What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

Beantown said:
So what type of "consipracies" are you hinting at? You seem to strongly believe that our government is hiding something.

If they were hiding something Im pretty sure Osama's wife would not still be alive to tell her version of the story. She was right there when he was killed. I also dont believe the SEALS knew it was Osama until he was dead. The events would have happened so fast theres no way they could.

The only mistakes the administration is being to vague. Obama had to release the news to the world before it started getting out. Also some people in the Administration were probably "speculating" on alot of the details. In a perfect world the adminstration could have waited a few days until they got a full report back from the SEALS.

Also we dont owe your country or any other anything.
Click to expand...


lol conpsiracy.

i have no conspiracy just saying the way its been handled leaves the door open for questions.
 
DutchJazzer said:
thats why i have my doubts. look i get it why you bury obl at sea Israel does it all the time (although a lot of people around me seem to questioning the burial at sea). but so fast after the incident,no pictures, no videos, no body to investigate.
all the conflicting reports. makes me question it all.
this is turning internationally in a PR nightmare for usa. people are starting to question it al.
now maybe some of you don't care what foreigners think. but still with al technology available no seal was outfitted with some night vision camera? no evidence whatsoever. now if this evidence exist shouldn't the at least release it in some united nations assembly to certain governments/ certain diplomats. or are they afraid of wikileaks?

it is just buried in to much secrecy.
Click to expand...

Declaring wars with arbitrary/ideological enemies, such as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Terror" are nutjob wars in the first place. In the second place we didn't follow the Constitutiion in declaring the wars, just sort of gave the President a nod, and a bunch of money to spend, without defining who the enemy was, or how the war should be defined, is idiocy of the highest rank. If we had "probable cause" we could get a US judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. Then if we could seize him even in hostile territory and get him out and give him a trial, the "host" country could be intimidated at peril with good relations with the US or worldwide public opinion for harboring a heinous criminal fugitive.

Spending trillions of dollars on catching a few heinous criminals has gotta rank as the worst case of cost-effective law enforcement in our history. It's not worth turning our backs on principles like due process, and many other basic safeguards of human rights.

Like Bush giving permission to fly a planeload of Bin Laden relatives out of the USA just two days after 9/11, the decision to kill him and dump the body at sea really is a statement that US officials can't afford to let some people "talk".
 
LogGrad98 said:
You keep going back to the same limited options. Either murder him or bomb the compound. That is seriously short-sighted. The option I would choose, in your poorly thought-out question, would be to have them complete their mission and bring him back alive. If they had him safely in custody then knelt him down and shot him in the head it is illegal. Period. No debate. That is where throwing ethics and laws out the window come in to play. If they simply executed him while he was in custody, then that is just throwing the laws we have agreed to out the window.

The alternative if they had him in custody was to bring him back as Obama said their mission entailed.

You keep saying that even if they knelt him down and shot him in the head that the ONLY ALTERNATIVE was to bomb the place. I call ********. IF they had him in custody and were in a position to choose whether or not to execute him, they had plenty of options. Bringing him to justice, as was their mission as outlined by Obama, was just one of those options.
Click to expand...

Man, whatever happened happened. Whether he was killed in a firefight, or put on his knees- whatever happened happened. That is how the raid on the compound turned out.

So in your what if scenario, lets say he was put on his knees and shot in the head. That was either due to the Navy Seal being pumped up and out of control, or due to following orders to do that.

So what were the options- not send in Navy Seals because they will be too pumped up and kill him anyway? Send in less skilled soldiers that might not be successful in the mission but would probably not put him on his knees if they get to him?

And if the order came from the top, then there was no alternative, this WAS the mission.

And the only alternative to this, is not doing the raid at all. and in that case, the administration was clear the only alternative was bombing the place and killing everyone.

Your "bring him in alive" was not an option. The only possible way that could happen is in the raid, which they did, and he did not get taken alive.

By the way, read Obama's interview on CBS from last night. At one point Obama flat out says that the one part of the mission he didn't lose any sleep over was the possibility of Bin laden getting killed. he then goes on to say that justice was served, and anyone questioning that needs to have their head examined.

His comments only further strengthen my point that technically they wanted him dead or alive, but they by far preferred the dead option. They didn't send in the best Navy SEAL team to serve an arrest warrant.

And I have absolutely no problem with that. I actually applaud Obama for it.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Obama: What are the options?
Adviser # 1: We can probably get him alive if we get lucky and catch them totally off guard.
Obama: Then what do we do with him?
Adviser # 2: We could hold him on a sub somewhere and extract whatever intel he gives us, and then put him on trial under a military court on the sub.
Obama: I can't really do that after I campaigned against it. Plus the pressure from the rest of the world would be pretty great to give him a normal trial, and the red cross would entitled to inspections.
Click to expand...

1) Obama has already agreed to military trials, why would it be different for Osama?
2) The Red Cross hasn't been in to see PFC Manning, but has to be let in to see Osama? I think not.
3) I think highly enough of this country that we could have managed to secure Osama.
4) If they can disregard the laws when dealing with Osama, why should they follow the laws in dealing with you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top