Osama Bin Laden is DEAD

[Hecktix]

If that is the case, surely the 'suffering' which you could class as mental torture in that kind of language is unjust as it could be the case that many are sentenced as guilty when they are infact innocent. Firstly you go on to justify your stance as 'because they could be sent to death when they are innocent' as a reason for opposing the death penalty, but then you go on to state that you find prison better because they then 'suffer' for their crimes - I don't see the consistency there, surely if prison were that bad as you make it out to be (of which it is not), then you would not want the possibility of sending innocents there.

If you take that line, no trial and presumed guilty from the instant and not worthy of a trial - then you are simply following a dangerous path of which the most brutal regimes have followed, that 'because we know x is guilty then x does simply not deserve a trial' - what happens if, as you say above in your justification for opposing the death penalty, somebody is innocent but we *thought* they were certainly guilty and thus never gave them a trial?

I believe that long-term prison sentences are a suitable punishment yes, I don't believe in short term prison sentences - no but that's for a different discussion. My points are linked, you cannot be sure, even when a justice system gives the verdict of guilty that the person is guilty. If the decision is wrong and they are in prison, they can be released - the punishment of never being able to walk a free man again is lifted. You may not agree that being imprisoned for life is a bad thing (oh and by life, I mean life, I am a full believer in life meaning life in prison, not shabby 15 years) but that's your opinion and you're welcome to have that opinion, my opinion is that not being able to walk a free man is a suitable punishment and can be reversed should it need to be, death on the other hand cannot.

I see your argument which can be summed up as 'I do not trust a jury or the courts provided with evidence to make a decision but I do trust my own belief/the belief of others and thus do not need the courts' - not only do you support the death penalty in a brutal manner (a firefight with bullets) without trial, but you support what is essentially vigilantism by the state - which is very very dangerous If that belief is so strong in the guilt of somebody, then it [the evidence] deserves to go to a trial. That is the idea of which a sound and responsible legal system is based upon. Once its gone (as it is slowing being eroded away) then nobody is safe.

Bin Laden was killed in a Military manner, we cannot be certain of the circumstances involving his death however I'm sure America would have loved to see Bin Laden stand trial and be put in the electric chair or hung. Saddam Hussein had a trial, remember? Although his crimes were of a different nature and he was tried by the "Iraqi" Government, he had a trial - I'm sure America would have loved to arrest Bin Laden and go down that route however I can't see the capture of Bin Laden being a free and simple thing, it would have been a battle and I don't think anybody can deny that:

At the climax, at the end of a 40-minute firefight,

This suggests there was a fight, there would be no way Bin Laden's protection would have let them take him and to do so would have been stupid. Do you object to armed Police firing weapons at an offender waving a gun around? So why here? Obviously in an idealistic world, Bin Laden would have been captured and tried for his crimes, but when Bin Laden and his protectors are firing back at you - it's definitely not that easy, lol. They weren't gonna say "okay, we'll come back another day we can't get him alive today", were they? He deserved to die (and would have died when he was found guilty in a trial) so what's the difference? I'm not denying that a trial would have been fairer, and as I said in an ideal world he'd have put his hands up and said "yes ive been on the run for 10 years you can take me now" and he'd have sat a trial and been executed following a guilty verdict.

De-humanise to justify killing, thats all you are doing. I must repeat Peter Hitchens on this 'that thing isn't a human, its a blob of jelly/cells' which later goes into 'that thing isn't a human, its a jew' - they both 'look like humans but are not humans' - it is alive and it is a human being, do not pretend otherwise. Do you ever hear a pregnant woman refer to her baby as 'my foetus'? no, you don't - its only used by those who wish to justify abortion.

All the arguments you put forward there are destroyed in this short debate, I would strongly recommend a listen as I also used to advocate the very same arguments you advocate now, of which i've found I was wrong and it was all complete piffle.

I'm sure there are oppositions to my argument, after all it's my opinion and I'm entitled to that opinion - it doesn't mean it's wrong it's what I believe, I'm quite aware that a foetus is a human being, part of my degree included lectures on pre-natal development so don't make out I don't know anything, it's my opinion that the prevention of life in the form of abortion is moral as generally this abortion is preventing a child from suffering. This whole argument boils down to what you believe life is, I mean you go on as if your opinion (and the opinion of your beloved Peter Hitchens) is gospel and the truth, hell you're as bad as religious extremists who believe the bible is 100% fact. It's my opinion that the death penalty is okay in certain circumstances and not in others, and it's my opinion that a life cannot be taken until that life has begun and it is my opinion that what we know as "life" doesn't begin until birth, I'm aware the foetus is a living organism but it's my opinion that it does not constitute a "life" until birth. You nor anybody else can say my opinion is wrong, because it's my opinion - you can disagree with me, but you cannot claim I'm wrong. You are so narrow minded and refuse to allow anybody to have a view different to yours, open your bloody eyes man.

[AgnesIO]

I am Lamar & I have every right to question the prime minister's actions because there is such thing as freedom of speech.

the reason why I am able to forgive him is because its THE PAST there is no way what he has done can be changed, I'm not scum. I'm not a child. I believe in FORGIVE & FORGET the armed forces going out to kill isn't solving a damn thing all its doing is making **** worst.

do you forgive hitler

[GommeInc]

I'm sure America would have loved to arrest Bin Laden and go down that route however I can't see the capture of Bin Laden being a free and simple thing, it would have been a battle and I don't think anybody can deny that:

This confused me, and possibly you too. Apparently he wasn't as guarded as we would have thought - the US Navy SEALS lost no men during the operation and took out loads of his guards (by loads it's reported to be only a handful) and there's no mention of any further fighting. It's also odd that they managed to get a body onto a helicopter which would of taken just as long to drag a man kicking and screaming onto it. They do not appear to mention that he was killed because he was armed and dangerous, they seemed to just hint that they shot him because they could, and took out a potentially innocent/useless target at the same time.

In other news, I think Lamar is mixing forgiveness with closure. His actions were unforgiveable and to suggest he could be forgiven is a bit premature. IF a man were to kill your friends and family, would you forgive him once he had been killed or captured because "He was following a dream?"

[Hecktix]

This confused me, and possibly you too. Apparently he wasn't as guarded as we would have thought - the US Navy SEALS lost no men during the operation and took out loads of his guards (by loads it's reported to be only a handful) and there's no mention of any further fighting. It's also odd that they managed to get a body onto a helicopter which would of taken just as long to drag a man kicking and screaming onto it. They do not appear to mention that he was killed because he was armed and dangerous, they seemed to just hint that they shot him because they could, and took out a potentially innocent/useless target at the same time.

Just because they didn't have any casualties doesnt mean his guards didn't fight back - it means that the Americans simply beat them Whether Bin Laden was armed or not (I imagine he may have been) I do think it would have been very risky to take him alive, riskier than taking the body. It's quite clear that the most probable form of events is that they invaded the place he was staying, shot dead any guards guarding him (who were no doubtedly armed, whether he was guarded as well as we thought or not there would have been some form of weapons there) shot him dead and removed him. This is what I gather from this article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330

There are several suggestions of Osama fighting back, a US helicopter fell from the sky (it's unclear what caused it however), and there's this quote from the US counterterrorism advisor:

"The concern was that Bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation. Indeed, he did. It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight, and that's when the remains were removed," said Mr Brennan.

However, the article does say other US officials have denied Bin Laden fought back - which does pose questions about whether the US are being entirely honest about the operation. There are also further contradictions explained later in the articles. I'm inclined to believe there was either a fight, or there's something dodgy about what went on, however if there was a fight the only option was to take Osama dead then this is perfectly within my moral beliefs. If not, I agree that Osama being dead is a good thing and would like to know further facts before judging the morality of an assassination.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I believe that long-term prison sentences are a suitable punishment yes, I don't believe in short term prison sentences - no but that's for a different discussion. My points are linked, you cannot be sure, even when a justice system gives the verdict of guilty that the person is guilty. If the decision is wrong and they are in prison, they can be released - the punishment of never being able to walk a free man again is lifted. You may not agree that being imprisoned for life is a bad thing (oh and by life, I mean life, I am a full believer in life meaning life in prison, not shabby 15 years) but that's your opinion and you're welcome to have that opinion, my opinion is that not being able to walk a free man is a suitable punishment and can be reversed should it need to be, death on the other hand cannot.

I'm not disputing that you have an opinion, i'm arguing against your opinion.

Now as the death penalty as its drifting below into other topics, if it is the case that Bin Laden was not armed and that he could have been taken alive - would you then be prepared to backtrack and say that yes, the execution of Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Do you also accept (as a non-believer in the death penalty), that the execution of Saddam Hussein was wrong?

Bin Laden was killed in a Military manner, we cannot be certain of the circumstances involving his death however I'm sure America would have loved to see Bin Laden stand trial and be put in the electric chair or hung. Saddam Hussein had a trial, remember? Although his crimes were of a different nature and he was tried by the "Iraqi" Government, he had a trial - I'm sure America would have loved to arrest Bin Laden and go down that route however I can't see the capture of Bin Laden being a free and simple thing, it would have been a battle and I don't think anybody can deny that:

I very much doubt that considering Bin Laden was an ex-CIA asset but thats a whole other story. Although this raises an important point, if Bin Laden was armed (as expected) why was he killed when Saddam Hussein was armed but was disarmed and kept alive? Hussein was not shot on sight despite being armed himself, as we would expect.

This suggests there was a fight, there would be no way Bin Laden's protection would have let them take him and to do so would have been stupid. Do you object to armed Police firing weapons at an offender waving a gun around? So why here? Obviously in an idealistic world, Bin Laden would have been captured and tried for his crimes, but when Bin Laden and his protectors are firing back at you - it's definitely not that easy, lol. They weren't gonna say "okay, we'll come back another day we can't get him alive today", were they? He deserved to die (and would have died when he was found guilty in a trial) so what's the difference? I'm not denying that a trial would have been fairer, and as I said in an ideal world he'd have put his hands up and said "yes ive been on the run for 10 years you can take me now" and he'd have sat a trial and been executed following a guilty verdict.

I've made my stance on this clear that I agree with armed action in the event that he was putting up a fight, rather i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the usually anti-death penalty (of which you belong to) while you support armed squads carrying out an execution without trial/the abortion issue - but under no circumstances do you consider that the death penalty applied after a jury of peers has found the murderer guilty is right. Infact, often when I suggest that the likes of Ian Huntley should be sent to death its met with cries of 'how barbaric!/wrong as they could be innocent' yet in this instance, all that supposed morality is dropped by the likes of yourself.

I'm sure there are oppositions to my argument, after all it's my opinion and I'm entitled to that opinion - it doesn't mean it's wrong it's what I believe, I'm quite aware that a foetus is a human being, part of my degree included lectures on pre-natal development so don't make out I don't know anything, it's my opinion that the prevention of life in the form of abortion is moral as generally this abortion is preventing a child from suffering. This whole argument boils down to what you believe life is, I mean you go on as if your opinion (and the opinion of your beloved Peter Hitchens) is gospel and the truth, hell you're as bad as religious extremists who believe the bible is 100% fact. It's my opinion that the death penalty is okay in certain circumstances and not in others, and it's my opinion that a life cannot be taken until that life has begun and it is my opinion that what we know as "life" doesn't begin until birth, I'm aware the foetus is a living organism but it's my opinion that it does not constitute a "life" until birth. You nor anybody else can say my opinion is wrong, because it's my opinion - you can disagree with me, but you cannot claim I'm wrong.

Or in other words, 'I don't have a suitable response to the abortion argument so now i'm wound up and have to assert that everything I state is my opinion' - not that I was disputing what you type isn't your opinion in the first place. I never stated it you don't have a right to an opinion, I was stating why the opinion you hold is wrong and my reply was inviting you to prove my points wrong, something you've failed to do. As for Mr Hitchens, you don't know what I agree with or disagree with concerning his opinions - infact, I very much doubt you know what his opinions on many subjects are anyway without consulting wikipedia - so please don't make that assertion as trying to make me out to be some kind of deluded religious follower of his - rather thats you judging from the reply you've given back on abortion and on past topics concerning the Labour Party; we had it the other day, you harping on about NHS reforms and the Tories - when I pointed out that the same sort of thing had happened under the last Labour government, you blindly ignored this.

Unwilling to consider changing opinion when left speechless? - thats you my friend.

You are so narrow minded and refuse to allow anybody to have a view different to yours, open your bloody eyes man.

Whenever I disagree with you and others, I always put my opinion across and ask for you to prove it wrong - whether its over the Conservatives being the same as Labour or any other topic. The difference between us both, is that I barely ever become stuck in the corner (as you just have found yourself) and thus I never have to resort to stating 'WELL THATS MY OPINION YOUR JUST SO NARROW MINDED' - quite the opposite, i'm willing to listen and debate the other side of the argument.

You on the other hand, simply do not and have thus become wound up.

[GommeInc]

Just because they didn't have any casualties doesnt mean his guards didn't fight back - it means that the Americans simply beat them Whether Bin Laden was armed or not (I imagine he may have been) I do think it would have been very risky to take him alive, riskier than taking the body. It's quite clear that the most probable form of events is that they invaded the place he was staying, shot dead any guards guarding him (who were no doubtedly armed, whether he was guarded as well as we thought or not there would have been some form of weapons there) shot him dead and removed him. This is what I gather from this article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330

There are several suggestions of Osama fighting back, a US helicopter fell from the sky (it's unclear what caused it however), and there's this quote from the US counterterrorism advisor:



However, the article does say other US officials have denied Bin Laden fought back - which does pose questions about whether the US are being entirely honest about the operation. There are also further contradictions explained later in the articles. I'm inclined to believe there was either a fight, or there's something dodgy about what went on, however if there was a fight the only option was to take Osama dead then this is perfectly within my moral beliefs. If not, I agree that Osama being dead is a good thing and would like to know further facts before judging the morality of an assassination.

Your point illustrates what's so frustrating about the whole thing A few news articles and programmes say different things to yours and vice versa. I even think the BBC are reporting differently on the event :S

I'm simply going by the lack of information that there was "much of a fight", as there doesn't to be much information coming out about how many guards there were and it is suggested that the area wasn't that guarded, particularly when he was found in Pakistan so he couldn't have too many guards as it would rouse suspision, something that is reported by locals living around that area - how they knew someone special must of been living there, and how they heard speeches with the name of the terror cell (I can't remember what it was though, "something-thea" :S) AK-47s were also used by his guards too, while the US troops were using M4s and night vision goggles, which no doubt gave them an advantage

What's also interesting is this downed helicopter. Loads of places are reporting it as a technical hiccup rather than it being shot down so there is no correct answers as of yet, if ever there will be :/

I've read so many articles and not many of them say there was too much of a fight, or a fight that went on long after he was shot, especially when they say the fighting went on for 40 minutes. It does make you question IF there wasn't much of a fight, why didn't they drag him out for trial? I guess this could merge in with reports that Pakistani aircraft were being scrambled to the area, but no one has made that link yet.

Either way, the whole operation is such a mess at the moment :/

EDIT: Apparently the US are debating over releasing a picture of his body. So I guess that'll make up for evidence that he is dead

[rld]

Lets all come to one understanding. We are all glad.

[Hecktix]

Dan, I've just logged in to post this message back to you so your point doesn't look to be true, but no - I "ignore you" (aka don't reply) because I don't have the time to go round in circles with you, you present your arguments clearly and add background & evidence to your posts and it's something you enjoy doing. Don't say you listen to peoples opinions because you don't and many, many people on this forum have told me that they simply refuse to reply to your posts most of the time because you do, go round in circles or take the thread off topic. Unfortunately, I have more commitments on this forum and off it which prevent me from spending time going round in the circles with you (be assured if I did have the time, I would). I will happily state my opinion and I will happily argue against you and I will happily state that your opinion differs to mine, however you go around this forum with the attitude that you are always right and everybody else's opinion is invalid, this puts a lot of people off posting with you. I think the phrase is "agree to disagree", which is something I have to do because quite frankly I don't have the time to follow your circles, as much as I'd love to, perhaps one summer when I've resigned from my roles here at Habbox it's a past-time I will take up , so please, cut the patronising attitude it's just fueling the negative opinion half of this forum has of you.

[AgnesIO]

I'm not disputing that you have an opinion, i'm arguing against your opinion.

Now as the death penalty as its drifting below into other topics, if it is the case that Bin Laden was not armed and that he could have been taken alive - would you then be prepared to backtrack and say that yes, the execution of Osama Bin Laden was wrong? Do you also accept (as a non-believer in the death penalty), that the execution of Saddam Hussein was wrong?



I very much doubt that considering Bin Laden was an ex-CIA asset but thats a whole other story. Although this raises an important point, if Bin Laden was armed (as expected) why was he killed when Saddam Hussein was armed but was disarmed and kept alive? Hussein was not shot on sight despite being armed himself, as we would expect.



I've made my stance on this clear that I agree with armed action in the event that he was putting up a fight, rather i'm pointing out the hypocrisy of many of the usually anti-death penalty (of which you belong to) while you support armed squads carrying out an execution without trial/the abortion issue - but under no circumstances do you consider that the death penalty applied after a jury of peers has found the murderer guilty is right. Infact, often when I suggest that the likes of Ian Huntley should be sent to death its met with cries of 'how barbaric!/wrong as they could be innocent' yet in this instance, all that supposed morality is dropped by the likes of yourself.



Or in other words, 'I don't have a suitable response to the abortion argument so now i'm wound up and have to assert that everything I state is my opinion' - not that I was disputing what you type isn't your opinion in the first place. I never stated it you don't have a right to an opinion, I was stating why the opinion you hold is wrong and my reply was inviting you to prove my points wrong, something you've failed to do. As for Mr Hitchens, you don't know what I agree with or disagree with concerning his opinions - infact, I very much doubt you know what his opinions on many subjects are anyway without consulting wikipedia - so please don't make that assertion as trying to make me out to be some kind of deluded religious follower of his - rather thats you judging from the reply you've given back on abortion and on past topics concerning the Labour Party; we had it the other day, you harping on about NHS reforms and the Tories - when I pointed out that the same sort of thing had happened under the last Labour government, you blindly ignored this.

Unwilling to consider changing opinion when left speechless? - thats you my friend.



Whenever I disagree with you and others, I always put my opinion across and ask for you to prove it wrong - whether its over the Conservatives being the same as Labour or any other topic. The difference between us both, is that I barely ever become stuck in the corner (as you just have found yourself) and thus I never have to resort to stating 'WELL THATS MY OPINION YOUR JUST SO NARROW MINDED' - quite the opposite, i'm willing to listen and debate the other side of the argument.

You on the other hand, simply do not and have thus become wound up.

The issue is you always think you are right, not that others simply can't fight/debate with you. People just get ******* bored of your posts.

---

Total respect to 'Roryy' hit the nail on the head :L

[Hecktix]

The issue is you always think you are right, not that others simply can't find. People just get ******* bored of your posts.

---

Total respect to 'Roryy' hit the nail on the head :L

Naturally, one is going to believe their opinion is correct or that would not be their opinion, Dan's problem is he refuses to see that other people are entitled to their opinion (or at least, that's what his mannerisms in his posts portray, he claims we are entitled to our opinions himself, but if you read the post you quoted, does he really?)