I was struck by the wording Obama used in his press conference about the whole thing. .he talked of the capture and death of Bin Laden. .. .not the capture and execution without trial of an unarmed man. . which is what it actually was.. trying to sanitise the whole thing?

 

Don't get me wrong he was a bad un and a trial and imprisonment would open up all sorts of other problems like in the old days when the, PLO was it?, were always hijacking planes to get their members released from prisons. .

 

Still find the way this was done leaves a bad taste in my mouth tho. .not sure what the answer is. . or if it will change anything for the better... I very much doubt it will.. in fact when I heard the news I felt nowt apart from ah they got him then,  cos I reckon the new modern  day terrorism has gone way beyond him and his lot... dunno what the answer is but I do agree with what temps said about who made the USA the worlds Police.. they only act if it is in their interest to protect places where they get resources from, as do other countries, tho this instance it was a revenge attack more than anything. .time to look to those countries that need help regardless of what they can offer in return  

 

I've rambled a bit cos tis all a whirr in my brain and I can't find a reasonable solution to any of it that would suit all..

 

*brain explodes*

I thought the whole idea of the Untied Nations and the Security council was to have a Joint Police force for the world. .not one Country  taking control as and when ti suits them..

 

 

the USA bombed the Gaddafi compound yrs ago I seem to recall. .killed one of his young kids and a few family members then.. that was without any discussion with any other countries but suited their  needs for revenge for something or other at the time.. [I've forgotten what it was now ]  the current situation may not suit their needs now hence their reluctance to get involved so much.. 

my head hurts now

 

*goes to lie down*

i think we all know the UN is pretty powerless is most situations. there will always be the chinese and russians... lol.

 

 my point is that even when  america  is reluctant to be involved they are  pushed to the front of the  crowd anyways. it was agreed by just every expert that   in the early stages of operating the no fly  zone over libya it was only the  americans that had the technology and eqipment to do it effectively,   and  as soon  as the   no fly  zone was established they demanded  that some one else take control, which in this case was Nato.

 

  it's  a bit  of,they are dammed do and dammned if they don't, dependin on where your sympathies lay at the time.

The Americans bombed Ghadaffi years ago, because they needed a patsy for the Lockerbie bombing. They were scared to sort out the actual perpetrators and probably thought that this would serve as a warning, pour encourager les autres!

See you should have borrowed my tin hat

 

I don't know what the answer is either.  Like some one else said earlier in the thread, if they'd shot him immediately after 9/11, would there be a different reaction?  To be honest maybe partly it is the timing that doesn't sit right with me but it's more that he was shot unarmed and now it transpires it was in front of his 12 year old daughter.  If it was a gun battle in the middle of the pakistani mountains then maybe it would be different.

 

Some might say well the victims of 9/11 weren't armed either, what chance did they have?  But two wrongs don't make a right.  No country has the right to invade another and blow some one's brains out.  It makes them no better than each other and I'm sick of the US/Allied forces getting away with stuff just because they're on the 'right' side.

 

Jackson, I don't accept they are the police force of the world.  They are the best equipped military wise to deal with situations but it doesn't give them a free for all license.  I think the issue with Libya is that 'you went into Iraq to allegedly solve human rights violations, why not go in here too?'. 

 

you see I knew I shouldn't have posted in here cos for every argument I have for or against something in my head, there seems to be another person in there [or on forums or tellyboxes etc] putting the other side and the end result is I end up with mush for brains and no solutions. . there are very few things that the other side in my head doesn't find an argument against my first thoughts. .things like executing people is one of those few that I have only one debating person in my head that comes down on the side of not good to murder a murderer..  but fight and kill in an even handed battle doesn't go down so bad with me . .dunno why I am so confused all the time tho..

 

 

maybe I am schizophrenic or just a fence sitter cos I can see all sides for most things and can't come down on one without thinking ooer maybe I'm not totally for this now.. *brain explodes again *

having said all that I reckon in the heat of the moment and in anger I could probably kill somebody myself if the situation was so awful. .tho am not sure I could live with the aftermath of it tho..

http://twitter.com/#!/GhostOsama

I find it hard to care even a teensy bit...*tries really hard* nope cant do it... cant care  at all that he wasnt armed.

Temps

Same here. Some have said 2 wrongs don't make a right but is it really that black and white in this case? I don't think so.

I think it's admirable enough that they sent special forces in.

 

They could have just dropped a massive bomb on everyone there! 

Well, quite. They have (apparently) known where he was since August, they could have just done a 9/11 on his hairy arse and flown a plane into his bathroom or summat. They had one aim and that was to get him. Yes it's awful that anyone is shot in front of any relative let alone their daughter, but if he hadn't of been such a bastard in the first place and brazenly celebrated the mass death toll by saying 9/11 'went better than expected' - he wouldn't have been a wanted man and wouldn't have put his own kids at risk by the inevitable consequences of his selfish actions. I've read most of the views on here and other places on the net and my views still remain.

that was meeeee!

 

 

I was there!

Wasn't he on the most wanted list before 9/11?  I could be wrong, but I was sure he was.  I dunno what he did to get on the list mind you (before 9/11)

us embassy bombings in nairobi and dar es saalam amongst other things.

Bin laden never made it on any forum lists!

 

Thank you

yeah, team america are the only one's equipped to police the world full time. that would be alright if their own ideology behind a lot of the interference was as a wholesome and transparent as they like to portray. there's a network of agendas and self-interest behind the facade of doing the right thing and being the champions of the universe.

Bit baffled by all this... the white house first says that a woman was used as a human shield and that he was armed.

 

Now they say that he was not armed and that a woman wasn't used as a human shield

 

The story keeps changing.

Osamas last fb entry....

Was that the White house or the press that said that?...

The white house.

Jackson, I don't accept they are the police force of the world.  They are the best equipped military wise to deal with situations but it doesn't give them a free for all license.

 

temps^^

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

i agree with you temps, i don't like  the fact that they are the policemen of the world and that shouldn't give them license to do what they do, but it's a fact that they are the only  nation on earth, until the chinese get their act together,( be  very careful what you wish for) that have the  money, technology and armoury to police the world.

 

it would be  nice to operate in a world  that has no need of any policing, but thats never going to happen, it's what the UN was set up for and it hasn't  worked yet.

 

i don't think those that rushed into reports the minute  the shooting stopped  took the opportunity to digest  what ahd actually happned, it's a pretty easy shift, if you are of the mind  that many  of  those that rushed  to  tell the story, that ' cowardly osama used wife as human sheild'-  to the  more likely truth-' osma's wife placed herself in front of  him to protect him'

 

things blurted  out excitedly in the heat of   the moment are rarely to be trusted..

It's all academic. 

 

If they had captured him some would be saying it was unlawful kidnap. Loads of Muslims would be in the streets beating sabers off the lampposts threatening to kill any none believer that passed. 

It would have taken years and cost billions to bring him to trial then we would have had to pay a fortune to keep him in custody and he would have been pardoned 5 years later to go home to die.

 

The right result was achieved. Right or wrong he was evil and would have killed you given half a chance!

And I'd have killed him given half the chance.

Agreed. It's part of the "fog of war", and happens all the time.

For another example, you only have to look at the early reports of the failed attempt to rescue Linda Norgrove...

Good point!

 

Twat lol

Hitler finds out Osama is dead

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsnRKP56oxg

 

Walking along Blackpool seafront this morning....

 

 

 

Proof... im certain its his.

 

bahahahaha, what a nob

Heather Mills might have fancied a paddle?