Osama Bin Laden - DEAD

[musica.cards]

I'm even less for shooting unarmed people than I am for celebrating their death.

All the easier to just capture him (like Bush did with Saddam)

[wawi]

All the easier to just capture him (like Bush did with Saddam)

They were two completely different scenarios.
Finding him in a hole unguarded is a lot different than a firefight. Also, he surrended.

Colonel Hickey said that the soldiers looked into the hole and saw a figure inside it.

"Two hands appeared. The individual clearly wanted to surrender," he said.

[Travis]

Shooting an unarmed man is wrongful and murderous no matter what you think of the person. Taking him alive would have done more in the way of good anyway.

[Andria]

Put yourself in the soldiers' perspective. They were under attack. They don't know if he too had a weapon or not. They followed their rules. Why risk more American lives? You do understand that these people have no problem taking you down with them and killing innocent people as well.Not really. Seriously. Sure, you can be upset that people were glad he's dead, but there are many reasons why people would be. It's something that would be hard to understand if it didn't impact you.

However, I understand everyone has different viewpoints and opinions. I'm just putting in my two cents. I'm a bit biased due to my family serving and whatnot.

They were going through the building cuffing EVERYONE. They obviously said he was unarmed. His wife rushed them probably unarmed. They aren't risking more american lives by not shooting an unarmed man dead.

[burzumfan420]

i want 2 see the video of his death  .  

[musica.cards]

They were two completely different scenarios.
Finding him in a hole unguarded is a lot different than a firefight. Also, he surrended.

Obviously, but unless there's something I'm missing, both of them were unharmed. Even then, if we were able to capture an armed Saddam (although in a hole), we had the capability to capture Osama and should have done so. Keeping Osama has a hostage of sorts would have given us the upper hand, as any actions that Al Qaeda makes from that point could and would risk their leader's life.

They were going through the building cuffing EVERYONE. They obviously said he was unarmed. His wife rushed them probably unarmed. They aren't risking more american lives by not shooting an unarmed man dead.

You figure that they ran out of cuffs when they got to Osama?

[burzumfan420]

 we prepared for this mission for years but we didnt bring enough supplies for it lol .

[Andria]

Obviously, but unless there's something I'm missing, both of them were unharmed. Even then, if we were able to capture an armed Saddam (although in a hole), we had the capability to capture Osama and should have done so. Keeping Osama has a hostage of sorts would have given us the upper hand, as any actions that Al Qaeda makes from that point could and would risk their leader's life.
You figure that they ran out of cuffs when they got to Osama?

I figure someone just wanted to be known forever as the guy who shot Osama Bin Laden so he murdered the guy.

Of course, we will never know as they sure as hell won't be giving the UN Human rights council the details

[wawi]

They were going through the building cuffing EVERYONE. They obviously said he was unarmed. His wife rushed them probably unarmed. They aren't risking more american lives by not shooting an unarmed man dead.

Nope. Besides, resistance does not require a firearm.

"In the room with Bin Laden, a woman â€" Bin Laden's wife â€" rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed," Carney said. "Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."

You have no idea what they could be hiding.

Bin Laden could have surrendered only "if he did not pose any type of threat whatsoever," White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan said on Fox television, and if U.S. troops "were confident of that in terms of his not having an IED [improvised explosives device] on his body, his not having some type of hidden weapon or whatever."

Added a senior congressional aide briefed on the rules of engagement: "He would have had to have been naked for them to allow him to surrender."

Once troops exchanged fire with Bin Laden allies living in the compound â€" three men and a woman were killed in addition to the Al Qaeda leader â€" the chances of a surrender were almost nil, experts say.

They followed the rules of engagement.

"If anyone feels in any way that there is a hostile threat in a case like this â€" it can be a movement, or a failure to follow commands â€" deadly force will be authorized. It's a judgment call," the officer said. "And these assaulters are some of the finest, most highly trained in discriminate shooting. They train for hostage rescue."

The CIA has had grim experience with concealed suicide vests: In December 2009, a Jordanian doctor who the CIA believed was its agent blew himself up with vest, killing seven CIA employees and contractors who had come to greet him at a base in Khowst, Afghanistan.

Yet if Bin Laden had been taken alive, it would have posed myriad complications.

[wawi]

I figure someone just wanted to be known forever as the guy who shot Osama Bin Laden so he murdered the guy.

Of course, we will never know as they sure as hell won't be giving the UN Human rights council the details

That is extremely a naive way to think. You're making it seem that he was captured, and they casually strolled up to him and executed him just for fame. They followed protocols. Osama Bin Laden was an internationally wanted criminal.
What would the UN Human Rights Council do? Besides, the US isn't fond of following the UN.

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.

"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."

He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate.

"The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.

"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."

[musica.cards]

we prepared for this mission for years but we didnt bring enough supplies for it lol .

Wouldn't be surprised if that were the case

Nope. Besides, resistance does not require a firearm.

It does when the aggressors have firearms.

You have no idea what they could be hiding.

That's no reason to kill someone with possibly useful info and/or can serve as a tool for ensuring the dissolution of Al Qaeda.

That is extremely a naive way to think. You're making it seem that he was captured, and they casually strolled up to him and executed him just for fame.

Too bad he wasn't just captured, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he's dead.

They followed protocols.

From a clearly incompetent president.

Why would there be a need for UN Human Rights Council? Osama Bin Laden was an internationally wanted criminal.

Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden did everything himself?

[Andria]

Nope. Besides, resistance does not require a firearm.You have no idea what they could be hiding.They followed the rules of engagement.

It doesn't require force, but a legitimate reaction to unarmed resistance would be UNARMED RESISTANCE. Not shooting him, it would be subduing him in other ways.

And yes, shooting a guy with a suicide vest would do so much less than just capturing a guy with a suicide vest. Either way if he was hiding a suicide vest he would have killed them.

That is extremely a naive way to think. You're making it seem that he was captured, and they casually strolled up to him and executed him just for fame. They followed protocols. Osama Bin Laden was an internationally wanted criminal.
What would the UN Human Rights Council do? Besides, the US isn't fond of following the UN.

How do we know they didn't?

And even still, shooting an unarmed person shouldn't be protocol.

[YPrrrr]

It's like a real life debate about whether Han shot first

[wawi]

It does when the aggressors have firearms.
That's no reason to kill someone with possibly useful info and/or can serve as a tool for ensuring the dissolution of Al Qaeda.
Too bad he wasn't just captured, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he's dead.
From a clearly incompetent president.
Are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden did everything himself?

Not according to rules of engagement.
They found a goldmine of information at the hideout. Having Osama alive would have created a huge mess.
If you think that's the reason why he was killed then that's ridiculous.
The president doesn't come up with their protocols.
No. I never said that.

It doesn't require force, but a legitimate reaction to unarmed resistance would be UNARMED RESISTANCE. Not shooting him, it would be subduing him in other ways.

And yes, shooting a guy with a suicide vest would do so much less than just capturing a guy with a suicide vest. Either way if he was hiding a suicide vest he would have killed them. How do we know they didn't?

And even still, shooting an unarmed person shouldn't be protocol.

You can sit on your high horse all you want, but until you place yourself in the soldiers' situation, the anxiety and uncertainty of what they go through, then you'll never understand.

Not if you kill him before he can detonate it. Sorry, it's war. It isn't pretty, but it's a reality. Would you have rather had the soldiers wait and be killed?

What if? What if? What if? Personally, I could care less either way. He was scum.

It is though. If you're being threatened than why not? This isn't a fairy tale where the good guys subdue the bad guy and everything is sugar coated and okay. There was a ton of stuff that could have went wrong. I'm just glad to know that someone else I know didn't end up dead to protect the "rights" of someone who never considered anyone else's

It's like a real life debate about whether Han shot first

why george why edit  them;-;

[Travis]

And even still, shooting an unarmed person shouldn't be protocol.

it obviously should if it's a mission to take out the united states' most wanted target