Bin Laden raid 'not assassination'

[TruthSeeker]

I'm a soccerfan and a former player. Centrehalf is a position on the pitch. I'm an American, I am a Detroiter, and I'm a veteran. I hope I cleared that up for you.

Well, welcome to the "party", Centrehalf. Former Michigander here, from the Detroit 'burbs.

 

[Rick]

I'm a soccerfan and a former player. Centrehalf is a position on the pitch. I'm an American, I am a Detroiter, and I'm a veteran. I hope I cleared that up for you.

I'm originally from Toledo. Pretty much the same type of place. I read really sad things about both cities - schools closing, house prices at very low levels, people leaving, unemployment, gangs, etc.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Let me see. You must be a FEMALE liberal. You are overly emotional, shrill to the point of being mentally unstable, and you whine alot.

You are also high school educated, at best. Your lack of spelling skills, your lack of knowledge of U.S. history, your lack of intellectual honesty, immaturity, extremely poor debating skills, and your brutal hypocrisy and lack of integrity, betray you, over and over again.

And lastly, you must be over 40 years old. As Winston Churchill so famously stated, "If you are not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are 40, you have no brain".

I am tired of playing with you. Take the few marbles you have, and go home.

aww I am so hurt....I have a BA and a AAS in Pol Sci, and Marketing, minor in Int Studies....If buy poor debate skills you mean, posting to many facts you cant understand so have nothing else to do but cry about spelling ( when you can't even figure out the difference from a spelling error and a typo..) well that you go ahead and think that...guess what like I said I have never claimed to be a great speller, and I type fast so whoop de do...Does not make your point any more correct at all...in fact like in the school of Debate , the one who says nazi first has lost the debate...the net school says the guy *****ing about spelling , knows he can't win on facts...

I must be over 40? odd thing to say since I am liberal and not over 40...so based on Churchill says...I am where I should be...thing is I bet Churchhill would never say that if he looked at the American right today and the tea party...

But its funny, you claim Hypocricy again and again, yet you can't actully show any...does saying it and calling names make it true to you? I guess so.
what becuse I supported the Surge in Iraq but not the going in? Sorry I guess its just wrong to deal with the fact that we had in fact gone in, and to understand that what was needed when we where in and that we did not have enough troops to do the job they needed to be able to do.

in your view if you drive up to a cliff and there is a drop of 500 feet down and there is a small jump and its about 25 feet to the other side...and you say you should not drive over it...but the driver who has all the control says I don't care I am going to do it...and starts driving at it at 20 miles per hour and its not fast enough to make it over...if I say to speed up so that we don't crash and die....I am a Hypocrite because I said don't drive over it in the first place...

or is it because I don't care that a rapper went into the white house and read a poem...but he is someone that said something others don't like....so did in fact Bush H W and W...but guess what I did not care about them as well...you did not care until it was Obama in the white house...NWA can chill in the White House but Common is so bad he can't? I am a hypocrite...because when Fox news reads off lyrics to a song...I read the next line that throws out the point of Fox news.... Fox news quotes lyrics about violance...and ignores the little part right after..."no time for that...cuz we got things to be done...stay true to what I do so the youth dream come"

I don't don't rant that Fox News Supports Assination of the president...even though Nuggent says it about as clear as can be...but he is a freind of Fox and the Right...He is a nut job...and you know what...when one of his songs comes on the radio...I turn it up....because I don't care...you do, wait you pretend to care is more like it...its made up anger, spoon feed by a news agency that makes billions of people like you. I don't sit there and try to take Johny Cash songs out of Context and then Bash Bush having him in the white house...I could its easy, Cash sings about Cocain, murder and lots of non family values stuff...But I own one of his CD's and I don't care...becuse I undstand story telling, and songs telling a story, and context...

lack of integrity? hmm on like you, I back up my views. I stand by them...and when someone shows real proof I am wrong, I can take it and admit I am wrong. I have done it on here more then a few times...just have others have done to me...thing is your mad because I have not to you? there is a simple reason...you have said nothing to earn it, you have been wrong over and over..and overly simplistic in your view of just about anything that does not fit your black and white liberal conservitive preset notions. You want me to show that "integrity" you claim there is one way you can do that..try knowing what your talking about it will be a good start.

But I don't expect you to, people like you, rick, gipper...your a dime a dozen on these sites...full of rants and strongly held and poorly researched ideas...and compleatly unable to process ideas and facts that don't fit what you want to hear. people like me take large complicated issues like war and terrorism and try to view them threw the big picture and both what works and with a sense of morals as well. I know that Terrorism is a very complicated issues, and the COIN Operations are one of the trickiest and hardest operations for a nation to fight....people like you see things in the black and white most simplistic idea and throw out anything else...It makes you feel all big and strong...even if the fact is your actions help the other side more then they help you. You think the show 24 is real life, and ignore real CIA FBI interagators who say that something does not work and in fact often counter productive. People like you years later claim things like..KSM gave us intel under waterboarding though...like when the Bush White House said it helped stop a plot against LA...ignoring 23 Intel people who basicly , and in one case said it exactly...that the Bush White House was full of ****. that there was no real plot and that the intel had been debunked ( shocking case or guy tortured saying untrue things? your kidding!)
But you claim its not torture... funny thing is , most people who make that claim...are chicken hawks...people who really have dealt with it...LIke McCain...or even Jesse Ventura who was waterboarded for SEAR training...will flat out tell you it it. ( also Jesse brings up a good point, if its not, why did not not torture,..I mean waterboard Timmy McV and his pal for OK City...or is it only work on Muslims?)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'm a soccerfan and a former player. Centrehalf is a position on the pitch. I'm an American, I am a Detroiter, and I'm a veteran. I hope I cleared that up for you.

there is no way thats true...a american that plays soccer? jk

 

[GenSeneca]

lack of integrity? hmm on like you, I back up my views. I stand by them...and when someone shows real proof I am wrong, I can take it and admit I am wrong.

Really? You still claim that Higher Taxes = Greater Revenue but when challenged on that assertion, and presented with actual empirical data contradicting your claim, you don't "back up your views" with anything more than rhetoric or you simply avoid the conversation.

 

[Hobo1]

I really don't think you can define foreign policy in terms of conservative or liberal, particularly now in the middle of this "war on terrorism". Clearly there is a difference of opinion on the correct course of action, but labels don't seem to stick.

I consider Obama to be the archetypical liberal. Yet, he seems to be following Bush's so called, Neo-Conservative approach to foreign policy. Bush sends in a surge to Iraq; Obama sends in a surge to Afghanistan. Bush starts a war Iraq; Obama starts a war with Libya. Now we discover that Pakistan and Yemen have been the problem all along! Bush and Obama are both wrong.

I am for bringing home all the troops and strengthen our intelligence network with spies and strategic raids on terrorist camps. So where does that put me? Maybe a Neo-Independent?

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't know if Osama, nor do I know if Obama can be tried under International Law. What I do know, as an American, is that it is against all the principles we stand for to shoot a man in cold blood. Those are the principles we want other parts of the world to abide by. Justice for all. An accused man is entitled to a fair and objective justice before he is punished. That is the foundation of our civilization.

All of the military services have even stronger codes of ethics than any international convention.

In war every single solider on the enemy lines does not get a trial. The President simply instructs all of our soldiers to kill all of theirs. Osama was the head of a military operation and as such does not get a trial. It is the American way for our soldiers to kill their soldiers.

Those who said he should get a trial were wrong ever since war was declared.


But if a trial is what you want then wasn't he tried for the first wtc attack?

 

[TruthSeeker]

In war every single solider on the enemy lines does not get a trial. The President simply instructs all of our soldiers to kill all of theirs. Osama was the head of a military operation and as such does not get a trial. It is the American way for our soldiers to kill their soldiers.

Those who said he should get a trial were wrong ever since war was declared.

But if a trial is what you want then wasn't he tried for the first wtc attack?

Your explanation is simple and perfect. Our soldiers kill our enemy's soldiers, and we win (most of the time). It's all very simple.

Only AFTER we have defeated the enemy and they have surrendered, do we worry about trials and "crimes against humanity" committed by our defeated enemies, and they are tried before a MILITARY tribunal.

End of story.

If Osama had thrown his hands up, instead of pushing one of his wives into the SEAL team, maybe the dirty yak would still be alive, which would be unfortunate.

OBL is dead, and I am very happy about that! It may be a symbolic death (it was ALWAYS going to be a symbolic death), but having him DEAD is "justice served".

 

[PLC1]

Bullshiit. The word "brazen" doesn't adequately characterize the hypocrisy of liberals in their opinions of Bush's vs obozo's actions in the same categories.

No, you have constructed a caricature of anyone who doesn't share your point of view, and labeled them "liberals". You could have labeled them anything. The caricature you have created exists only in your own mind, not in the real world. Anyone who disagrees with your POV, then, is labeled "liberal", and fits the caricature you have created, at least in your opinion. That is why the people in the real world you have so labeled don't act or think the way you seem to expect them to.

As for Bush vs "Obozo", the main difference between the two is that one has an R after his name, while the other has a D. Their policies are very similar. To say the one is a "liberal" while the other is a 'conservative", or a non liberal is to ignore the real world actions each has taken.

 

[dahermit]

In war every single solider on the enemy lines does not get a trial. The President simply instructs all of our soldiers to kill all of theirs. Osama was the head of a military operation and as such does not get a trial. It is the American way for our soldiers to kill their soldiers.

For your information, there has been charges against American soldiers in every recent war called: "illegal killing". In essence, there are strict rules of when to fire and whom to fire at. If it is alright to fire on any unarmed "rag head" in a combat zone, those soldiers who have done so would not have been charged with an illegal killing. Consider that their could have been some question if it was Bin Ladin or his barber, cook, porno supplier, etc. In any case, one would wonder how shooting an unarmed Bin Ladin is different from killing any unarmed Arab male...who could have be captured without too much trouble.

 

[Rick]

No, you have constructed a caricature of anyone who doesn't share your point of view, and labeled them "liberals". You could have labeled them anything. The caricature you have created exists only in your own mind, not in the real world.

I ALWAYS deal in facts, and the above is starting to be recognizable as your standard non-response, apparently because you feel that you're unable to debate the issues.

As for Bush vs "Obozo", the main difference between the two is that one has an R after his name, while the other has a D. Their policies are very similar.

Bush IS a RINO, but the above is manifest nonsense. Did Bush go on apology tours criticizing america in foreign countries, and bow and scrape to dictators? No. Did Bush propose a massive take-over of the health care system? No. Did Bush appoint a who's who list of the american leftwing in the executive branch? No. Did Bush force out the GM bond holders? No. Did Bush threaten to close down Gitmo prisons for the islamofascists? No. Did Bush stop the investigation of the black panthers intimidating white voters at polling places? No. Did Bush threaten to shut down conservative talk radio with a resurrection of the "fairness doctrine"? No. Was Bush tutored by communists in his youth? No. Did Bush launch an "investigation" of the CIA agents who interrogated the Gitmo IFs? No. Did Bush suggest $500 billion be taken out of already underfunded medicare? No.

Enough. You're gradually morphing into PFS - a person who just blathers falsity.

 

[Hobo1]

End of story.
If Osama had thrown his hands up, instead of pushing one of his wives into the SEAL team, maybe the dirty yak would still be alive, which would be unfortunate.

Not quite end of story.. some "US Officials" said.... Osama bin Laden 'was not armed and did not use wife as human shield' Told by some.

Other US Officials told other stories.....Osama's wife served as human shield, says US official.

 

[Hobo1]

Here is an interesting analysis of opinions about the legality of Death of Osama bin Laden. I guess lots of experts disagree on this issue. (from Wikipedia)

"University of Texas School of Law Professor Robert M. Chesney said that it was lawful to kill bin Laden "if he's doing anything other than surrendering".[192] Martin Scheinin, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, said: "The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused. Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag."[199] Professor Matthew Waxman at Columbia Law School, an expert in national security law, said "under international law, U.S. forces would have substantial discretion to use lethal force given that this was a military operation against an enemy commander likely to pose a very serious threat to U.S. forces".[193]

Benjamine B. Ferencz, one of the former chief prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials,[202] questioned the legality of killing and said it would have been "better to capture bin Laden and send him to court ... Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law." He also claimed that "the issue [with Bin Laden's death] is whether what was done was an act of legitimate self-defence".[203] Australian-born British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson said that the killing risked undermining the rule of law. "The security council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict."[204] British law professor Philippe Sands QC, speaking to the BBC, acknowledged that under what is known as the doctrine of necessity, where there is an "overriding threat to national security", such an act might not give rise to responsibility or liability, but warned that that argument was made more difficult against a background of a rise in extrajudicial killings, including through the use of drones".

Louise Doswald-Beck, a former legal chief for the Red Cross, said that bin Laden was clearly not an enemy combatant. "He was basically head of a terrorist criminal network, which means that you're not really looking at the law of armed conflict but at lethal action against a dangerous criminal."[205] Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law."[194] Human Rights Watch said "law enforcement" principles should have applied.[198]"​

 

[Rick]

The continued attempt to portray al qaeda and its works as just ordinary crime goes beyond stupid - it's a wholesale disconnect from reality. If osama was surrendering, or even if he was just unarmed and made no threatening moves, his killing violated the rules of war.

 

[Hobo1]

The continued attempt to portray al qaeda and its works as just ordinary crime goes beyond stupid - it's a wholesale disconnect from reality. If osama was surrendering, or even if he was just unarmed and made no threatening moves, his killing violated the rules of war.

No one is trying to portray al Qaeda as "ordinary criminals". That is missing the point. The Mafia are not "ordinary criminals". The issue in question is the idea that if a group of Navy Seals, who have secured the incident scene and are facing a defenseless man, can (or should) they shoot him in the head. "Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law."

Why do we want to kill him? Revenge? Fear he may be released by a jury? Or, that we simply was a guy who had crossed over some invisible line that made him so bad that he no longer deserves any justice?

If he would have had a gun, or if he tried any action that was threatening, to the Seals, then he should have been shot. But despite the many rumors it sounds like the US military simply executed him. To me that is morally wrong.

But, hey, as I tried to show in my previous post, different experts have different opinions. So, I will not try claim the moral high ground, but it doesn't sound right to me. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue, or pro-Obama, anti-Obama issue. To me, it is simply a matter of shooting an unarmed, non-threatening man as being wrong.