Osama Bin Laden dead - USA has his body

[SteeleJoe]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

Considering Al-Qaeda sought to bring down western civilisation and replace it with a global caliphate I think it only fitting that Bin Laden was not given a trial, that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy. I wonder whether the legal beagle pinkos have considered whether any of Al-Qaeda's civilian victims ever received a trial of any sort, nope thought not.

Did you really just refer to "pinkos"? Man, I hope that was meant to be ironic but it's even funnier f it wasn't.

Your argument is weak:

1) We don't adhere to ObL standards, we adhere to our own principles and they are supposed to be inviolate and that which we can be proud of. The "western construct" you speak of isn't supposed to only valid when we want to be. Besides, with all due respect, this sentence doesn't even make sense:

that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy.

The "western construct" (concept of a trial) isn't applicable to western civilization?

2) We don't give trials to people only when they give trials to their victims. Obviously. It's ridiculous to suggest that should be a reason to deny a trial.

[crusader79]

Maybe it is as a result of my background, but even having lost a couple of friends in the Beruit bombing, I fervently believe that once we get our nose bloodied, we can't run away. I am not writing about revenge. I am writing about the concept that the US military will turn tail if you smack it in the nose.

We can argue that we never should have been in Somalia, and I can agree with that. Heck, I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but once there, we could not just pick up and leave. I served in Iraq, and given the fact that we went in, given the huge mistakes we made in the beginning, well, I think we have done a pretty good job subsequent to that. And now is the time to really draw down there.

But once in an area, for right or wrong, we have to act. And turning tail sends the wrong message. One of the main raison d'etres for the US military is not necessarily to fight, but to offer the threat of a fight. And if no one believes the military will stick around when the going gets tough, that threat will lose credence. And if deployed, the opposition will be more likely to take action against the military.

Point taken on revenge. And I agree with you completely on Iraq and the dangers/irresponsibility of abandoning military commitments once made. Which is why it is so important we have political leaders that don't make them recklessly. The Bush administration let us down badly there.

I supported the Somalia intervention (and Balkans, first Iraq war and Afghanistan) but was happy to see our military get out of there. But I bow to your and SteeleJoe's superior knowledge of the subject, perhaps it was possible to stay longer without getting trapped in a longer term commitment/quagmire. And not encourage Bin Laden.

I'm sorry to hear about your friends and thank you for your service.

Edited May 12, 2011 by crusader79

[FOODLOVER]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

Maybe it is as a result of my background, but even having lost a couple of friends in the Beruit bombing, I fervently believe that once we get our nose bloodied, we can't run away. I am not writing about revenge. I am writing about the concept that the US military will turn tail if you smack it in the nose.

We can argue that we never should have been in Somalia, and I can agree with that. Heck, I never thought we should have gone into Iraq, but once there, we could not just pick up and leave. I served in Iraq, and given the fact that we went in, given the huge mistakes we made in the beginning, well, I think we have done a pretty good job subsequent to that. And now is the time to really draw down there.

But once in an area, for right or wrong, we have to act. And turning tail sends the wrong message. One of the main raison d'etres for the US military is not necessarily to fight, but to offer the threat of a fight. And if no one believes the military will stick around when the going gets tough, that threat will lose credence. And if deployed, the opposition will be more likely to take action against the military.

Well put!

[bonobo]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

I don't know all the details, nor do I know what factors went into the decision to make this a kill mission rather than a capture (and I believe it was.) There is every possibility that having bin Laden in custody would have very serious ramifications for the US and other countries.

However, I would like to have seen a captured and broken bin Laden put on trial. I have been around Arabs enough to see how they generally feel about captured ex-leaders when compared to leaders who have fallen in battle. When Saddam was captured hiding in a hole, then had photos of a military dentist poking around his mouth, well, his mystique went right out teh door. He became a figure of ridicule, even amongst the Sunni.

But Saddam was also in Iraqi custody, and there was little doubt that he would be executed, even if the US was dismayed that he was executed so quickly. It may be that the US wanted bin laden dead, but that the powers that be determined that a long trial and execution would drag this out 10 years and give much more opportunity for reprisal actions.

So while I would have liked to see bin Laden on trial, I can understand that there may have been other factors which would make a simple and quick kill better in the long run.

[elcent]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

The UN wants proof too.

[elcent]

Trying to blame 9/11 on anyone other than Bin Ladin is wrong. Hindsight and all that.

Did you supply him with the intel then?

[Ulysses G.]

I'm afraid that you are a much more likely suspect.

[bangkokeddy]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

The UN wants proof too.

Yes, there are more people and institutions than just his family raising some questions.

[Exsexyman]

Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial

Omar bin Laden issued a statement Tuesday on behalf of the bin Laden family questioning why his father didn't receive a court trial like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milošević.

Assertions from Osama bin Laden's family that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader was illegal have been dismissed by the White House.

"Are you kidding?" said Vice President Joe Biden when asked Tuesday about the family's calls for international bodies to investigate the legality of the assassination.

In fact, the family is serious.

International law has been "blatantly violated" and the US has set a very different example than "innocent until proven guilty" – a right upon which "western society is built," wrote Omar bin Laden, one of the 9/11 mastermind's 19 children, in a statement provided to the New York Times. He cited the trials for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević and asked why his father was not given the same opportunity to defend himself.

...

http://www.csmonitor...n-t-get-a-trial

Considering Al-Qaeda sought to bring down western civilisation and replace it with a global caliphate I think it only fitting that Bin Laden was not given a trial, that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy. I wonder whether the legal beagle pinkos have considered whether any of Al-Qaeda's civilian victims ever received a trial of any sort, nope thought not.

Did you really just refer to "pinkos"? Man, I hope that was meant to be ironic but it's even funnier f it wasn't.

Your argument is weak:

1) We don't adhere to ObL standards, we adhere to our own principles and they are supposed to be inviolate and that which we can be proud of. The "western construct" you speak of isn't supposed to only valid when we want to be. Besides, with all due respect, this sentence doesn't even make sense:

that's a western construct and thus inapplicable to what he tried to destroy.

The "western construct" (concept of a trial) isn't applicable to western civilization?

2) We don't give trials to people only when they give trials to their victims. Obviously. It's ridiculous to suggest that should be a reason to deny a trial.

You make some excellent points SJ. Any reasonable person will agree that the world without Bin Laden in it is a much better place But he should have been captured and put on trial. Its a simple point. Are we gangsters like AL Qaida or a western democracy based on the rule of law. He was unarmed and could easily have been captured alive if Obama had so wished. The way he was dealt with undermines any commitment to democracy and trial by jury, and makes Obama look like some kind of mobster. The Us attorney general stated today that OBL was not assassinated even though it is plainly obvious that he was. Just have the balls to admit it, and stop treating the public like morons by stating that 'black is white', and assuming that we are dumb enough to believe him. Of course there will always be people who are quite happy to be treated as sheep and believe that 'black is white', 'might is right' especially where brown skinned Arabs are concerned. There are more than one or two on this thread. But after reading some of their posts on this and similar topics, it is quite obvious that they are capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

[elcent]

Flight 93 had 40 minutes delay. The same flight that was designed for the White House. Without that delay it would have been still the last target. Something wrong with the sequence maybe?

Besides that, by ignoring the details and by destroying the evidence, first, when it began and secondly, when it ended has sent signals to other regions that act according to this deception and won't do business one may hope for, they usually don't talk but act. No matter how one tries to hide this, the effects are still working.

The Caliphate is not an OBL concept but the overall Islamic concept. This why you got CAIR, - the Muslim brotherhood.

OBL was a buddy for the US who, amongst others, fought the proxy war against Russia.

The whole issue/setting will stick for a bad image and for the time(probably a long time) to come.

Can anyone explain to me why there's a drop-out from school in the US of A every 9 seconds, 24/7?

I do believe that America has many great people, but it needs a house cleaning and a change from within to be what it wants to be.

[elcent]

US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination".

Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered.

The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13370919

In the latest of a series of media briefings, unnamed US security and and intelligence officials said documents seized from the Abbottabad compound showed that Bin Laden had calculated how many Americans would have to die before the US withdrew from the Middle East.

What version of justification is that? What are the rules of engagement? Shoot and kill unarmed persons?

Oh, they found millions of data in the compound and are leaking some (designed to leak). So they have time to search and seize all this tiny pen-drives and comp stuff but must kill an unarmed person.

[luckizuchinni]

Actually in one sense I do blame Clinton. If he'd been able to keep his pants on or hadn't perjured himself, Bush likely wouldn't have been elected. And while 9-11 may not have been prevented, the multi-trillion dollar, decade-long fiasco that followed it would have been.

I am not a Clinton hater. But the one thing I dislike about his presidency the most was his turning tail and running in Somalia. Bin Laden later mentioned that several times as proof that the US cannot stand up to acts of aggression, and I agree with the analysts who contend that this opinion formed by bin Laden directly led to 9/11.

I kind of liked Clinton in many ways (although disappointed that he couldn't keep his pants on while in the office), but I will always detest his Somalia decision and wonder what would have happened had we worked that one differently.

That's true about Somalia's effect on Bin Laden, unfortunately. But he misinterpreted our reasons for withdrawing.

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

It's easy to forget now how much we used to worry about getting trapped in third world 'quagmires', and the dangers of 'nation-building', post-Vietnam. When Bush, Sr. intervened in backwater Somalia for humanitarian reasons he had to repeatedly assure Americans that this was going to be fast and temporary. Clinton came into office promising the same.

Bush, Jr. then campaigned against the Clinton administration's 'nation-building' in Yugoslavia and elsewhere, contining that bipartisan post-Vietnam caution. But then 9-11 hit and the neocons were shockingly freed to indulge in the most outrageous of 'nation-building' fantasies, with disastrous results.

I still find it incredible that so many Americans seem not to have even noticed that 180 degree shift in 25 years of policy. It just goes to show what profound effects a traumatic event like 9-11 can have, without wise leadership. Had Clinton, Obama, Bush, Sr. or Reagan (or even, God help us, Gore) been in office, the aftermath of 9-11 would have been very different.

You guys are discussing something that I've talked about for decades -- and the larger discussion about the actions or failures to act of the previous administrations is also something I've been talking about for the last 10 years -- and I know a bit about the subject. At the moment I'm somewhat indisposed so I won't bore anyone with anything too lengthy (though I reserve the right to bore you later) and it will behast6y and off the cuff but I do want to respond to this:

Should we really have massively escalated our involvement in Somalia's civil war after those 18 soldiers were killed? Somalia? Revenge might feel sweet, but Clinton did what Reagan did after the 220+ Marines were killed in Lebanon, he withdrew and cut our losses.

-- Massive escalation wasn't necessary. The operation in which the Rangers and 1st SFOD-D operators was successful over and over again. Changes needed to be made but there's a wide range of options to choose from between what had been done previously and "massive escalation".

-- Revenge? Stupid. What does that have to do with it? The mission was a valid one 0n my opinion (and if it wasn't then that's the reason to leave, not the death of soldiers) that arguably saved many lives and potentially could have led to a better situation in Somalia than what exists now. It didn't stop being a worthy mission because soldiers died nor does it mean that if the operations continue it must be revenge.

-- Yes, Clinton did what Reagan did after the Marines were killed in Lebanon - and he should be ashamed of that. as should have Reagan. I myself was enraged at the time and have always believed that it sent the wrong message to enemies and allies. And guess what? ObL and other Islamists et al have also cited Lebanon as being evidence of the US unwillingness and/or inability to fight and withstand serious loss.

I had a couple of former subordinates from the 1st Ranger bn in Mogadishu and I corresponded with some other Rangers and operators. It is my belief that by and large the troops there felt that they should have stayed. I myself have been at the pointed end of the stick; I do NOT take lightly the danger to troops or the losses and suffering those fighters in Somalia had already sustained. But when I happen to know for a fact that when people sign up not onl;y for the military but for SpecOps, they knowingly and willingly sign up to be put in harm's way (in the Ranger Bat we were told that were "3 time Volunteers" -- Army, Jump School, Rangers -- the latter 2 matter because there's only a small material reward for the greatly increased danger and hardship that goes with them as opposed to being a conventional troop)...sorry, when you look at what had been done in Somalia and what more could have been done, the tragic loss of 18 of our finest is not enough reason to quit; quite the contrary -- we diminish the value (NOT the valor) of their sacrifice by doing so.

Really good post there.

I would have guessed the Rangers wanted to stay and not run, but that confirms it.

I think you and Bonobo hit the nail right on the head.

[luckizuchinni]

Flight 93 had 40 minutes delay. The same flight that was designed for the White House. Without that delay it would have been still the last target. Something wrong with the sequence maybe?

Besides that, by ignoring the details and by destroying the evidence, first, when it began and secondly, when it ended has sent signals to other regions that act according to this deception and won't do business one may hope for, they usually don't talk but act. No matter how one tries to hide this, the effects are still working.

The Caliphate is not an OBL concept but the overall Islamic concept. This why you got CAIR, - the Muslim brotherhood.

OBL was a buddy for the US who, amongst others, fought the proxy war against Russia.

The whole issue/setting will stick for a bad image and for the time(probably a long time) to come.

Can anyone explain to me why there's a drop-out from school in the US of A every 9 seconds, 24/7?

I do believe that America has many great people, but it needs a house cleaning and a change from within to be what it wants to be.

What the heck are you going on about? I don't get your point about Flight 93,and I certainly don't understand what the dropout rate has to do with anything here.

[bangkokeddy]

Flight 93 had 40 minutes delay. The same flight that was designed for the White House. Without that delay it would have been still the last target. Something wrong with the sequence maybe?

Besides that, by ignoring the details and by destroying the evidence, first, when it began and secondly, when it ended has sent signals to other regions that act according to this deception and won't do business one may hope for, they usually don't talk but act. No matter how one tries to hide this, the effects are still working.

The Caliphate is not an OBL concept but the overall Islamic concept. This why you got CAIR, - the Muslim brotherhood.

OBL was a buddy for the US who, amongst others, fought the proxy war against Russia.

The whole issue/setting will stick for a bad image and for the time(probably a long time) to come.

Can anyone explain to me why there's a drop-out from school in the US of A every 9 seconds, 24/7?

I do believe that America has many great people, but it needs a house cleaning and a change from within to be what it wants to be.

What the heck are you going on about? I don't get your point about Flight 93,and I certainly don't understand what the dropout rate has to do with anything here.

Nobody understands him.

[luckizuchinni]

Flight 93 had 40 minutes delay. The same flight that was designed for the White House. Without that delay it would have been still the last target. Something wrong with the sequence maybe?

Besides that, by ignoring the details and by destroying the evidence, first, when it began and secondly, when it ended has sent signals to other regions that act according to this deception and won't do business one may hope for, they usually don't talk but act. No matter how one tries to hide this, the effects are still working.

The Caliphate is not an OBL concept but the overall Islamic concept. This why you got CAIR, - the Muslim brotherhood.

OBL was a buddy for the US who, amongst others, fought the proxy war against Russia.

The whole issue/setting will stick for a bad image and for the time(probably a long time) to come.

Can anyone explain to me why there's a drop-out from school in the US of A every 9 seconds, 24/7?

I do believe that America has many great people, but it needs a house cleaning and a change from within to be what it wants to be.

What the heck are you going on about? I don't get your point about Flight 93,and I certainly don't understand what the dropout rate has to do with anything here.

Nobody understands him.

You've got that right!

[elcent]

What the heck are you going on about? I don't get your point about Flight 93,and I certainly don't understand what the dropout rate has to do with anything here.

The first questions the attack itself and how it was planned(part of it). The second, as an overall result of the mental state in the USA "no more motivation.".

I admit its a bit of jumping, but at the end it all playsl together and more should be done to get into the details. Cause and effect thingy ...

Can someone please post the millions of data that were seized. No matter what, most of it should be in Arabic though. Same same - no evidence -

Edited May 12, 2011 by elcent

[luckizuchinni]

What the heck are you going on about? I don't get your point about Flight 93,and I certainly don't understand what the dropout rate has to do with anything here.

The first questions the attack itself and how it was planned(part of it). The second, as an overall result of the mental state in the USA "no more motivation.".

I admit its a bit of jumping, but at the end it all playsl together and more should be done to get into the details. Cause and effect thingy ...

Sorry, your explanation sheds no light.

What does a delayed flight have to do with either the attack planning or this thread? And schooling?????? That is even a bigger reach.

[elcent]

U.S. Military Use Of Force ContinuumThe 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows:

• Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
• Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
• Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.

Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. In order for this to be accomplished, commanders must manufacture rules of engagement that will not violate the trust of the local population, but will instead foster a relationship of respect and understanding.

Were the rules applied?

[Ulysses G.]

Do "the 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual rules" apply to an admitted mass murderering terrorist of Bin Ladin's stature who is not in any miltary? Who cares?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[FOODLOVER]

What if he escaped during extraction and killed thousands , tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands more? What if the Pakistani Army discovered this going down? Is it really worth the risk? Are there really people that feel this piece of garbage deserves a pulpit to spew more hate. The only way to end this man 100% is just what they did. It is very difficult to fight and withdraw with a prisoner, why risk more lives for this terrorist? Lets spend another couple of hundred million in security, do you think all the home countries of the people complaining about Osamas rights will help pay all of these expenses? I know a lot of what if's, but really...............what if?

Edited May 13, 2011 by FOODLOVER

[bangkokeddy]

Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who is poised to launch his presidential campaign tomorrow, said this week he would not have authorized the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has "respect for the rule of law."

In a radio interview with WHO Newsradio 1040, Paul told radio host Simon Conway that, had he been president, he would have pursued an alternate strategy.

"I think things would be done somewhat differently," Paul said, of how he would have handled the situation, citing "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law."

Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government and put the al Qaeda leader on trial - a strategy, he argues, that has worked for the United States in the past.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062264-503544.html

[Ulysses G.]

If Ron Paul had been President, Bin Ladin would be planing his next terrorist strike from a new sanctuary about now. Remind me not to vote for him.

[cdnvic]

One post & reply deleted. There are plenty of places online to indulge in conspiracy fantasies. Thaivisa isn't one of them.

[bangkokeddy]

Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who is poised to launch his presidential campaign tomorrow, said this week he would not have authorized the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has "respect for the rule of law."

In a radio interview with WHO Newsradio 1040, Paul told radio host Simon Conway that, had he been president, he would have pursued an alternate strategy.

"I think things would be done somewhat differently," Paul said, of how he would have handled the situation, citing "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law."

Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government and put the al Qaeda leader on trial - a strategy, he argues, that has worked for the United States in the past.

...

http://www.cbsnews.c...264-503544.html

Would you want this man in office?

why not?

[FOODLOVER]

Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who is poised to launch his presidential campaign tomorrow, said this week he would not have authorized the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has "respect for the rule of law."

In a radio interview with WHO Newsradio 1040, Paul told radio host Simon Conway that, had he been president, he would have pursued an alternate strategy.

"I think things would be done somewhat differently," Paul said, of how he would have handled the situation, citing "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law."

Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government and put the al Qaeda leader on trial - a strategy, he argues, that has worked for the United States in the past.

...

http://www.cbsnews.c...264-503544.html

Would you want this man in office?

why not?

They deleted the funny picture i had of him. Will have to read up on his platform.

[cdnvic]

Deleted one post full of racial slurs and another quoting it. Next time it happens suspensions will be handed out.

[SteeleJoe]

Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Pakistan, its role in training, funding, producing radical Islamists, its history w/ the US on this issue...well, just the whole freakin ball of wax -- would never propose such a simplistic and highly dubious thing as a strategy.

That on its own indicates the man is totally unqualified -- leaving aside whether you agree with his approach (ie capture, not kill and judicial process etc), he is either simply saying what he thinks will appeal to some voters despite it being completely lame or he truly doesn't have a clue.

Edited May 13, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[koheesti]

If Ron Paul had been President, Bin Ladin would be planing his next terrorist strike from a new sanctuary about now. Remind me not to vote for him.

Any chances of him becoming President have gone out the window now.

[Wallaby]

What if he escaped during extraction and killed thousands , tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands more? What if the Pakistani Army discovered this going down? Is it really worth the risk? Are there really people that feel this piece of garbage deserves a pulpit to spew more hate. The only way to end this man 100% is just what they did. It is very difficult to fight and withdraw with a prisoner, why risk more lives for this terrorist? Lets spend another couple of hundred million in security, do you think all the home countries of the people complaining about Osamas rights will help pay all of these expenses? I know a lot of what if's, but really...............what if?

Do you think killing him will stop the murder etc?

I think it would have been better to have him alive and paraded around as a broken man like SH.

Personally I don't care either way, he would have been killed in any event.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Wallaby

[FOODLOVER]

What if he escaped during extraction and killed thousands , tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands more? What if the Pakistani Army discovered this going down? Is it really worth the risk? Are there really people that feel this piece of garbage deserves a pulpit to spew more hate. The only way to end this man 100% is just what they did. It is very difficult to fight and withdraw with a prisoner, why risk more lives for this terrorist? Lets spend another couple of hundred million in security, do you think all the home countries of the people complaining about Osamas rights will help pay all of these expenses? I know a lot of what if's, but really...............what if?

Do you think killing him will stop the murder etc?

I think it would have been better to have him alive and paraded around as a broken man like SH.

Personally I don't care either way, he would have been killed in any event.

yes, cant kill anyone when you are dead.