Colin Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 @ Evil Inky and Bryan: Whit do you think a 'fair' trial costing millions would achieve and what do you think the outcome of that trial would be? Seeing as we're asking dumb questions here, just what kind of message do YOU think (apart from the 'bleeding obvious') that sending a military hit squad into a compound, in a foreign country, full of women and children to execute (rather than capture) an unarmed enemy combatant(?) and then dumping his body at sea sends out?What would you say if he had been hiding in Birmingham, Belfast or Beijing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Why do people use the cost of a trial to justify his execution ! Bin Laden was used to justify two illegal wars despite the fact it was pretty obvious he was probably in Pakistan, how much has that cost in money and lives. Bin Laden had been a CIA asset funded through the ISI......suprise suprise they find him hiding in what looks like a ISI safehouse in a military town in Pakistan. I for one would have been very interested in what a trial of Bin Laden would have uncovered in a court of law. At the very least it would have confirmed if he really was the mastermind of 9/11. Also, if he really is this "doctor evil" charachter wouldnt they have wanted to extract as much information from him before he met his end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groilick Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Win da Bin is Laden wi bruck da Essy Kert taks hit awa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I assume you mean it was a show trial because ...No. My usage was more along the lines of:... the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warningHow was it fair-ish?The problem with the Eichmann trial was not so much with the conduct, or indeed the verdict, of the trial itself, but rather with the illegal methods used to get him in the dock in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakena Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Western governments learned a bitter lesson during the 1970s regarding the imprisonment of high profile terrorists. Consider for example the Munich massacre where the Israeli olympic team were held hostage by Palestinian terrorists who demanded the release of terrorist prisoners held in both Israel and Germany. After a botched rescue attempt and the murders of 11 athletes, the three surviving terrorists were jailed in Germany. They didn't linger there for long. The subsequent hijacking of a Lufthansa jet ensured their swift release by the German authorities. Surely, Bin Laden would have preferred a swift death than imprisonment in Guantanamo and surely we don't want a Beslan style school siege in this country.He deserved to die and would have been executed by the Americans anyway, probably after a long sequence of hearings, appeals and postponements which would have benefitted only lawyers, yet put at risk countless lives in the inevitable attempts to free him. All said and done,It's best for all concerned that he's sleeping with the fishes. It draws a line under the whole sorry affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 The Nazi Party killed countless millions, they had a trial. Seems odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISOT Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 @ Evil Inky and Bryan: Whit do you think a 'fair' trial costing millions would achieve and what do you think the outcome of that trial would be? Seeing as we're asking dumb questions here, just what kind of message do YOU think (apart from the 'bleeding obvious') that sending a military hit squad into a compound, in a foreign country, full of women and children to execute (rather than capture) an unarmed enemy combatant(?) and then dumping his body at sea sends out?What would you say if he had been hiding in Birmingham, Belfast or Beijing? Sorry I'll rephrase, whit do you YOU think a 'fair' trial would achieve and what do YOU think the outcome would be????? Is that not a valid question? Personally I think he deserved what he got, in fact a bullet in the head was probably too good for him. Wether he was in Birmingham or Nederdale it wouldn't bother me. People bang on about 'taking the moral high ground' (a few on here) and use the excuse of what sort of signal this sends to the younger generation!!! There's a damn sight worse going on in bloody computer games and bloody soaps and films nowadays. Good riddance to an extremely evil man. PS What was the number of 'civilian' casualties, women and children included? I've not seen any numbers yet. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 How far do you think this "eye for an eye" should go? According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War. God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. What we are doing is as bad, we could say, but with the racist overtones that these situations incur with the new indoctrination of the young nowadays that all Muslims are bad it is becoming frightening. This problem will not end in our lifetime, it has been going on for centuries. The death of one man will not stop it. Invasion creates a hidden war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 The Nazi Party killed countless millions, they had a trial. Seems odd. Yes but without Hitler The same can apply to al-Qaeda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Yup, millions killed on the orders, someone has to carry out those orders, and folk were still being killed after Hitlers suicide. That was another conflict fueled by punitive measures imposed on Germany by the UK, US and others. Can there be a bit of a trend forming? Still don't sort out when the "eye for an eye" should stop though, which is the more pressing problem I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 interesting to note there's nothing on his most wanted profile linking him to the WTC attacks: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Personally? I don't think that Bin Laden would have been able to get a 'fair' trial. Having said that, there was also the problem of getting him to trail in the first place although our american friends seem to extraordinarilly well practiced in 'extraordinary rendition'.BUT;A 'fair' trial would have forced the americans to proove that Bin Laden was in fact responsible for the atrocities blamed on him. Once they had done that, they could shoot him in the head as often as they wanted and there would have been no need to hide the body as there could have been no real comeback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 ^^ In a "perfect" world, or so the theory goes anyway, "ObL" would have been "apprehended" from his Pakistan villa by military under the command of the UN and directly answerable to the UN, who would have brought him back for a trial either by the UN itself, or by a member country, under their laws, with the approval of the UN. Had that been done the world would have had a far better chance of believing whoever was shot in Pakistan and dumped in the sea, if indeed anyone was, was actually the bona fide and original "ObL". It could have been argued out as to what of the things "ObL" was accused of, and in a lot of cases admitted, he was actually guilty of, and which were unfounded conjecture and supposition, but he'd, as many "terrorists" have done before him, "admitted" to them, as at that time it suited him to do so. Of course, we all know what a lame duck the UN is, so there never was any hope of them taking the initiative and placing themselves in a dominant commanding role in the whole thing, and even if there had been the delegates would have been squabbling yet over authorising it in a petty national and personal politics point scoring exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking74 Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 OBL will be tied up in a cellar deep undir da whyt hoos an will b kept alive joost enyoch an tortured fur eternity!! du ya really tink da yanks killed him an dumpt him ida waatir?! an whar dir wan terrorist dir ay anniddir een..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillsidevoe Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 No photos of Bin Ladens corpse because its hard to dig a body up and then make it look like he has just been shot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.