bin laden announced killed

[gnossos]

yeah smells funny to me, it would have been an act of sedition...

just for fun and to stoke the flame though, as if anyone would go after him for it!

ah, I think I found the source of the confusion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... pound.html

"Mr Panetta also revealed that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president."

They were on a capture-or-kill mission so the final call of whether to capture or kill him would have been at their discretion.

[KevLa]

We'll if that's you meant Kev, I apologize...

Your apology is gratefully received and accepted. I was referring to the meddlers described by gnossos, the people who planned the attack on the World Trade Center (and those who carried it out), the people who responded by waging war on an emotion (terror), the attackers retaliating to this, and the people I now hear shot an unarmed man whose power / influence was thus magnified when his capture and criminal trial might have done something to diminish said power / influence. In my opinion, pretty much everyone involved in the whole sorry mess, should have thought more about the implications their actions might have.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -Grand Master Yoda (Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace).

PS. I'm very sorry to hear about your cousin.

[KevLa]

One less alleged freedom-fighter / terrorist (depending upon who one speaks to) in the world, then... if it's true...

Alleged? He publically admitted to planning the killing of men, women, and children in the middle east, Europe, and the USA.

If I had been there to hear this public admission with my own ears, or even if I had recorded it and submitted it to a broadcasting company, it would still be my allegation. Even if I had 'proof' that he had made this admission, I would argue that he was alleging himself to be the culprit. I suppose one could say that, for me, everything is alleged

[HowlinWolf]

And Obama is already taking credit for it. Why am I not surprised? The broadcaster says, "What a victory for Obama!" Probably be enough to get the turkey re-elected tho. What crap!

Who do you think authorized the planning and execution of this mission?? Pinky Lee?

Desert Storm: In your opinion should G Bush the Dad get "credit" for that?

That's different, I suppose.

I'm not very interested in having the distinction between the two explained.

[brim325]

All I have to say on Bin Laden is,,, Better Late Than Never!!!!!!

[ChuckMac]

And Obama is already taking credit for it. Why am I not surprised? The broadcaster says, "What a victory for Obama!" Probably be enough to get the turkey re-elected tho. What crap!

Who do you think authorized the planning and execution of this mission?? Pinky Lee?

I know Obama wasn't there on the raid so he didn't execute it. I would have to say the military and the intelligence people planned the mission so Obama deserves no credit for that either. Obama may have given the go ahead to do it but anyone in office could have done that and giving the go ahead gives the man no special privilege or consideration. At least not in a sound mind.

Desert Storm: In your opinion should G Bush the Dad get "credit" for that?

The men and women who sweated, bled and died in Desert Storm deserve the credit. As for anyone else getting the credit see my statement above.

That's different, I suppose.

I'm not very interested in having the distinction between the two explained.

It just disturbs me that some politician who sits behind a desk, has never served this country, won't even salute it's flag, runs around other nations apologizing for America gets credit for something he had nothing to do with when it comes right down to it getting done. So. Where the hell is "a victory for Obama"?

[gnossos]

no, it's a victory for america

obama is an american too

[gnossos]

btw skydiving titanium-fanged war dogs

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/05/05 ... l-dog-1-5/

check. mate.

[brim325]

[quote="gnossos"]

obama is an american too


That's debatable IMO at least.
Bin Laden should have been taken out years ago! IMO

[brim325]

And Obama is already taking credit for it. Why am I not surprised? The broadcaster says, "What a victory for Obama!" Probably be enough to get the turkey re-elected tho. What crap!

Who do you think authorized the planning and execution of this mission?? Pinky Lee?

I know Obama wasn't there on the raid so he didn't execute it. I would have to say the military and the intelligence people planned the mission so Obama deserves no credit for that either. Obama may have given the go ahead to do it but anyone in office could have done that and giving the go ahead gives the man no special privilege or consideration. At least not in a sound mind.

Desert Storm: In your opinion should G Bush the Dad get "credit" for that?

The men and women who sweated, bled and died in Desert Storm deserve the credit. As for anyone else getting the credit see my statement above.

That's different, I suppose.

I'm not very interested in having the distinction between the two explained.

It just disturbs me that some politician who sits behind a desk, has never served this country, won't even salute it's flag, runs around other nations apologizing for America gets credit for something he had nothing to do with when it comes right down to it getting done. So. Where the hell is "a victory for Obama"?

I Agree!

[bob9039]

One less alleged freedom-fighter / terrorist (depending upon who one speaks to) in the world, then... if it's true...

Alleged? He publically admitted to planning the killing of men, women, and children in the middle east, Europe, and the USA.

If I had been there to hear this public admission with my own ears, or even if I had recorded it and submitted it to a broadcasting company, it would still be my allegation. Even if I had 'proof' that he had made this admission, I would argue that he was alleging himself to be the culprit. I suppose one could say that, for me, everything is alleged

I understand that it is your allegation but are you then saying that you believe nothing to be true?

[KevLa]

I understand that it is your allegation but are you then saying that you believe nothing to be true?

It would be my allegation, if I had made it. And no, I'm stating my belief that all truth is essentially subjective. It often happens that one individual (or group) will be absolutely convinced of a "truth", and another is equally convinced of a "truth" contradictory to that believed by the first group. They both believe the "truth", but cannot agree as to what that "truth" is. I say that each party is alleging something to be the truth, and it is their allegations that are incompatible

...Sorry to all If I got a little heated on this subject but I had a first cousin killed over there that was really trying to help the people. He gave his life protecting a village of innocents.

You stated that your cousin was killed "over there". Without wanting to cause you any offence or upset, do you mind if I enquire, over where?

[Hermit]

His captivity, fiasco of a trial and eventual execution
would get the jihadis all worked up in a lather.
The fact that he was fish food before anybody
even knew about his death kinda cuts the legs out
from under that. Not that they won't try to retaliate,
but I think it is less likely and they don't get to plan it.

[KevLa]

His captivity, fiasco of a trial and eventual execution would get the jihadis all worked up in a lather...

I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances, but I do believe in giving suspected criminals a fair trial.

...The fact that he was fish food before anybody even knew about his death kinda cuts the legs out from under that...

Killing him in cold blood and dumping his body in the sea certainly "cut the legs out" from the idea of capturing and trying him, I agree. It will not, however, prevent any "jihadis" getting "all worked up in a lather". And "fish food"-type comments will only add soap to the bathwater, so to speak.

...Not that they won't try to retaliate, but I think it is less likely and they don't get to plan it.

How could they retaliate to his being killed, if he hadn't been killed? And why do they, in your opinion, not get to plan such retaliation?

[ScotsJim]

His captivity, fiasco of a trial and eventual execution
would get the jihadis all worked up in a lather.

I think that would've been a better way to go about things. A trial.

Regards,
Jim

[Hermit]

I don't believe in the death penalty under any circumstances, but I do believe in giving suspected criminals a fair trial.

A "fair" trial? Like one in which he could conceivably be found not guilty?
Are you really that naive? When Eric Holder was pushing his stupid idea
of trying KSM in New York City, he assured that KSM would be executed
after his fair trial. The trial would be a sham and UBL would surely be
executed. During his captivity and "trial," an attack would be planned to
coincide with the inevitable execution. While I also believe in giving
"suspected criminals" a fair trial, UBL was not a common criminal.
BTW, intelligence gathered at the compound indicates that he was
planning to attack America to commemorate the tenth anniversary of 9/11
by derailing trains. Obama ordered a "kill mission" and it was appropriate.

[KevLa]

A "fair" trial? Like one in which he could conceivably be found not guilty?...

Yeah, that's it. A trial where the suspect could not conceivably be found 'Not Guilty', would not be very fair, would it?

...Are you really that naive?...

I do not believe myself to be particularly naive, no. At least, not as naive as... certain other people on this forum

...intelligence gathered at the compound indicates that he was planning to attack America to commemorate the tenth anniversary of 9/11
by derailing trains. Obama ordered a "kill mission" and it was appropriate.

I take it this intelligence was gathered at the compound by the Navy SEALS who were already there, on said "kill mission", then?

[brim325]

IMO, this is the one man on the planet that did not deserve a trial of any kind, fair or not , I'm sorry, but this was one EVIL Man. Good Riddance to Bib Laden. No offense meant guys, this is just the way I feel about it .

[HowlinWolf]

It just disturbs me that some politician who sits behind a desk, has never served this country, won't even salute it's flag, runs around other nations apologizing for America gets credit for something he had nothing to do with when it comes right down to it getting done. So. Where the hell is "a victory for Obama"?

Bonus question:
the failed desert rescue mission. Who took the heat for that? Jimmy Carter or Pinky Lee? Carter. In your view - Was that heat justified, or not? Since your criterion is how much the president has "to do with when it comes right down to it getting done."

Corollary of the same point: if your point is that it's the CIC and the boots on the ground who deserve the credit, not Obama:
do you lay the responsibility for the failure of the desert rescue mission at the feet of the CIC and the boots on the ground, not Carter? I.e. the CIC and the boots on the ground own that failure, not Carter?

If what you really want to say is "I don't like Obama. I don't care what he does or does not do - I'm not going to like it."
then just say it.

The reasons you're using are painting you into a corner. Cut your losses - just say you can't stand the guy and leave it at that.

[Dencappo]

IMO, this is the one man on the planet that did not deserve a trial of any kind, fair or not , I'm sorry, but this was one EVIL Man. Good Riddance to Bib Laden. No offense meant guys, this is just the way I feel about it .

The way I see it, no criminal has ever lived who didn't deserve a fair trial. I understand why you say what you do and given the circumstances surrounding Bin Laden's death it may not have been possible to provide him with one, but I just cannot agree that he committed a crime so bad that he didn't deserve a fair trial.

I am not saying for a second that he shouldn't have been imprisoned for the rest of his life, or even that he didn't deserve the death penalty, but without a trial, who has the authority to decide his fate in good faith?

If he was killed in self defence then I accept it and so be it. But if it was cold blooded murder (exercising the death penalty without a trial) I cannot accept that as being the right thing to do, irrespective of the severity of his crimes.

I also find the style of some of the celebrating I've seen on the news to be a little inappropriate. This is my opinion and may offend some of you, but that is not my intent. I just find some of it distasteful. A man is dead; shot in the face alongside some of his family. In my opinion, the only thing that should be celebrated in such a way as I've seen on TV is a victory that tangibly brings us closer to peace, and not the seemingly bloodthirsty pleasure of mere retaliation.