And here’s the key paragraph bouncing around the Middle East

[bigrebnc1775]

Urgent Bin Ladens Daughter Say Us Forces Captrured, Then Executed Her Father

 

[Flopper]

I think this is to be expected. Regardless what the troops did, it would be called and execution by some.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think this is to be expected. Regardless what the troops did, it would be called and execution by some.

There's a difference being armed and unarmed.
First report was there was a 45 minute gun fight, then it was reported he was reaching for a gun, then it was reported that there were guns near him, then it was reported he was unarmed, Now we have this. And all this coming from the government except for this last story.

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't give a fuck even if they did, fuck Bin Laden.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't give a fuck even if they did, fuck Bin Laden.

Point take, here's a counter point. Why did we bury him with the mulism tradition but did not hold to our tradition of taking unarmed enemy as prisoner?

 

[High_Gravity]

I don't give a fuck even if they did, fuck Bin Laden.

Point take, here's a counter point. Why did we bury him with the mulism tradition but did not hold to our tradition of taking unarmed enemy as prisoner?

I really don't know, I'm just glad that he's dead, fuck him.

 

[R.D.]

"Supporters of Al-Qaeda and human rights groups and others will call this brutal execution." (sic)

Ouch ... just being lumped in with Al-Qaeda's gotta hurt

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't give a fuck even if they did, fuck Bin Laden.

Point take, here's a counter point. Why did we bury him with the mulism tradition but did not hold to our tradition of taking unarmed enemy as prisoner?

I really don't know, I'm just glad that he's dead, fuck him.

Was osama that big of a threat? I started a thread that showed Clinton Bush and obama knew exactly where Bin Laden was. As reported by Former CIA Director Porter Goss
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3605671-post1.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Test

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's a difference being armed and unarmed.
First report was there was a 45 minute gun fight, then it was reported he was reaching for a gun, then it was reported that there were guns near him, then it was reported he was unarmed, Now we have this. And all this coming from the government except for this last story.

Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing's legality

Doubts remain over manner in which al-Qaida figurehead died but US officials defend Barack Obama's action

Owen Bowcott
Tuesday 3 May 2011 16.53 BST

The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.

Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.

Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing's legality | World news | The Guardian

Harold Koh’s analysis of actions such as the operation against OBL is well on-point and confirms the Administration’s actions were legal.

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'."

It therefore makes no difference what OBL was doing, armed or unarmed, offering resistance or not – his very existence posed a threat we were legally justified to eliminate.

 

[Trajan]

Urgent Bin Ladens Daughter Say Us Forces Captrured, Then Executed Her Father

its typical.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Urgent Bin Ladens Daughter Say Us Forces Captrured, Then Executed Her Father

its typical.....

Typical if Bush was still president, but this is the choosen one they're talking about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There's a difference being armed and unarmed.
First report was there was a 45 minute gun fight, then it was reported he was reaching for a gun, then it was reported that there were guns near him, then it was reported he was unarmed, Now we have this. And all this coming from the government except for this last story.

Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing's legality

Doubts remain over manner in which al-Qaida figurehead died but US officials defend Barack Obama's action

Owen Bowcott
Tuesday 3 May 2011 16.53 BST

The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.

Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.

Osama bin Laden: US responds to questions about killing's legality | World news | The Guardian

Harold Koh’s analysis of actions such as the operation against OBL is well on-point and confirms the Administration’s actions were legal.

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'."

It therefore makes no difference what OBL was doing, armed or unarmed, offering resistance or not – his very existence posed a threat we were legally justified to eliminate.

So justifing obama's action helps our troops if captured in what way?

 

[The Infidel]

But its the pic that is going to push the pajama wearers over the edge

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But its the pic that is going to push the pajama wearers over the edge

I take it you get the point?

 

[code1211]

He's an enemy of the USA. As such, he should know and believe in his heart that he is a dead man walking. All enemies of the USA have the unchallenged right and resposibility to have exactly the same feeling.

If you hurt us us, you will die. Period. End of discussion.

One down. Let's get as many more as we can and then leave the Rag Heads to kill the Camel Jockeys and vice versa.

Develop all of our own domestic energy sources and technologies and let the rest of the world depend on this cess pool for thier oil.

 

[Anachronism]

bigreb; what do you do with a rabid dog?.... YOU PUT IT DOWN. For everyone's safety and well-being you put the animal down. OBL doesn't qualify as a human being in the books of those of us with any common sense. He was a dog. Maybe less than that.

I don't care if he'd thrown up his hands and attempted to surrender. The SEALS did exactly what they should have in offing that worthless sack of shit and piss. I am all for flying the Red Flag under the Stars and Stripes in every one of these War Zones where and when we're fighting terrorists. For those of you who don't know, that red flag means... "No Quarter". AKA.... We're not going to surrender and we're not taking any prisoners.

 

[Grace]

BL is now a martyr.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He's an enemy of the USA. As such, he should know and believe in his heart that he is a dead man walking. All enemies of the USA have the unchallenged right and resposibility to have exactly the same feeling.

If you hurt us us, you will die. Period. End of discussion.

One down. Let's get as many more as we can and then leave the Rag Heads to kill the Camel Jockeys and vice versa.

Develop all of our own domestic energy sources and technologies and let the rest of the world depend on this cess pool for thier oil.

All enemies of America? Those that have surrendered?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb; what do you do with a rabid dog?.... YOU PUT IT DOWN. For everyone's safety and well-being you put the animal down. OBL doesn't qualify as a human being in the books of those of us with any common sense. He was a dog. Maybe less than that.

I don't care if he'd thrown up his hands and attempted to surrender. The SEALS did exactly what they should have in offing that worthless sack of shit and piss. I am all for flying the Red Flag under the Stars and Stripes in every one of these War Zones where and when we're fighting terrorists. For those of you who don't know, that red flag means... "No Quarter". AKA.... We're not going to surrender and we're not taking any prisoners.

Should we prepare our troops that if they are captured they will be killed?