Killing him would certainly not have given him what he wants: there is no life after death, and there ain’t no heaven, and finding even one virgin who wanted to sleep with a corpse would be hard, let alone 72.
They gave him to 72 fish instead.
Exactly. Been saying that for years. But, the Left has been calling it assassination… well, when Bush and Co. did it, it was assassination. Apparently its peachy if Obomber does it. Too many on the Left want to treat AQ’s declared war on the US and West as a criminal matter. That’s been a problem for a long time, going back to Pres. Clinton.
I don’t think he really wanted to die. He was in hiding for a reason.
Wookie, yes. Everyone, including the Left, now sees it as justified. But, the Left didn’t think it was justified when Bush/Cheney did it.
Killing him would certainly not have given him what he wants: there is no life after death, and there ain’t no heaven, and finding even one virgin who wanted to sleep with a corpse would be hard, let alone 72.
They gave him to 72 fish instead.[/quote]
I know there’s no life after death, heaven etc and you know it, but OBL didn’t.
Wookie, yes. Everyone, including the Left, now sees it as justified. But, the Left didn’t think it was justified when Bush/Cheney did it.[/quote]
Goes to trust, and a belief in a leader’s integrity, does it not?
For some, yes. But, not for most, IMO.
Apple != orange.
Apple != orange.[/quote]
Head ! = sand.
He got the sword with which he professed to live.
Yet really he was just a bankrolling lord.
But far whom better to slay, the soldier, or the man in the machine that can raise 10,000?
Still, I hope they carried it out of sight of his kids.
I don’t think he really wanted to die. He was in hiding for a reason.[/quote]
He was hiding behind his wife, because, he only was the motherfucker with the money, surrounded by people who make sleeping in a cave during a battle look cool.
His young daughter was the first to confirm that she saw him shot.
She will grow up to be the next leader (or would if AQ could stomach listening to the orders of a woman. Unclean!)
U. N. officials want the U. S. to disclose more information about the raid in order to determine whether it was conducted lawfully:
[quote]United Nations Human rights investigators are calling for full disclosure of facts surrounding the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, said they were keen to assess if the use of deadly force against Bin Laden was in keeping with international human rights law standards.
They said it will be important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.
Prof. Heyns said although the use of deadly force may be permissible in order to protect life, terrorists should be dealt with as criminals through legal process of arrests, trial and conviction.[/quote]–“UN Human rights experts want facts on Osama bin Laden killing,” United Nations Radio, May 6, 2011
Conducted lawfully? 
I know nothing of Pakistani law, but I wonder if there may have been a couple, if not more, violations of that country’s laws. Unlawful entry? Trespassing? Theft? Arson? Littering? Violation of local noise ordinances?
Its interesting, IMO, to look back at some of the statements made by Obomber and his administration in the past when Bush II was POTUS and to compare their then statements with their now statements. Let’s look at statements made by Obomber’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, regarding the OBL assassination and an arrest made by Bush II’s admin a few years ago:
You all may remember that Jose Padilla was arrested in the US as he got off a plane that landed at O’Hare in Chicago. Holder and the Democrats then believed and argued that Bush did not have the legal authority to apprehend the terrorist at the airport as this was not a traditional battlefield encounter.
Well, I guess we all need to look at things, including the law, differently when the POTUS is not named Bush. Here’s Obomber’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, arguing recently that the OBL assassination, which took place in a private home in a residential neighborhood, where OBL was found unarmed and surrounded by women and children, was perfectly legitimate under the relevant law:
So, according to AG Holder and the Democrats, entering unauthorized into a third country to kill Osama bin Laden in his private home in a residential area where he was surrounded by women and children did constitute a traditional battlefield encounter. Indeed, Holder must now realize that Osama bin Laden’s private home in a residential area where he was surrounded by women and children was an active field of battle.
Well, I agree. I’m just glad the Left and the Democrats and Holder and Obomber have finally come around and figured things out. Its about time! :bravo:
And believe me, Tigerman, when I say that we will, when politically expedient, most likely change tack again, and we reserve the right to do that, and hereby put y’all on notice!
Oh, I do believe that to be true!
He’s going to get off on a technicality. Just watch.
Conducted lawfully?
I know nothing of Pakistani law, but I wonder if there may have been a couple, if not more, violations of that country’s laws. Unlawful entry? Trespassing? Theft? Arson? Littering? Violation of local noise ordinances?[/quote]
Don’t forget leaving the scene of an accident.
Seriously, though, I guess it would have taken an extradition request (although the papers didn’t mention that) and all the formalities that would follow that in order to have satisfied the U. N. officials cited earlier. This appears to be their position, from the article I quoted earlier:
To them he’s just a criminal. So I guess that in order to have satisfied the U. N. officials cited earlier, before we could have arrested him we’d have to have requested extradition. That’s the traditional, conventional route that a country takes when dealing with persons who have violated that country’s law but are now residing in some other country.
Given the fact that he was found residing about one hour’s drive from Islamabad (according to the papers), and in a populated area, and that he had apparently been residing there for several years, and given the conclusion that those apparent facts strongly suggest with regard to the Pakistani government’s attitude toward him (or just as importantly, toward the U. S.), I wonder what would have happened had we gone the formal route and requested the extradition of Osama bin Laden.
[quote=“shibari”][quote=“navillus”]
ca.news.yahoo.com/source-al-qaid … 57590.html[/quote]
Obama is proving more and more disappointing to those of us who supported him. First he fails to shut down Guantanamo Bay, much less end either war. Then he starts a new war in Libya. Yesterday he has a “NATO” airstrike kill several of Khadaffi’s family. Now he has OBL assassinated instead of bringing him to the U.S. for a proper trial. This is frankly disgusting. What hope? Certainly no change.[/quote]
If Obama had captured OBL alive and word got out, his followers would have taken hostage hundreds if not thousands of any Westerners that looked “American.” His choice to bury OBL at sea was smart too. Which country would accept the body? Certainly not Saudi Arabia, where he was born. Saudi revoked his citizenship and his father’s family that holds the money cut him off too. Yemen where his last wife was from? No, the government has enough troubles already. Syria, Iran? Definitely not. Shiites and Al Qaeda hate each other. The USA–never!
If OBL were not buried at sea, his monument (tombstone) would have been the focal point of constant pilgrimages. And the pilgrims would have issued fatwaws against the USA and its citizens for many years to come. Ditto with the death pictures. Che Guevara’s silkscreen image has been going strong since 1968? and it still has a long shelf life in the future.
OBL dead + buried at sea + no pictures = best equation possible.