Osama

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by jstaffa

God Bless America.

??????????????????????????

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Shorty

??????????????????????????

Ditto.

[Kieran123]

Not god bless the Pakistanis who helped, or the Canadians, or Australians, or New Zealanders, or British, or French, or the civilian Iraqis and Afghanis who lost their lives in this war as well.

Just America.

Because they caught him, which obviously is all that matters

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Not god bless the Pakistanis who helped, or the Canadians, or Australians, or New Zealanders, or British, or French, or the civilian Iraqis and Afghanis who lost their lives in this war as well.

Just America.

Because they caught him, which obviously is all that matters

Because they "apparently" killed him. Not saying they did or didn't; just that there's no proof either way.

I will laugh my ass off if Bin Laden suddenly releases an "I'm still alive" video to Al Jazeera. ;)

[Mattplusness]

My question is.... they will show Saddam being hung, but not show a picture of a dead Osama... I don't get it.

[inthehole]

Originally Posted by Mattplusness

My question is.... they will show Saddam being hung, but not show a picture of a dead Osama... I don't get it.

He took a 5.56mm double tap to the head at close range (one to the left eye) - there clearly wouldn't be much left to identify (real life with high powered rifles isn't like the movies where all you see is a little bullet hole).

[zeg]

Also, the situation here is different.  AFAIK, it wasn't the US government who released the Hussein pictures.

With respect to the events, I find it a bit odd to describe it as "justice" being served.  To me, "justice" would be served by capturing him, giving him a fair trial in accordance with international and/or applicable national laws, and (presuming he is found guilty) applying a properly determined sentence.

In this case, assuming the reports that he was engaged in the firefight are true, his killing may have been warranted, but given that it was a stated goal of the incursion, I'm not entirely comfortable that "we" did the right thing.

I'm not saying he's not a bad guy, that an execution was not a likely outcome of a judicial procedure, or that this may have solved a problem (to state it inhumanely).  Just that extrajudicial killings or assassinations are very questionable, even when the "good guys" do it.

[MiniBlueDragon]

Spot on Zeg.

To quote a comment I made to a friend earlier, if the report is true and he has indeed been murdered I think the misguided are celebrating 'revenge', disguised as 'justice' when in reality it's 'death'; not something to be celebrated.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by zeg

Also, the situation here is different.  AFAIK, it wasn't the US government who released the Hussein pictures.

With respect to the events, I find it a bit odd to describe it as "justice" being served.  To me, "justice" would be served by capturing him, giving him a fair trial in accordance with international and/or applicable national laws, and (presuming he is found guilty) applying a properly determined sentence.

In this case, assuming the reports that he was engaged in the firefight are true, his killing may have been warranted, but given that it was a stated goal of the incursion, I'm not entirely comfortable that "we" did the right thing.

I'm not saying he's not a bad guy, that an execution was not a likely outcome of a judicial procedure, or that this may have solved a problem (to state it inhumanely).  Just that extrajudicial killings or assassinations are very questionable, even when the "good guys" do it.

Osama made numerous  videos taking credit for the events leading up to 9/11 and for other terrorist acts throughout the world.  My understanding of law is that these videos are the equivilent to a confession and an admittance of guilt.  We can debate the merits of the death penalty, but given the number of innocent deaths he's responsible for, I believe the punishment fit the crimes.

[shades9323]

I just want to personally thank you guys for keeping my investment Reynolds Group on the steady rise!  Keep it up, maybe I can retire early!

Originally Posted by Leftygolfer

Could care less.  Annoyed about the end of the apprentice being cut off.  I want to see a photo of him dead.  I don't believe anything without proof, particularly this administration.

Originally Posted by Kieran123

I am glad Osama is dead ( if he is dead ), but TBH, it serves no purpose. He is just the face of the terrorism world now...dead or alive it makes no difference, other than to make people feel the war was worth it, and to piss off the current real terrorists.

He was an ******* and does not deserve to live, but terrorism is too big now to really think justice has been served by killing him.....

Originally Posted by Kieran123

I will believe it when I see photos.

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

Because they "apparently" killed him. Not saying they did or didn't; just that there's no proof either way.

I will laugh my ass off if Bin Laden suddenly releases an "I'm still alive" video to Al Jazeera. ;)

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

. . . given the number of innocent deaths he's responsible for, I believe the punishment fit the crimes.

At risk of getting flamed beyond recognition, isn't that what they said?

[Chief Broom]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

Spot on Zeg.

To quote a comment I made to a friend earlier, if the report is true and he has indeed been murdered I think the misguided are celebrating 'revenge', disguised as 'justice' when in reality it's 'death'; not something to be celebrated.

bin Laden's killing was an act of war, as were his actions on 9/11/01.  Keep in mind that bin Laden's intent on 9/11 in destroying the WTC was to kill upwards of 50,000 US citizens.  That's the number of people that easily could have been in the WTC that day.  That only ~3000 died was luck on our part and no doubt of great disappointment to bin Laden.  Keep also in mind that bin Laden was actively working to pull off similar operations against not just the USA, not just Europe, not even pro-Western governments in the Middle East and Africa; bin Laden was against everyone who was not in support of him.  Targeting bin Laden was the same as targeting an enemy command post in the middle of a battle.  There are times when the governments of the world have to stand up and take decisive actions to protect their citizens.  The killing of bin Laden was one of those times.  I agree this is no cause for celebration, but it was something that had to be done.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

At risk of getting flamed beyond recognition, isn't that what they said?

Not one to flame people so no worries.  My interpretation of zegs comments were that he was not entirely comfortable with the methods we used carry out justice.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Chief Broom

bin Laden's killing was an act of war, as were his actions on 9/11/01.  Keep in mind that bin Laden's intent on 9/11 in destroying the WTC was to kill upwards of 50,000 US citizens.  That's the number of people that easily could have been in the WTC that day.  That only ~3000 died was luck on our part and no doubt of great disappointment to bin Laden.  Keep also in mind that bin Laden was actively working to pull off similar operations against not just the USA, not just Europe, not even pro-Western governments in the Middle East and Africa; bin Laden was against everyone who was not in support of him.  Targeting bin Laden was the same as targeting an enemy command post in the middle of a battle.  There are times when the governments of the world have to stand up and take decisive actions to protect their citizens.  The killing of bin Laden was one of those times.  I agree this is no cause for celebration, but it was something that had to be done.

I have reservations describing this as an "act of war" because it's not clear to me how you can apply the concept of war when one side is not a well-defined sovereign state.  That's not just a semantic question, it has real implications when you consider what actions are legal, how you determine the end of the conflict, etc.  But that's off-topic here..

Regardless of what bin Laden did or what he claimed, in my mind, justice still requires due process.  Just like Hasan will receive a trial for the Ft. Hood shootings, bin Laden, even with all he did, was still entitled to a defense.  Justice should be carried out by a proper trial or equivalent, not by executive order or media-driven popular opinion.

But, like I said, given events as they apparently unfolded, this may have been acceptable.  It'd be hard to dispute that the US had a right to capture him, and if he violently resists that, returning fire is probably fair game.  (By the way, in my previous comment I meant to say "I'm not saying...this did not solve a problem..." (I left out the second "not"))  All things considered, I would have preferred that he had been captured and able to stand trial, however.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Not one to flame people so no worries.  My interpretation of zegs comments were that he was not entirely comfortable with the methods we used carry out justice.

That is correct.  I'd have been more comfortable if the emphasis had been on capturing him.

Above all, I am of the opinion that we're better off without this guy running around so I am glad that we have resolved that, don't get me wrong.  I just don't like the cheering of the death of a human.

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by Chief Broom

There are times when the governments of the world have to stand up and take decisive actions to protect their citizens.  The killing of bin Laden was one of those times.  I agree this is no cause for celebration, but it was something that had to be done.

However it's not known whether killing Bin Laden will actuall make things worse in terms of retaliation from terrorist groups affiliating themselves with Al Qaeda.

It's definitely something that a large majority of the world population wanted to see happen (revenge under the label of 'Justice') but it remains to be seen if it 'had' to be done.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon

However it's not known whether killing Bin Laden will actuall make things worse in terms of retaliation from terrorist groups affiliating themselves with Al Qaeda.

It's definitely something that a large majority of the world population wanted to see happen (revenge under the label of 'Justice') but it remains to be seen if it 'had' to be done.

Bin Laden was the "face" of Al Qaeda, but it's foolish to believe that without him the group will fall apart and we'll all be safe from terrorism.  Someone new will step up to take the lead and will look to avenge "the murder" of Osama, who has now died a martyr for his cause.  These people have different values and operate by a different set of rules than we do here in the U.S. so I'm not sure that his death does much than maybe give some closure to those who lost loved ones while Osama was in control of Al Qaeda.

[MiniBlueDragon]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Bin Laden was the "face" of Al Qaeda, but it's foolish to believe that without him the group will fall apart and we'll all be safe from terrorism.  Someone new will step up to take the lead and will look to avenge "the murder" of Osama, who has now died a martyr for his cause.  These people have different values and operate by a different set of rules than we do here in the U.S. so I'm not sure that his death does much than maybe give some closure to those who lost loved ones while Osama was in control of Al Qaeda.

Not quite sure what you read in my last post but I never said anything about Al Qaeda falling apart or being safe from terrorism without him around. In fact if you read it I said it's likely that retaliation attacks will happen from his removal so quite the opposite of what you thought I said.

I also agree that his death doesn't sort out any issues; all I've said all along is that I see no reason for people to pat themselves on the back and chant "USA... USA..." over someone's death, whether it be Bin Laden or anyone else.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by zeg

I have reservations describing this as an "act of war" because it's not clear to me how you can apply the concept of war when one side is not a well-defined sovereign state.  That's not just a semantic question, it has real implications when you consider what actions are legal, how you determine the end of the conflict, etc.  But that's off-topic here..

Regardless of what bin Laden did or what he claimed, in my mind, justice still requires due process.  Just like Hasan will receive a trial for the Ft. Hood shootings, bin Laden, even with all he did, was still entitled to a defense.  Justice should be carried out by a proper trial or equivalent, not by executive order or media-driven popular opinion.

But, like I said, given events as they apparently unfolded, this may have been acceptable.  It'd be hard to dispute that the US had a right to capture him, and if he violently resists that, returning fire is probably fair game.  (By the way, in my previous comment I meant to say "I'm not saying...this did not solve a problem..." (I left out the second "not"))  All things considered, I would have preferred that he had been captured and able to stand trial, however.

That is correct.  I'd have been more comfortable if the emphasis had been on capturing him.

Above all, I am of the opinion that we're better off without this guy running around so I am glad that we have resolved that, don't get me wrong.  I just don't like the cheering of the death of a human.

I'm holding back quite a bit here... People cheer because this man brought our country to it's knees in sadness while he celebrated. Now look at the amount of sacrifices made by servicemen from around the world because of 9/11. The other thing you're forgetting is G.W gave Osama the opportunity to turn himself over the U.S. for due process. He choose his fate at that point in my eyes and he wasn't going to be captured.

IMO his trial would have been a bigger waste of tax payer money than Barry Bonds' trial.