Bin Laden is dead

[Beantown]

I already answered all that if you actually read my responses. I responded to all of those issues. And I did not compare it to other wars in my last post, I answered your assertion about the military making mistakes. You brought it up, I responded to it.

So I have answered all of your assertions, why won't you answer my question?

Would you be perfectly happy to find out the Seals took OBL in his jammies, unarmed, and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head? Is that ok by you?

No not really, you should have watched Seth Meyers on SNL last night. He basically said we dont give a crap if Obama was holding a gun, he could have been a bunny rabbit for all we care. I just care that he's dead. Either by gunshot or bombs. He did not deserve to live.

But I believe if the Seals that if he would have surrendered they would have taken him in.

 

[LogGrad98]

I already said ad nauseum that I agreed with how the Seals handled it. I also agree he did not deserve to live, and I am glad he is gone.

But if the Seals found him in his pajamas unarmed and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head, I also think that would be wrong. IF they could have, then they should have brought him back alive to stand trial.

Personally I think he should have rotted in a prison till he died of old age at 90, forced to live without his freedom. In the position he was in, killing him was the way he would have wanted to go out, so Al Qaeda could make a martyr out of him. Locked away and impotent would have been a far worse fate for him and for his terrorist groups.

But that is what I wanted to know. I was curious how people would feel about if it turned out they COULD have apprehended him but instead just executed him, like in his pajamas, completely unarmed. I for one think that would have been wrong if that happened. It would also be against the Geneva Convention and would be classified a grave war crime.

Which also begs the other question I posed earlier that no one tackled. How bad does it have to be, how mad do we have to get or how many people does someone have to kill before it becomes ok to toss our laws and ethics as a society out the window and just give in to the blood lust of revenge?

 

[DutchJazzer]

nice going log to bad i cant rep you for a while.
i for one am not glad osama is dead. cus knowing muslims death is nothing. he should have rot in jail.
if he resisted then he should have been shot.

trust me some guys will go to the court in Den Hague the international court and demand a investigation trail. they went to their local policie station to report a crime(the murder of osama. the local cops just send them to den Hague international court or something.

then if and note that i say IF the seasl just executed him. the usa might get some heat for that. not much since UN Geneva convention are a joke when it comes to enforcing the rules

 

[Jerry Lundegaard]

Haven't read a page of this... But I think everyone needs to take a break, get up and ****ing dance!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn1Ca8izXto

 

[candrew]

But that is what I wanted to know. I was curious how people would feel about if it turned out they COULD have apprehended him but instead just executed him, like in his pajamas, completely unarmed. I for one think that would have been wrong if that happened. It would also be against the Geneva Convention and would be classified a grave war crime.

Which also begs the other question I posed earlier that no one tackled. How bad does it have to be, how mad do we have to get or how many people does someone have to kill before it becomes ok to toss our laws and ethics as a society out the window and just give in to the blood lust of revenge?

It makes no difference if he was armed or not. Bin Laden was classified as an enemy combatant - he does not have to be armed to be considered a grave threat. Short of throwing up his hands and saying "I surrender" the Navy Seals acted appropriately. Furthermore, The Navy Seals took on gunfire from the guest house next to Bin Laden's house upon entering the compound so any negative action that Bin Laden took (e.g. trying to flee, barricading himself in a room) should be considered a hostile action.

Having said that, apparently, a story that has been floating around Pakistan for the last week and hasn't really made headlines here is Bin Laden's wife (or daughter, I forget) claims the Navy Seals apprehended Bin Laden, questioned him briefly and then shot him in the head. If true, I would bet that kill order came directly from President Obama - that **** is ice cold. Although, quite frankly, I still won't lose any sleep.

 

[Beantown]

But if the Seals found him in his pajamas unarmed and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head, I also think that would be wrong. IF they could have, then they should have brought him back alive to stand trial.

Why are you arguing something that didn't even happen. The what if's game is pretty stupid.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why are you arguing something that didn't even happen. The what if's game is pretty stupid.

It is funny you do not know the difference between arguing and speculating. I find it interesting to challenge how I think about things. One way of doing that is by posing what-if questions and seeing how it would be answered, by myself and others, and challenging what I assume. Also, in this case, the official debrief and investigations have not happened or have not been released yet, so we still do not know for certain what did happen, so it is valid to discuss the possibilities.

I personally find it stupid to accept everything you are told at face value and never question anything. If that is the way you roll, more power to you.

 

[LogGrad98]

It makes no difference if he was armed or not. Bin Laden was classified as an enemy combatant - he does not have to be armed to be considered a grave threat. Short of throwing up his hands and saying "I surrender" the Navy Seals acted appropriately. Furthermore, The Navy Seals took on gunfire from the guest house next to Bin Laden's house upon entering the compound so any negative action that Bin Laden took (e.g. trying to flee, barricading himself in a room) should be considered a hostile action.

Having said that, apparently, a story that has been floating around Pakistan for the last week and hasn't really made headlines here is Bin Laden's wife (or daughter, I forget) claims the Navy Seals apprehended Bin Laden, questioned him briefly and then shot him in the head. If true, I would bet that kill order came directly from President Obama - that **** is ice cold. Although, quite frankly, I still won't lose any sleep.

That would not be just ice cold, but potentially a grave war crime per the Geneva Convention.

It really is interesting, to Dutch's point earlier, how little Americans know or care about those treaties that were largely forged by Americans after the second world war. We wrote them, for the most part, and we signed off on them, but piss us off enough and you can just chuck any agreement or law out the window. I think that is morally bankrupt and damaging to society as a whole.

 

[Beantown]

Then what if Bin Laden was shot by s sniper eating his breakfast?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That would not be just ice cold, but potentially a grave war crime per the Geneva Convention.

It really is interesting, to Dutch's point earlier, how little Americans know or care about those treaties that were largely forged by Americans after the second world war. We wrote them, for the most part, and we signed off on them, but piss us off enough and you can just chuck any agreement or law out the window. I think that is morally bankrupt and damaging to society as a whole.

Those laws were written a long time ago to enforce rules in wars that were nothing like what we are engaged in right now.

We tried to fight Bin Laden's army in a traditional war but he chose to do it this way. And this was a typical battlefield in this non traditional war.

It's pretty funny that clowns keep insinuating that killing a bunch of innocent women, children, and civilians would have been preferable to this.

And you may not realize that you are insinuating this, but you are. Follow me here...

You are saying that it would have been totally okay to drop a big *** bomb (or several) and destroy that whole compound, killing everyone in it. Even though there were several women and children there (who did not get killed with this surgical strike) and it would have probably killed some neighboring civilians. This would have been totally fine with you and totally legal under the Geneva Convention rules. Even though Bin Laden wouldn't have been shooting at the person who launched the missile, and may not have even been armed when the strike occurred, it would have been totally fine to kill him and everyone else with a missile strike.

You are saying that it may not have been okay to send in a team and just kill Bin Laden. Even though we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there, killing Bin Laden may have been wrong because maybe he himself wasn't shooting.

I'm of the opinion that throwing a hand grenade in an enemy foxhole in the middle of a battle is okay. Even though there is a chance you will kill someone that isn't shooting at you, it's still okay.

This was a battle. This was not a World War 2 type of battle, and Al Queda was not a World War 2 type of army. But it was still a battle in a long war.

And to answer your question, I already said I would have preferred they capture Bin Laden and then put him on a nationwide parade with everyone getting a free shot. Short of that, I have no problem with them shooting him in the head and I would have loved to be the guy to do it.

 

[One Brow]

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...

As far as I know, assassination-byu-bombing is not a violation of the Geneva convention/international law.

 

[One Brow]

Those laws were written a long time ago to enforce rules in wars that were nothing like what we are engaged in right now.

Then we should withdraw from the treaty if we really believe that as a nation.

You are saying that it would have been totally okay to drop a big *** bomb (or several) and destroy that whole compound, killing everyone in it.

You seem to be confusing "legal" with "OK". I actually think sending in the SEAL team was the correct (and legal) call, but the bombing would also have been legal, just less ideal.

Even though Bin Laden wouldn't have been shooting at the person who launched the missile, and may not have even been armed when the strike occurred, it would have been totally fine to kill him and everyone else with a missile strike.

In wartime, a minority of bombs get aimed at targets firing at them directly, to my understanding.

You are saying that it may not have been okay to send in a team and just kill Bin Laden. Even though we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there, killing Bin Laden may have been wrong because maybe he himself wasn't shooting.

Executions without trials are wrong. However, jsut because bin Landen did not have a gun does not mean he was executed.

I'm of the opinion that throwing a hand grenade in an enemy foxhole in the middle of a battle is okay. Even though there is a chance you will kill someone that isn't shooting at you, it's still okay.

I agree, but that is not relevant to the point.