Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden:Dead (Page 3)

StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: franklin, you're an illiterate idiot.
12 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: luv it when a plan comes together.

and the day is still young .

truth , justice and the american way ..... suoerman denounces his american citisenship .

president barac hussan obama will be written in the history books as the greatest president and commander and chief .

i can well understand you insensitive comment was heart felt .
freedom of speach is a relative selective right and privilage .
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Yes, you're free to be an idiot.
12 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Franklin. Where are you going with your Posts? Under normal circumstances American Armed Forces will act within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention on War. Mr Bin Laden chose to act outside the Geneva Convention all his life. He has been, and was right up until the U.S Team killed him a threat to men, women and children of all Nations, Religions, Races. There is not a shadow of doubt about his guilt and the entire world has celebrated his death, apart from his deranged followers.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: This is worth reading. Keep in mind the very first sentence:

"This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Geronimo
12 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: not going anywhere .
multiple news [ conservative ] news sources have reported that the first infornation about obamas trusted courier was obtained by enhanced interigation techniques [waterboarding ] by the cia several years ago under bushes administration. years of diligent investigation followed this clue to the ultimate final conclusion .
the demise ellimination death of binladin .
good ridence

anyone who has followed the actions and statements of present administration and its atterny general eric holder might see the humour irony of current events .

radical islamic terrorist don't seem to have any difficulty recruiting new members but on multipal occasions but repetedly we are told that we must be sensative to the delicate feelings of the muslim worldso as to not enflame their ill will.

the comment on osamas assent to paradice and its rewards ... an un- called for insensative insult to the culture that seeks to do gods will by killing the inocent .
my bad.

my posts tend to be on occasion tounge in cheek [ facial cheek ]

i will earnestly try in future forum posts to conform with the highest standerds of sencability that our ellite members seem to demand.

as an illerate idiot i can hardly be held responsible for any comments made that may or may not be articulate or missspelled .

i don't take myself overly seriously and find it humorous when other more intellectual members do.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: "i can hardly be held responsible for any comments made that may or may not be articulate or missspelled ."

Why shouldn't you be held responsible for your comments? They're your comments, aren't they? You're the person typing them, aren't you? If you're not responsible, who is?
12 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: you quote me incomplete . tsk tsk

sarcazm like double negatives seem to illusive for some to grasp. . so sorry

" i don't take myself overly seriously and find it humorous when other more intellectual members do . "
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Okay, then. Nothing you say should be taken seriously.
12 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: Franklin,I find anything and everything said on general chat forum and it doesnt seem to matter what the subject is. In the religious and political forum,of course there is going to be a degree of seriousness to it.
I heard on a few talk shows today about how the info was obtained to Bin Ladens whereabouts,on left wing and right wing shows they seemed to say the info came from a different source and not in Cuba,but in Europe. I also heard that some in intel were not really that pleased about Bin Laden being killed. They claimed that when they found Saddem they were able to talk with him and get alot of intel because of it. Would Bin Laden talk? probably not. Also some mentioned that the government didnt want to be tied down with the expense of the courts and lawyers if Bin Laden had been brought back to the U.S. for trial. The man was obvisously either way going to pay the price. Obama just handled it Chicago style and had him put away and probably saved the taxpayers some money in the process.
12 years ago Report
0
The Hat Tipper
The Hat Tipper: It's about time. It took bush 8 years to try and find Osama and it took Obama just two to kill him lol.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Yet another pretty dumb comment.

I'm not a Bush apologist, by any stretch of the imagination, but to be fair, Obama certainly had the benefit of the work carried out during Bush's eight years. It's not like he had to start from scratch.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

In 2009, Navy SEALS were court marshaled for just hitting an “unarmed civilian”. I heard on the radio last night the possibility that the SEAL that shot OBL could technically face a court marshal for shooting an unarmed civilian because no weapon “reportedly” was found in the room OBL was in. The wife was shot in the leg but he got double tapped ? No tasers? No bean bag shotgun shells? SWAT police officers in the same situation during a “take down” have also been “disciplined” for the exact same scenario.

I realize what I heard is a real stretch, and many of you will think it’s not possible that the last order the SEALS received was to NOT to take him alive. However, this raid was planned for months. The question must have come up during the planning stages whether or not to take him alive. What would have happened if he had been taken alive? Would he have gone to Gitmo? To New York to face trial?

.
12 years ago Report
0
Tink
Tink: Well, I am one of those people that think he should NOT have been killed. He wasn't armed. If we (as citizens) shot a man that wasn't armed we would be breaking the law. I don't think the President is above the law. The law is what makes our country what it is (good or bad). Just cause people support that OBL was shot and killed, doesn't make it right.

In my opinion.

I also found the celebration of his death nauseating
12 years ago Report
0
William_Chuzzlewitt
William_Chuzzlewitt: Every time i visit these forums, it always reminds me of chimps at the zoo flinging feces at each other.
12 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: BBC
Helmet-mounted cameras mean live video can be sent direct from the front line back to headquarters.
This technology enabled military and intelligence chiefs to closely monitor the developing situation as US Navy Seals raided Osama Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.
President Barack Obama is understood to have seen real-time footage of the approach to the compound but no direct video feed from the operation itself.
ABC News
12 years ago Report
0
William_Chuzzlewitt
William_Chuzzlewitt: He aint dead! He's just trolling you!
12 years ago Report
0
Malobear
Malobear: In his May 3, 2011 column, titled "Bin Laden Killed in His House!" in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, editor-in-chief Tariq Alhomayed wrote: "He who tricked our sons and cast them into hell did not die on the battlefield – but in the middle of his luxurious house hiding behind his wife." He concluded, "Certainly, the world is a better place after the death of a terrorist who betrayed his religion, his family, and the world."
12 years ago Report
0
franklin1950
franklin1950: some days have passed . more news/information being but forth .
reports ... some changing , some conflicting .
desision made at top level not to produce photos .

" let the stupid , pointless rhetoric begin . "
12 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Tink. The U.S. Declared in 2008 that Terrorists such as Bin Laden are not protected by the Geneva Convention and if they are captured in (circumstances such as Bin Laden's arrest) they will be subject to summary execution. This may seem harsh to you, but Mr Bin Laden chose to place himself outside the Rules of War, and place himself in a position (his home with it's Terrorist paraphernalia could be considered a Command Post) where American Special Forces have full Legal Discretion to execute him on the spot. The Navy SEAL was complying entirely with U.S. Law when he shot Mr Bin Laden.
12 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: chronology says:
"The U.S. Declared in 2008 that Terrorists such as Bin Laden are not protected by the Geneva Convention and if they are captured in (circumstances such as Bin Laden's arrest) they will be subject to summary execution.

Not surprisingly, this is total bullshit.

Read these first two paragraphs of this Washington Post article:

..............................
"U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions - Bowing to Justices, Administration Says It Will Apply Treaties to Terror Suspects"

By Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.

The Pentagon announced yesterday that it has called on military officials to adhere to the conventions in dealing with al-Qaeda detainees. The administration also has decided that even prisoners held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad must be treated in accordance with international standards, an interpretation that would prohibit prisoners from being subjected to harsh treatment in interrogations, several U.S. officials said.
........................................

The US Supreme Court case referred to in the above article is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

chronology may very well be correct that the actions by the US Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG), aka "Seal Team Six," was within the parameters of Unites States Law, and perhaps international law, as well. But as he so often does, chronology simply made up the details within his post. Note that he didn't make any references or indications of source material whatever for his bogus, ficticious claim.

chronology is, of course, grossly misusing the term "summary execution," and he appears not to understand what the (legal) term even means. While US military law does, indeed, allow for summary execution in rare circumstances (such as when an enemy soldier is apprehended wearing the uniform of US military forces), the raid on bin Laden's compound would not fall within those laws. This would not be considered an act of "summary execution."

Undoubtedly, the US government would argue that the killing of bin Laden was legal within US law, US military law, and international law, chronology's claims of how this occurred were completely ficticious.

He just likes to make shit up.
12 years ago Report
0
Tink
Tink: Forget it, I changed my mind about commenting to Chrono.
12 years ago Report
0
Yan26
Yan26: But how were the troops supposed to know whether he was armed. I have never been in a special ops but I am guessing these are extremely high pressure ops with barely a second to make critical decision. My guess is the troops were given instruction to kill him before they went in. Imagine the troops' situation. They enter a room where they see a man who has always been photographed holding a weapon and who would consider it great to blow himself up and kill Americans. They have a split second to decide take him alive and risk him opening fire( from a hidden weapon) or blow himself up or just kill him and get it over with. They chose to save themselves and kill him. You have to accept that these things will happen in such situation.
But I agree with Tink that celebrations of his death was disappointing.
Being relieved is one thing but celebrating ...
12 years ago Report
0
Tink
Tink: "My guess is the troops were given instruction to kill him before they went in."

And that is what I have an issue with. How can that even be legal? To make matters worse, if it is deemed "illegal" somewhere down the road...who do you think will be charged? I'll tell you, it will be the SEALS that only did as instructed to do by the President of the USA.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

(Sarcastic) We'll just have to wait and see the movie when it comes out.

.
12 years ago Report
0