What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

If they had bombed Osama would you "rule of law" people still be taking issue with what happened? Because technically they would be bombing someone who had no way of bombing them back...
 
DutchJazzer said:
thats what i am trying to say. should get better in english.

i know what osama did brings up a lot of emotions in certain americans. and most of the m throw the laws out of the window.
Click to expand...

I wonder why?.....maybe because 9/11 was the most emotional event that have ever occured in our borders.

Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.

The fact that you are questioning the top Navy seals judgement in favor of being more just to Osama Bin Laden is disgusting.
 
Dutch, how would you be reacting if one of the drone bombs had hit Osama in the mountains back in 2001?
 
Last edited:
Beantown said:
Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.
Click to expand...

could be they reacted emotionally we might never know cus all the evidence got destroyed
.

take eichman for example captured in argentina by private citizen brought to trail. now that's true justice
 
Dutch, how would you be reacting if one of the drone bombs had hit Osama in the mountains back in 2001?
 
DutchJazzer said:
could be they reacted emotionally we might never know cus all the evidence got destroyed
.

take eichman for example captured in argentina by private citizen brought to trail. now that's true justice
Click to expand...

What evidence got destroyed? You mean the body? What could be more incriminating about the body than what they've already admitted themselves?
 
Beantown said:
I wonder why?.....maybe because 9/11 was the most emotional event that have ever occured in our borders.

Dutch why should I trust your judgement over the top Navy Seals of our county? It was their decision to shoot him if they felt threated.

The fact that you are questioning the top Navy seals judgement in favor of being more just to Osama Bin Laden is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Or if they were ordered to. That is the point of a debriefing and investigation, to find out what happened.
 
And lobbing bombs at each other is a far different situation than standing in a room with someone pointing a gun at them. The Geneva Convention makes a distinction. In an all out fire fight people are going to die, of course. But that is completely different than asking the question, could they have captured him instead of killing him.

The issue I have is just the total disregard for even considering the possibility that maybe we did something wrong in all this. Not that it is not wrong that OBL is dead or captured, but as per international agreements and laws, if we simply executed him if there were no threat, that would be wrong.

And I thank God we have "rule of law" people that are willing to speak out. If we did not expect the government, or each other, to follow the rule of law, or if we did not hold people accountable to the law, where would we be as a country or a society? Even if we don't always agree with or like the laws. We can't just pick and choose which ones we follow because we think one guy is worse than another.

No one answered my original question. At what point does the law break down, do our personal ethics break down, and we find it acceptable as a society to step outside the laws and just give in to the blood lust for revenge? How bad does the offense have to be, or how mad or outraged do we have to be to justify ignoring the law in our desire for vengeance?
 
LogGrad98 said:
And lobbing bombs at each other is a far different situation than standing in a room with someone pointing a gun at them. The Geneva Convention makes a distinction. In an all out fire fight people are going to die, of course. But that is completely different than asking the question, could they have captured him instead of killing him.

The issue I have is just the total disregard for even considering the possibility that maybe we did something wrong in all this. Not that it is not wrong that OBL is dead or captured, but as per international agreements and laws, if we simply executed him if there were no threat, that would be wrong.

And I thank God we have "rule of law" people that are willing to speak out. If we did not expect the government, or each other, to follow the rule of law, or if we did not hold people accountable to the law, where would we be as a country or a society? Even if we don't always agree with or like the laws. We can't just pick and choose which ones we follow because we think one guy is worse than another.

No one answered my original question. At what point does the law break down, do our personal ethics break down, and we find it acceptable as a society to step outside the laws and just give in to the blood lust for revenge? How bad does the offense have to be, or how mad or outraged do we have to be to justify ignoring the law in our desire for vengeance?
Click to expand...

How would bombing Osama in cold-blood be any different than shooting him?
 
So were you all crying this hard when the US was trying to kill Osama by bombing the hell out of the mountains in Afghanistan in 2001?
 
Wow have you guys even read what is being said or do you just skim it long enough to see that you don't agree then just slam it. Have you ever even perused any of the articles of the Geneva Convention treaties? In Afghanistan they were fighting back. They were not just sitting there waiting. The forces in Afghanistan were continually fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It was an all-out battle. In any battle the goal is to overwhelm the enemy. If you can kill their leaders, the fight ends faster.

The same applies in smaller skirmishes. If they encountered resistance in the compound when they invaded to apprehend OBL, which is what they said they did, then they were completely within all rights to kill him. I believe this is how it went down.

But you really cannot see a distinction between those scenarios and the possibility that he just stood there and surrendered and we killed him anyway?


Let's phrase it this way. If it turns out that the Seals burst into his room, and he was just standing there in his pajamas and they walked over to him, made him kneel down, and shot him in the head, would it make it any different to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top