Osama Dead

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

It emerges that the information that led to the location of Bin Laden was obtained by waterboarding (i.e. torture)...

According to the neocons, fonts of all wisdom and truth 

[Denn Forever]

He should have been more careful about giving his details to 4 Star Pizza.

[Puckoon]

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

+1

It is all well and good playing the devils advocate with questions such as this Hardy - which don't have an answer based on fact, or truth, or fairness. However - there ain't no one on this board, nor in the western world who wants your Tony Blair scenario to be even close to being a possibility. That may or may not be unfair, and it may or may not be right - but it's the way it is when we live under the relative protection of the UK and the USA and their foreign policies.

In my opinion - one man sent an army to kill one man (and was a driving force behind a war which killed innocent people) based on his dictatorship and regime which needed stopping, while another man sent suicidal extremists to kill innocent people because they lived a western lifestyle. There's a fair bit of difference in philosophies and M.O.s, no?

[mannix]

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

+1

good question, just remember that we are fed a line by the media. either way its a better world  with him dead. america is as good as broke from the military operations so them being able to watch it like a reality show in th white house would be expected, 700 billion a year buys a lot of technology .
i believe the bin laden family has construction contracts worth 30 billion dollars in saudi arabia, airports and the like. government contracts! so we only are told what they want us to hear. big contracts and big oil.

[muppet]

My objection to things such as the death penalty is based on the risk of murdering an innocent person in error.

Bin Laden was guilty and has admitted this. If it really was Bin Laden then I have no problem with the Americans taking him out. The danger of this type of action though is killing the wrong and in particular an innocent person.

[LeoMc]

This is brilliant news, the scum that was bin laden is fcuked overboard and buried in a manner that is an insult in his so called faith, the man was faithful only to himself and I couldnt be happier.

I take a different stance on most on this, I think it sets his organization back years but I also think they will have new leaders emerge but the fact is they made hay on the fact that they said the yanks would never get him and they did.

Americans, well the vast majority of them believe that the job is not done, they are fearful of another attack and know that somewhere somebody is going to get killed at the hands of these evil b**tards because America got to bin dying.

Well done Barak, you played a blinder son.

And to think Obama was at pains to stress that the US isn't at war with Islam.

Pathetic.

The highlighted bit was Stews words and sentiments not those of Barak.
"Traditional procedures for Islamic burial were followed. Religious rites were carried out on the deck of a US aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson. The body, shrouded in a white sheet and placed in a weighted bag, was then positioned on a flat board, tipped up, and eased into the Arabian Sea."

I know, I'm calling him pathetic for apparently revelling in the fact that he believes Bin Laden's body was not afforded what is expected/demanded/right by Islam.

Fair enough, I thought you were directing it at Barak.

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do it. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do it."

[LeoMc]

It emerges that the information that led to the location of Bin Laden was obtained by waterboarding (i.e. torture). Should this knowledge affect our attitude to the outcome? Does the end justify the means? If so, what are the limits? Who is it acceptable to waterboard and in what circumstances? Who decides?

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

Fair point Hardy, many would say the men of 1916 didnt have a mandate either.

and look what thie murder led to...

[Bogball XV]

It emerges that the information that led to the location of Bin Laden was obtained by waterboarding (i.e. torture). Should this knowledge affect our attitude to the outcome? Does the end justify the means? If so, what are the limits? Who is it acceptable to waterboard and in what circumstances? Who decides?

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

Does the informant still qualify for the $50M reward?   

[Gaffer]

If he is alive and well, we'll hear from him soon.

I have a sneaking suspicion however that he is now RIP

Well and truly digested by a shark or something!  LOL

[gallsman]

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

+1

It is all well and good playing the devils advocate with questions such as this Hardy - which don't have an answer based on fact, or truth, or fairness. However - there ain't no one on this board, nor in the western world who wants your Tony Blair scenario to be even close to being a possibility. That may or may not be unfair, and it may or may not be right - but it's the way it is when we live under the relative protection of the UK and the USA and their foreign policies.

In my opinion - one man sent an army to kill one man (and was a driving force behind a war which killed innocent people) based on his dictatorship and regime which needed stopping, while another man sent suicidal extremists to kill innocent people because they lived a western lifestyle. There's a fair bit of difference in philosophies and M.O.s, no?

Bearing in mind this thread is about Bin Laden, do you really go and want to try and link Saddam Hussein to it again considering the overwhelming evidence that no link existed between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime?

As for the bit in bold, if that's what you believe Bin Laden's raison d'etre was nearly ten years after he first came to widespread prominence, I suggest you've been living in the states a tad too long.

[theskull1]

It is all well and good playing the devils advocate with questions such as this Hardy - which don't have an answer based on fact, or truth, or fairness. However - there ain't no one on this board, nor in the western world who wants your Tony Blair scenario to be even close to being a possibility. That may or may not be unfair, and it may or may not be right - but it's the way it is when we live under the relative protection of the UK and the USA and their foreign policies.

In my opinion - one man sent an army to kill one man (and was a driving force behind a war which killed innocent people) based on his dictatorship and regime which needed stopping, while another man sent suicidal extremists to kill innocent people because they lived a western lifestyle. There's a fair bit of difference in philosophies and M.O.s, no?

I believe hardy was asserting that a sizeable number of decent human beings the middle east would react in a similar way if the scenario he spoke about did take place due to the very real devastating impact that US/UK foriegn policy has had on their lives. Rather than being a devils advocate, he's just highlighting that opinions on these matters (like 1916) will come down to perspective and once you put yourself in the perspective of someone from these areas, it starts to become very difficult to see who's right and who's wrong and where the shades of grey are. Truth is it's a very ugly world when you delve into global politics.

The choice as GW said comes down to a rather limited choice of "You are either with us or against us" regardless of whats right or wrong. Most people are happy with that choice as it's in their best interests and life is too short. They're bad and we're good...end of?

[Puckoon]

The general reaction to this event is that the world is a better place without this murdering b**tard who was responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate. It's hard to argue with that. What, then, would be the basis of any moral objection should a team of Arab "special forces" seek out Tony Blair's hideout and kill him (along with his kid and one of his wives)? With pictures of their leaders watching it on live feed appearing in the next day's papers.

+1

It is all well and good playing the devils advocate with questions such as this Hardy - which don't have an answer based on fact, or truth, or fairness. However - there ain't no one on this board, nor in the western world who wants your Tony Blair scenario to be even close to being a possibility. That may or may not be unfair, and it may or may not be right - but it's the way it is when we live under the relative protection of the UK and the USA and their foreign policies.

In my opinion - one man sent an army to kill one man (and was a driving force behind a war which killed innocent people) based on his dictatorship and regime which needed stopping, while another man sent suicidal extremists to kill innocent people because they lived a western lifestyle. There's a fair bit of difference in philosophies and M.O.s, no?

Bearing in mind this thread is about Bin Laden, do you really go and want to try and link Saddam Hussein to it again considering the overwhelming evidence that no link existed between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime?
As for the bit in bold, if that's what you believe Bin Laden's raison d'etre was nearly ten years after he first came to widespread prominence, I suggest you've been living in the states a tad too long.

The only reason Hussein is alluded to in my post - is that it is the IRAQI war that is most prominently mentioned when the calls for Blair (a murdering bastard responsible for the deaths of thousands without any valid mandate?) to be tried as a war criminal are heard. Im not linking Hussein to Bin Laden - rather Hussein to Blair and not Blair to Bin laden - as the previous comparison was.

[Puckoon]

Skull - I think we are both saying the same thing - albeit from slightly different angles.

There is no right or wrong and at some stage you've to hitch your wagon to one of two very different ideologies - whether conciously or not.

[tyssam5]

So no witnesses to the killing and no corpse.  Only the US version of events to go by. More likely he was tortured & mutilated to death and them dumped in the sea to erase all evidence.  The war on terror is justifi£d and mu$t continu€.

You were expecting Navy Seals to pick you up on the way over? Ignorant of them to leave you standing at the cross-roads.

[stew]

Who gives a shite about what Islam demands for his burial. What did he care for how the victims of 9/11 were buried ?

I don't know who cares. I don't, you obviously don't but are you actively celebrating the fact that the "correct" methods might not have been observed as some sort of  two fingers to Islam the way Stew appears to be?

That's what I find pathetic.[

I meant his so called personal faith, not Islam, sorry, I should have been more clear.