a fair outcome. Why are we talking about Osama being found innocent, why are you making up these ridiculous hypothetical situations?

Because these things can and do happen, and OJ Simpson getting off despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt on a technicality is not fair or just. It was an example of these things happening, you are just pissed that it helps prove that there is merit to what I (and countless others) are saying

Another thing, I doubt Osama would be given a good chance to sway people to his branch of fundamentalist Islam by US military controlled TV. Even if he did spout a truly mesmerizing monologue, something tells me they would edit that bit out. You know, maybe. Anyway, what difference does it make if propaganda tape after propaganda tape is shown on FOX news? Hasn't stopped them before, and it hasn't made that much of a dent in the American spirit, has it? Are you worried about something?

What the hell? US Military controlled TV? What the hell channel is this because I have several hundred channels in my cable package, and I have yet to see one of them controlled by the military. Keep that garbage in The Running Man where it belongs. Besides it isn't the US that he would sway, it is anti american sympathizers like you. People who think they have all the answers, but are barely into decade 3 of their life and have yet to acquire the wisdom that it takes to see how the world really interacts. In other words, people easily swayed by propaganda. You honestly think the US has the only media in the world? Because that is what you are implying here

Leave the discussion of your views up to more intelligent people, for your own good.

Good advice, maybe you should consider taking it yourself

[Zhukov]

Because these things can and do happen, and OJ Simpson getting off despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt on a technicality is not fair or just. It was an example of these things happening, you are just pissed that it helps prove that there is merit to what I (and countless others) are saying

Right, so OJ didn't get a fair trial. Also, are you serious when you say that you are worried that Osama would have been found not guilty? Bahahahaha.


What the hell? US Military controlled TV? What the hell channel is this because I have several hundred channels in my cable package, and I have yet to see one of them controlled by the military. Keep that garbage in The Running Man where it belongs. Besides it isn't the US that he would sway, it is anti american sympathizers like you. People who think they have all the answers, but are barely into decade 3 of their life and have yet to acquire the wisdom that it takes to see how the world really interacts. In other words, people easily swayed by propaganda. You honestly think the US has the only media in the world? Because that is what you are implying here


It would have been a US military court, just like the kangaroo courts that some suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo have seen. Therefore the US military would have control over any footage shot there. Not too hard to understand. At a stretch of justice it could have been held in an international human rights tribunal in the Hague; again, all footage shot there heavily controlled by the ICC/UN.

No, I am not implying that the US military owns all the media in the world. WTF? Where did you get that from? You like making things up that make little sense, don't you? And I am likely to be easily swayed by Osama's anti American propoganda? :lol

You have problems, Pentegarn. This is why I don't like talking to you.

[kahljorn]

WE SHOULD EXECUTE ALL CRIMINALS ON SITE IN THE OFF CHANCE THAT THE OJ CATASTROPHE WILL HAPPEN ALL OVER AGAIN AND NO CRIMINALS WILL BE PUNISHED EVER

ORANGE JUICE PROVIDES VITAMIN C WE CANT DO WITHOUT IT

:(

[Pentegarn]

Right, so OJ didn't get a fair trial. Also, are you serious when you say that you are worried that Osama would have been found not guilty? Bahahahaha.


It would have been a US military court, just like the kangaroo courts that some suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo have seen. Therefore the US military would have control over any footage shot there. Not too hard to understand. At a stretch of justice it could have been held in an international human rights tribunal in the Hague; again, all footage shot there heavily controlled by the ICC/UN.

No, I am not implying that the US military owns all the media in the world. WTF? Where did you get that from? You like making things up that make little sense, don't you? And I am likely to be easily swayed by Osama's anti American propoganda? :lol

You have problems, Pentegarn. This is why I don't like talking to you.

I have problems? I think I will consider the source and dismiss that comment. You are the one fighting for the 'rights' of a monster. You pretend to be all progressive and caring but you don't give a damn about the rights of the victims or their families. Despite what you say to the contrary your actions in this thread show what you really are. You are the most fundamentally flawed thinker (and I use the term loosely) and hate filled person I have ever seen. Anyone who cries over the rights of an admitted murderer but says jack shit about the rights of his victims has a broken mind. Anyone who thinks communism can really work despite decades of historical evidence to the contrary is someone who likely is going to be wrong about pretty much everything else they ever say or think. So when you say I have problems I will take it as I am on the right path. A path where I actually care about other humans as opposed to the rights of a monster.

But I do take back that you would be swayed by anti american propaganda, (or 'propoganda' as you just called it, which you may be thinking is some African country bordering Uganda, I am not sure with you honestly) because you are already the most anti american person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. Must be the communist beliefs. We won the cold war son, get over it.

But let's look at it one other way, I pointed out Winston Churchill thinks like me in this. So if I have problems then so does he because I took the exact same stance on Bin Laden as he did on Hitler.

[Zhukov]

So what if I hate America? I think it is the biggest cesspit of debauchery and dishonesty. I have never met an American I didn't hate.

To be perfectly honest, I think that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing, and it was a big wake up call to fat American ignoramuses; the world hates you.

3000 people dead in a terrorist attack? They brought it on themselves.

We would all be better off if your money and food was taken forcibly from you and given to China, who would distribute it under perfect communist lines. If Stalin was still around then we would beat you in a war because we are stronger than you and our planes and tanks are better.

Don't talk to me Pentegarn, you utter, utter fool. You and Churchill can go suck OJ's arsehole.

[Tadao]

:tear

[kahljorn]

Damn Zhukov i didn't know you hated me and everyone else on this message board :(

[Colonel Flagg]

I still hope you win your war with Australia. :(

[The Leader]

I worry about Pentegarn sometimes.

[Pentegarn]

So what if I hate America? I think it is the biggest cesspit of debauchery and dishonesty. I have never met an American I didn't hate.

To be perfectly honest, I think that the 9/11 attacks were a good thing, and it was a big wake up call to fat American ignoramuses; the world hates you.

3000 people dead in a terrorist attack? They brought it on themselves.

We would all be better off if your money and food was taken forcibly from you and given to China, who would distribute it under perfect communist lines. If Stalin was still around then we would beat you in a war because we are stronger than you and our planes and tanks are better.

Don't talk to me Pentegarn, you utter, utter fool. You and Churchill can go suck OJ's arsehole.

Your sarcasm lacks both subtlety and wit

This is why you are a child mentally, and you will always be so. I have no respect for you or anything you believe in or hold dear.

[Dimnos]

What is more off putting Z, America or the fact Australia is basically little America?

[King Hadas]

Zhukov, do you really have time to be arguing with Pentegarn? I believe you promised me something that so far you have failed to deliver. In a perfect communist world you'd be exiled with the kulaks and the hoarders for not pulling your weight, but in this flawed capitalist world... I guess one can only hope for the best. Just don't forget, Mao Zedong thought lights the way ahead!

[Zhukov]

Hadas, you are completely correct. Please check your PMs.

Your sarcasm lacks both subtlety and wit

This is why you are a child mentally, and you will always be so. I have no respect for you or anything you believe in or hold dear.
Yes, I was certainly trying to be subtle there, and you have no idea what I believe in or hold dear, so that hardly cuts deep :lol


Dimnos, I write strongly worded letters every week to my local newspaper lamenting that fact. :|

[Pentegarn]

So let me summarize here.

Zuhkov decides to once again take a stance where he can take pot shots at America by attacking the use of the word 'justice'. I poiint our why this stance is flawed in several ways including

- The Laws of the Constitution apply to US citizens
- Giving him even a remote chance to get off, however unlikely is out of the question because the justice system in prone to make mistakes
- treating this as a crime is ridiculous because it was an act of war against the US
- some of history's greatest leaders would have agreed with how this was handled
- bin Laden would have treated this as a stage in which to spout more anti US propaganda

Rather than properly parry any of these points, you instead say things like 'fuck off', 'you have problems', and 'you utter utter fool'.

OK, since you wouldn't listen to reason, I am then forced to question your motives. If someone in the face of so many reasons why they are wrong clings so forcefully to such a ridiculous point, one has to ask why. Based on many of your posts and based on your fervor and devotion to a basically broken economic concept that history itself proves will never work and that said concept's biggest enemy has always been the US, I am forced to conclude your posts are agenda driven.

You have acted like a petulant child and a bitch throughout this entire thread and I got more than a little tired of it pages ago. You want to be treated like a man, fucking act like one you little bitch

[Tadao]

What does Osama Bin Laden and this thread have in common?

[MLE]

No amount of complaining or debating will bring either back to life?

[Tadao]

THA LADY WINS A TEDDY BEAR!

http://www.chinatraderonline.com/Files/Gifts-and-Crafts/Wedding/Stuffed-Teddy-Bear-19261675218.jpg

[Chojin]

:picklehat

[kahljorn]

HEEEEYYY

[Pentegarn]

Now we can talk about bin Laden's extensive porn collection

[Colonel Flagg]

He was only viewing it to critique the camera angles, and to hone his own videographical skills. And for research into western hedonistic activities.

[Pentegarn]

They are checking all the porn to see if any hidden messages to al-Qaeda were embedded on said porn. Which opeens a new avenue of excuses about why you are watching porn.

your significant other: What are you doing there?!

you: uuuh, nothing

YSO: Don't lie to me, I see you looking at porn

you: Honey, I work for the government, I am looking for secret al-Qaeda messages

[Tadao]

:lol What if my Busty Cheerleaders Vol. 17 has subliminal messages in it that makes me want to blow up a building! :eek

[Pentegarn]

I think this explains why he was obsessed with blowing the WTC up, he saw nothing but twin towers no matter what he was watching :rimshot

[Tadao]

:lol

[Pentegarn]

Now for my serious post:

The strategist in me thinks he may have been trying to learn all he could about porn so he could find a way to use it to kill Americans

[Chojin]

wait did we actually find bin laden's porn stash

[Tadao]

That's what the news claimed on Monday.

[Pentegarn]

wait did we actually find bin laden's porn stash

And how! (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-binladen-porn-idUSTRE74C4RK20110513)

[Colonel Flagg]

His shovel-buddy was sleeping on the job.

[Pentegarn]

Nah we probably killed his shovel buddy, hence why he has so much porn, he kept it all when his buddy died first

[kahljorn]

ITS CAUSE HIS MAGIC POWER IS THROWING PORN MAGAZINES AT PEOPLE

HES OSAMA BIN LA DAN :(

THOSE SEALS OR WHATEVER THEY WERE ARE JST LUCKY DAN DIDNT MAKE IT TO HIS MAGAZINES OR THEY WOULDVE BEEN FUCKED. WHO KNOWS HE COULDVE EVEN HAD A PORN MAGAZINE TUCKED INTO THE BACK OF HIS PANTS, READY TO DRAW AT ANY TIME

[Evil Robot II]

When I started this thread the title was "obama bin laden is dead" but Rog changed it to avoid a slew of hate mail from across the globe.

[Colonel Flagg]

Damn labia nose

[Womti]

Now we can talk about bin Laden's extensive porn collection


:wank

[XDW1]

Glad that guy died. I even heard on his last days he doubted the future of the taliban. So much for being their great leader huh.

[Tadao]

Awesome! Where did you hear that from?

[kahljorn]

www.somenewswebsite.com/cheapuggs (http://www.somenewssite.com) maybe

[Tadao]

I hold his info to be true because he declared that KISS sold out worse than Metallica. This guy is on his game!

[Colonel Flagg]

Awesome! Where did you hear that from?

I was thinking http://buywowgold.com