As I said before, I can't see how any person accused of "crimes against humanity" could ever really be guaranteed a totally fair trial, as you're never going to be able to find an impartial "jury".

And I really can't believe that anyone can really have any sympathy regarding the nature of bin Laden's death after his undeniable involvement in terrorist atrocities.

The only possible exception could be if it could be proven without a doubt that he was killed inhumanely.

I don't think there's been any suggestion that he was made to suffer (i.e. tortured or anything like that).

If the general consensus happens to be that this should be investigated, then no problem.

 

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? How quickly people forget.:dozey:

 

That is a good point in trying to find an impartial jury. But the same could also be said about the Nazi's too. I mean the world knew about them at the time and how terrible they were still that was done.

 

I think I can speak for the others that none of us talking about a having a trial for Bin Laden is giving him any sympathy. He was a ruthless murderer that is responsible for thousands of deaths all over the world.

 

However yes it is not right from the Islamic extremists to be beheading people on video and posting it. No one forgets it. Its a horrific thing to do and show people. But at the same time they are on such a low level of moral standards that I wouldn't put anything past them. They are afterall willing to kill anyone and everyone including themselves for an invisible man in the sky... now how fucked up is that?

 

So why should we bring ourselves down to that level of barbarism? The Western World, but in this scenario the US has been known for it's guiding principles of giving people freedom and equality (though of course from some of our actions it can't be said that we fully follow them). So in some sense it's kind of a walking contridiction... We are a country that values freedom, equality, and fair chances but we'll abandon those principles in this case.

 

 

Now I don't know... I wasn't there. I have no idea if he was armed or not and threatening the soldiers. But from what I've heard he wasn't armed so I think he should've been taken in. I mean afterall when we captured Saddam Hussein and Nazis in WWII we didn't deliberately kill them.

That is a good point in trying to find an impartial jury. But the same could also be said about the Nazi's too. I mean the world knew about them at the time and how terrible they were still that was done.

 

So do you think if the Americans or Russians had got to Hitler before he had killed himself, and shot him, anyone of a sane mind would have given a damn? I very much doubt it.

 

I think I can speak for the others that none of us talking about a having a trial for Bin Laden is giving him any sympathy. He was a ruthless murderer that is responsible for thousands of deaths all over the world.

 

However yes it is not right from the Islamic extremists to be beheading people on video and posting it. No one forgets it. Its a horrific thing to do and show people. But at the same time they are on such a low level of moral standards that I wouldn't put anything past them. They are afterall willing to kill anyone and everyone including themselves for an invisible man in the sky... now how fucked up is that?

 

So why should we bring ourselves down to that level of barbarism? The Western World, but in this scenario the US has been known for it's guiding principles of giving people freedom and equality (though of course from some of our actions it can't be said that we fully follow them). So in some sense it's kind of a walking contridiction... We are a country that values freedom, equality, and fair chances but we'll abandon those principles in this case.

 

I do take your point, but at the end of the day, terrorism isn't at all fair, as it deliberately targets civilians. If conventional warfare was being waged, it would be a totally different matter.

The goalposts have been well and truly moved in recent years, and 9/11 was the point of no return.

At least the IRA generally used to give coded warnings before bombs went off (even though hundreds of innocent people were still killed).

The Islamic extremists don't give any warnings whatsoever.:angry:

How can they be expected to be treated "fairly" when they do things like that?:dozey:

 

 

Now I don't know... I wasn't there. I have no idea if he was armed or not and threatening the soldiers. But from what I've heard he wasn't armed so I think he should've been taken in. I mean afterall when we captured Saddam Hussein and Nazis in WWII we didn't deliberately kill them.

 

Exactly, none of us was there, so we don't know exactly what transpired. By all accounts he was given the opportunity to surrender, but refused to do so. As far as I'm aware, Saddam Hussein either surrendered or was captured without a struggle.

Presumably the majority of the senior Nazis in WWII were captured easily too, although I'm only speculating here.

I understand what you're saying, and terrorists don't care for the most part being that they target civilians. But like I said before if we are supposed to be a nation that values equal justice, freedom and equlity among citizens then it's kind of hypocritical.

 

If he was armed and ready to shoot a soldier then fine... shoot him in self defense. But otherwise I say capture him. To be honest I'd much rather see a criminal rot the rest of their lives in jail.

 

Also two wrongs don't make a right. Yes what they do is barbaric, but like I said if you do the same things right back to them you essentially become just as bad as them.

 

Also I think from an outside standpoint that the terrorists seeing us kill him will only make things worse in that we shot him, but also it will help fuel of him being a martyr.

 

Overall the whole thing is a delicate situation. But I still think that the worst thing people could've done was celebrate the way they did.

 

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? Did any of them get a fair trial, or even deserve being tried for anything in the first place? How quickly people forget.:dozey:

 

 

Who has said those things are forgotten? So we are to behave in the same way as they do then, and that is OK? Because they behave in a barbaric way then we do?

 

The Islamic extremists don't give any warnings whatsoever.:angry:

How can they be expected to be treated "fairly" when they do things like that?:dozey:

 

I don't care what they expect, it is what should have been done.

 

 

Exactly, none of us was there, so we don't know exactly what transpired.

 

So why be so one sided in your statements and keep bringing up WW2? We have said that things should be looked into, and if they didn't need to kill him he shouldn't have been killed and answers must be given. I don't see why you have a problem with that. We have said if it comes out that he needed to be killed then that is fine. We don't have a problem with that.

^I agree completely

 

 

So why be so one sided in your statements and keep bringing up WW2? We have said that things should be looked into, and if they didn't need to kill him he shouldn't have been killed and answers must be given. I don't see why you have a problem with that. We have said if it comes out that he needed to be killed then that is fine. We don't have a problem with that.

 

Firstly, if you read the previous posts carefully, I wasn't the one that referred to WW2 first. I was merely responding to comments which raised the subject.;)

Secondly, I have never at any point said that an investigation into how bin Laden was killed shouldn't be carried out, if it is possible to do so.

I just think it is going to be virtually impossible to prove that he was killed in cold blood, even if he was.

Incidentally, opinions tend to be one-sided, as they tend to lean to one side of an argument or another.

Ask any politician.;)

Firstly, if you read the previous posts carefully, I wasn't the one that referred to WW2 first. I was merely responding to comments which raised the subject.;)

 

I don't know why you are using that as some kind of yardstick and saying 'had someone killed Hitler would anyone have cared?'. It's just a random hypothetical irrelevant thing to say.

 

Secondly, I have never at any point said that an investigation into how bin Laden was killed shouldn't be carried out, if it is possible to do so.

I just think it is going to be virtually impossible to prove that he was killed in cold blood, even if he was.

 

To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea. If you're so confident he deserves death, then why are you not confident he deserves life imprisonment and don't believe he will get a fair trial? It's hard not to get a fair verdict when life imprisonment is the only outcome for what he has done.

I don't know why you are using that as some kind of yardstick and saying 'had someone killed Hitler would anyone have cared?'. It's just a random hypothetical irrelevant thing to say.

 

As I said, I wasn't the one that brought up the subject of WW2 and the Nazis.;)

Anyway, both Hitler and Bin Laden were responsible in one way or another for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, so I believe a comparison is valid, whatever your opinion on the topic.

 

To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea. If you're so confident he deserves death, then why are you not confident he deserves life imprisonment and don't believe he will get a fair trial? It's hard not to get a fair verdict when life imprisonment is the only outcome for what he has done.

 

None of that is relevant unless it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that bin Laden could have been captured without the lives of any of the SEALS being put at risk.

As I said, I wasn't the one that brought up the subject of WW2 and the Nazis.;)

Anyway, both Hitler and Bin Laden were responsible in one way or another for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, so I believe a comparison is valid, whatever your opinion on the topic.

 

And both deserved their human rights.

 

None of that is relevant unless it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that bin Laden could have been captured without the lives of any of the SEALS being put at risk.

 

Which is what we were asking to be looked in to. You don't half squirm, Mark.

 

 

 

Which is what we were asking to be looked in to. You don't half squirm, Mark.

 

Again, an unnecessary "personal" remark. For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

Again, an unnecessary "personal" remark. For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

 

How a person who doesn't believe everyone deserves human rights can attempt to play the victim, just because I said they squirmed, I'll never know :laugh3:

 

I never said your opinion wasn't valid, I'm glad you've finally entered into debate. I can see why you usually don't now though as you seem incapable of being challenged and dart around the subject between posts, hence why I said you squirmed. You seem to be moving between either saying 'Who cares, Islamic extremists don't care about our human rights so we shouldn't care about theirs', to 'Well the trial wouldn't be fair anyway so he might as well be dead', and then when all else fails you play the victim and say your opinion is valid, which is all well and good but it isn't really much of a reply.

How a person who doesn't believe everyone deserves human rights can attempt to play the victim, just because I said they squirmed, I'll never know :laugh3:

 

Again, for the record, I am not "playing the victim" in any way whatsoever, and I would appreciate your refraining from making false accusations.;)

 

I never said your opinion wasn't valid, I'm glad you've finally entered into debate. I can see why you usually don't now though as you seem incapable of being challenged.

 

Again, I am in no way whatsoever "incapable of being challenged". I was having a perfectly reasonable discussion with Mike before you butted in. You seem to be incapable of countering any of my opinions without making some kind of personal remark or insinuation.

 

That's why, as I stated before, I see no point in continuing any discussion or debate with you.

 

End.

 

Overall the whole thing is a delicate situation. But I still think that the worst thing people could've done was celebrate the way they did.

 

Good point. I don't think "celebrating" bin Laden's death was appropriate.

However, I can understand the reaction in terms of what happened on 9/11, whether appropriate or not.;)

Prince Harry is a target for a group looking to avenge Osama bin Laden's death, according to a report.

 

 

 

The killing of the Al-Qaeda mastermind was welcomed by many people in the Western world, but hundreds of extremists gathered outside the US embassy in London to protest about it on Friday.

Prince Harry features in the Muslims Against Crusades video (PA)

Muslims Against Crusades is believed to have organised the demonstration and members of the organisation now appear to have threatened Prince Harry.

According to the News of the World, the group has uploaded a video with a clear message about the army officer to a jihadist website.

It features footage of Prince Harry talking about his time on active duty in Afghanistan, together with a photograph of him wearing a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party and the infamous clip in which he uses a racially abusive term to describe a colleague.

The scenes are designed to stir up ill feeling against the royal and the video ends with what appears to be a faked death scene.

News of the video comes just days after London was described as a potential Al-Qaeda recruiting ground and security expert Neil Doyle told the tabloid the threat to Prince William's brother should be taken seriously.

'The group's supporters make it quite clear they want to see Harry dead. We are in a high-danger period,' he said.

Prince Harry served with the Household Cavalry in Helmand Province in 2007 and 2008, but was withdrawn after his presence became public knowledge.

It is believed he wants to return to Afghanistan for further active service, but it is not clear whether army commanders will allow it.

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862646-prince-harry-target-in-terror-video#ixzz1LnG7Bnve

For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

 

Hmmmm technically, I guess, in a way, somehow.

To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea.

 

Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

Good point. I don't think "celebrating" bin Laden's death was appropriate.

However, I can understand the reaction in terms of what happened on 9/11, whether appropriate or not.;)

 

I agree. I mean I can understand why people would react a certain way. I mean personally when I found out I basically thought to myself "it's about fucking time". Now it's about time that he was dead, but the fact that he was at least found and dealt with by the military, though of course if he was unarmed I still think he should've been captured.

 

 

Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

 

That is an interesting point. I'm sure if he had had the opportunity to he would've mocked and taken advantage somehow of the judicial system to send a message

Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

 

Signals maybe, but I'm not sure how widely it would be televised, if at all. If they are a stage where they can carry out something huge and only need the go ahead from him, then I'm quite sure his capture would be enough to actually spark them to do it anyway, just like his death would. This is not a reason to ignore justice however.

 

Other than that I honestly don't think he would enter a not guilty plea at all. He is very proud of his achievements. And besides, he could mock the system all he wanted, but if that's the only 'victory' he gets, then so be it. I'd be very happy with that scenario.

Just looking at pictures and video on BBC News from the US Department of Defence showing Bin Laden, grey beard and all flicking the channels. What's the chance he lands on babestation?

 

It appears you might have been right! :stunned:

 

Did Bin Laden watch porn as he hid in Pakistan? Stash of X-rated films found in his squalid lair

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

 

 

First it emerged Osama Bin Laden spent hours watching videos of himself as he callously planned new terror attacks against the 'decadent' West

But now it appears the Al Qaeda mastermind may have watched something else as he hid in his squalid lair - pornography.

Today officials revealed U.S. Navy SEALs discovered a stash of x-rated films in the terror leader's final hideout.

 

 

What was he watching? Today it emerged U.S. Navy SEALs found a stash of pornography videos in Osama Bin Laden's squalid lair

 

It's the latest in a series of chilling revelations about the years Bin Laden spent in the specially-built compound, as investigators trawl through the treasure trove of evidence recovered by the SEALS.

According to officials, the commandos found a 'fairly extensive' collection of modern porn films as they searched the building after Bin Laden was shot.

 

 

 

 

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they did not yet know where in the compound the films were found - or who had been watching it.

The terror leader shared the three-storey house in Abbottabad, not far from the Pakistani capital, with his three wives, several of his children and the families of two of his closest aides.

It is not known whether Bin Laden himself watched the pornography, which consisted of recent, electronically-recorded video.

Come back with a story that a reporter will actually give their name to.

Every one knows never to read those stories as though they are fact.

 

If it was to be true he must have had it well and truly hidden if it's only been found recently.

BORING

Still could be true, though............................. :rolleyes:

So? Who the flying suck cares if he did or didn't. What difference does it make? OH NO OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS A TERRORIST PERVERT. Good grief.

Next you'll be telling me that Ian Huntley swore once. :shrug:

Osama bin Laden's death[/url], according to a report.[/b]

 

 

 

The killing of the Al-Qaeda mastermind was welcomed by many people in the Western world, but hundreds of extremists gathered outside the US embassy in London to protest about it on Friday.

Prince Harry features in the Muslims Against Crusades video (PA)

Muslims Against Crusades is believed to have organised the demonstration and members of the organisation now appear to have threatened Prince Harry.

According to the News of the World, the group has uploaded a video with a clear message about the army officer to a jihadist website.

It features footage of Prince Harry talking about his time on active duty in Afghanistan, together with a photograph of him wearing a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party and the infamous clip in which he uses a racially abusive term to describe a colleague.

The scenes are designed to stir up ill feeling against the royal and the video ends with what appears to be a faked death scene.

News of the video comes just days after London was described as a potential Al-Qaeda recruiting ground and security expert Neil Doyle told the tabloid the threat to Prince William's brother should be taken seriously.

'The group's supporters make it quite clear they want to see Harry dead. We are in a high-danger period,' he said.

Prince Harry served with the Household Cavalry in Helmand Province in 2007 and 2008, but was withdrawn after his presence became public knowledge.

It is believed he wants to return to Afghanistan for further active service, but it is not clear whether army commanders will allow it.

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862646-prince-harry-target-in-terror-video#ixzz1LnG7Bnve

 

 

WHAT???!?!?!?! what is happening in this world????? Prince Harry???

WHAT???

 

Osama is dead.....they should just forget about it!