Osama Bin Laden DEID

[Monster Zero]

And Saddam was a different sort of cowardice, hiding in a hold for fucks sake. Nae bloodshed.

Although it was good when 'Family Guy' did a take-off on it with Stewie being found in a hole/given a medical, etc.

I can't quite see the angle as to why the US government would fake the death of Bin Laden now, as folk mentioned, Bush had more to gain from that years ago.

Maybe Obama's Birth Certificate was fake after all and it's a smokescreen story.

Fucking Trump, fucks up our beaches and the 1st Black President of the Universe.

[Scootray]

I don't think you could blame any American soldier for pulling the trigger even if Osama was unarmed. I couldn't care if he was killed in a firefight or executed. The man would've ended up dead anyway through the death penalty.

[Monster Zero]

I am on your side if you read all my other posts...

and i was only comparing the news coverage to 1984, not the situation.

But why this particular coverage? Why does that story represent brainwashing rather than any other that appears day on day? That assumes it is inaccurate? To prove that requires proof to the contrary? I'm just nae getting why folk are so keen to discredit this, totally bizarre.

Just because footage of a military operation wasn't released? There must be hundreds of such operations that aren't made public for one reason or another so why is this one so critical to be proven?

[Monster Zero]

I don't think you could blame any American soldier for pulling the trigger even if Osama was unarmed. I couldn't care if he was killed in a firefight or executed. The man would've ended up dead anyway through the death penalty.

Exactly. If I was in that situation and some cunt was firing at me I don't think ensuring his route to a jail cell would be top of my list of things to do.

[Monster Zero]

With the idea already in place in my head that it could be faked, it crossed my mind while reading it. It wasn't me going along with the "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!" argument.

Oh I see. But my point stands that you could regard any story as fake if you thought along those lines. Wayne Rooney didn't really shag that granny prossie. It was all faked footage by a cartel of Liverpudlians under direction of Everton FC who were still a bit peeved he fucked off to Man Yoo.

I suppose after 10 years it's just ripe for that kind of theorising...

[FatHand]

Lob da man in sea

The Americans might just have been reading too much into his name.

[Guest Gladstone]

Ok, so it's transpired he was unarmed and not using anyone as a human shield. According to the Radio 4 report this morning anyway. And more people than the three originally mentioned were killed with at least one other (his wife) being shot in the leg.

The way that sounds to me is they went in with the intention of killing Bin Laden, regardless of what happened.

However, they are still saying there was a firefight, so it could be that they thought he'd be armed, and rather than waiting to see if he fired at them, in the heat of the moment, they shot him in the face.

As I said before, I'd rather he was captured and tried etc and even more so now, hearing that he was unarmed. I'm not saying it was a bad call by the soldier that shot him, because I have no idea what the situation was. I just think there will be more of a backlash now that the world knows he was unarmed. I know there would be a backlash anyway, but I just think it will give them more reason to be aggrieved if their leader was shot and killed whilst he was unarmed.

BBC News - LIVE: Osama Bin Laden dead

[Jaaakkkeee]

Said in the news this morning that the White House confirmed he was unarmed. So if there was a firefight he wasn't shooting.

[Jaaakkkeee]

Beaten to the punch but I think I'm agreeing with you anyway. He should've been tried first.

And if put to death, not by hanging. I still can't believe they hung Saddam. I mean, we're not in the fucking 1800s. There's injections and stuff now.

Speaking of Saddam, the best parody of him being found was in Arrested Development.

[Scootray]

I just think it will give them more reason to be aggrieved if their leader was shot and killed whilst he was unarmed.

Poor them, eh?

[Woodsinho]

What would the point in a trial be? It's not like he's maintained his innocence for the last 10 years. There's nothing to be proven in court.

[Jaaakkkeee]

What would the point in a trial be? It's not like he's maintained his innocence for the last 10 years. There's nothing to be proven in court.

No matter the crime everyone has the right to a trial. Someone could be seen by the world killing and raping people but they would still get a trial.

[Stroopy121]

You'd need an impartial judge and an impartial jury which you'll never, ever, find.

xx

[Jaaakkkeee]

You'd need an impartial judge and an impartial jury which you'll never, ever, find.

xx

I know. But dressing it up and giving him a trial even though everyone knows he's getting the death sentence is better than a Navy Seal deciding his fate in the heat of the moment.

[Stroopy121]

From the sound of it though, his fate was decided in a government board room when the op was planned...

It's not like they were told to bring him alive under any circumstances then one guy in the heat of the moment shot him on impulse.

Again, just devil's advocate..

xx

[Hugh_Jazz]

there is just so much wrong with that though. Where do we put him? We can't just throw him in the worst conditions possible because of human rights, so goes into a prison with decent living conditions with three square meals a day. What country would have him as well? Not to mention the point i made earlier, you can't just take the worlds most wanted man and trial him in any old country you like to suit what laws they have their and what penalty he gets.

No matter the crime everyone has the right to a trial. Someone could be seen by the world killing and raping people but they would still get a trial.

If Bin Laden had been put on trial, whether deserved or not, it would have been nothing more than a Stalinist show trial......the justice you seek would never have been served.

For him to have a "fair" trial, you'd need a neutral venue in a neutral country. What would possess any neutral country to have anything to do with him? It instantly makes them a target.

None of us should be gloating over Bin Laden's death, but I really fail to understand why anyone gives a fuck that he's dead.

[Jaaakkkeee]

From the sound of it though, his fate was decided in a government board room when the op was planned...

It's not like they were told to bring him alive under any circumstances then one guy in the heat of the moment shot him on impulse.

Again, just devil's advocate..

xx

Well to keep people like me happy they should've given him a trial. I thought we were meant to past the age of secrets and covert assination ops. why don't they just do the same with gadaffi? Why don't they just bomb kim jong il's house?

[Guest Gladstone]

Poor them, eh?

Not my point at all. More that, because they will feel aggrieved, the backlash will be worse.

The point of taking Bin Laden out is supposed to be to make the world a safer place. My opinion is that capturing Bin Laden or killing him will result in a backlash, especially in the short term. The backlash will be worse if they hear that he was killed whilst he was unarmed. If they had captured him and put him to trial and then executed him, they would feel aggrieved and there would be a backlash, but I don't think executing him without trial is any better in that respect.

[Stroopy121]

Well to keep people like me happy they should've given him a trial. I thought we were meant to past the age of secrets and covert assination ops. why don't they just do the same with gadaffi? Why don't they just bomb kim jong il's house?

Because someone has to have a line in the sand (no pun intended) somewhere?

I suppose Bin Laden was different as he was responsible (provided of course you believe he was...) for a direct attack on the US... That's what I'd say the difference is, anyway. These other dictators, although we disagree with their 'policies' are a different kettle of fish. IMHO.

xx

[Jaaakkkeee]

Because someone has to have a line in the sand (no pun intended) somewhere?

I suppose Bin Laden was different as he was responsible (provided of course you believe he was...) for a direct attack on the US... That's what I'd say the difference is, anyway. These other dictators, although we disagree with their 'policies' are a different kettle of fish. IMHO.

xx

I'd say the way Kim Jong Il's been acting he poses a threat to the west. He has seemed to have calmed down now but I think if Bush was still in the chair USA would be at war with him too.

Saddam didn't pose a threat to us but we still bombed the fuck out of him.

We're sending troops to Libya and risking their lives even though it's a different kettle of fish.

[Hugh_Jazz]

if Bush was still in the chair USA would be at war with him too.

Nonsense.

[delboy]

My first reaction was the whole thing was made up in order to get the American people on the side of President Obama whose popularity is waning and re-election is on the cards soon. So now I'm pretty convinced they did go in and shoot someone but whether it actually was Bin Laden remains to be seen! I love a good conspiracy theory.

What bugs me is this is typical of America. Bully boy tactics when it suits. I think the announcement has made the situation worse. Young kids will be blowing themselves up more in public places, suicide bombing is the way these nutters are going to go. Plenty of willing participants and almost impossible to stop.

I sat very uneasy at the masses taking the streets in celebration as well as the president and his cronies all watching it on live video feeds. No matter how you dress it up and since Bin Laden was unarmed it was murder. But its ok cos he was a bad man, well a very naughty boy!

Politicians really do think we're thick. Ed Milliband was one who was mumbling the world is a safer place.... er I don't think so, it's made things much worse.

Bin Laden was just one of the figureheads of Al Qeada - he was more than happy to take the blame for Sept 11th although whether he did is debatable. There is no doubt he was a dispicable human being fuelled on a diet of terror and hatred. Al Qeada will live on and probably get stronger as a result.

I thought he'd been retired for years. America really do need to look at their own actions at times and have a sit down and wonder just why they are so hated around the world.

They probably saw all the happiness and joy a royal wedding brought and wanted a slice of the action!

[scottyboy]

I'd say the way Kim Jong Il's been acting he poses a threat to the west. He has seemed to have calmed down now but I think if Bush was still in the chair USA would be at war with him too.

Saddam didn't pose a threat to us but we still bombed the fuck out of him.

We're sending troops to Libya and risking their lives even though it's a different kettle of fish.

Kim Jong Il has a state, a populace, a rather large army and possibly a nuclear weapon or two. There are myriad other reasons for not starting a war with North Korea, the flood of refugees into China, the economic damage to the South (and probably the world) etc.

[Hugh_Jazz]

Kim Jong Il has a state, a populace, a rather large army and possibly a nuclear weapon or two. There are myriad other reasons for not starting a war with North Korea, the flood of refugees into China, the economic damage to the South (and probably the world) etc.

Not to mention the fact that North Korea are buddies with China....oh, and Russia is on the border too.

Apart from that, it's a great idea.

[Scootray]

Not my point at all. More that, because they will feel aggrieved, the backlash will be worse.

The point of taking Bin Laden out is supposed to be to make the world a safer place. My opinion is that capturing Bin Laden or killing him will result in a backlash, especially in the short term. The backlash will be worse if they hear that he was killed whilst he was unarmed. If they had captured him and put him to trial and then executed him, they would feel aggrieved and there would be a backlash, but I don't think executing him without trial is any better in that respect.

Trial or not, there would've been a backlash. I don't think it'll be any "worse". They don't like us, we don't like them. I can't see the new commander of Al-Queda thinking "Oh, they gave him a trial lads, let's go easy on them, eh?"

At the end of the day, he orchestrated the deaths of thousands of innocents, so for Al-Queda to be angry that he was unarmed when killed is laughable.