thebluefood Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 It's been one week...and I still don't miss him. Burn in hell, you ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Anybody watching Obama on 60 Minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 Anybody watching Obama on 60 Minutes? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spearfeather Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Missed it. I was doing the Mothers Day thing. Anything new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Here is one of the videos of Bin Laden watching himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 You're saying it doesn't matter whether or not Bin Laden was a threat, the Seals had the right to kill him because he deserved killing. I'm asking, does that same line of thinking extends past the initial assault on the Bin Laden's compound? For instance, say a young Seal gets Bin Laden back in the copter they take off...and then they decide to kill him. Is that still ok? I'll answer this question. It is acceptable to kill Osama Bin Laden at any point. In his cave, in his mansion, at his 4th wedding, at the funeral of his mother, at his training facilities, armed or unarmed, resisting or surrendering, in custody or not in custody, in a jail cell or in a courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I agree, it doesn't matter when they kill him, they could have captured him and given him some concrete slippers and iit wouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 If they captured him I would have wanted a trial (and then an execution). However, it doesn't trouble my sleep at all that he was killed during the operation. In fact, it makes it easier and prevents accusations from the Muslim world of a fixed trial or a stage trial or worse of giving Bin Laden one last platform to inspire loonies from. An anonymous grave is better than a celebrated martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 So when the President made mention of the $60 million dollar donation (of Stealth Copter) to the hunt for OBL. I just began to wonder how much money has truly been spent to off this one man. Had things gone horribly wrong during the raid and both helicopters were shot down, that's $120 million up in smoke. How many more hundreds of millions in man power and equipment have been spent to find this man. Is the number in the tens of billions? Hundreds of billions if you count the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm happy we got him, but the amount of money to do so boggles the mind. Again, money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I'll answer this question. It is acceptable to kill Osama Bin Laden at any point. In his cave, in his mansion, at his 4th wedding, at the funeral of his mother, at his training facilities, armed or unarmed, resisting or surrendering, in custody or not in custody, in a jail cell or in a courtroom. I agree, it doesn't matter when they kill him, they could have captured him and given him some concrete slippers and iit wouldn't matter. Do you feel the same about Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? And if they can kill these terrorists responsible for 9/11 anywhere any time and in any manner they wish, can't they waterboard them too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Do you feel the same about Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? And if they can kill these terrorists responsible for 9/11 anywhere any time and in any manner they wish, can't they waterboard them too? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I think we should shoot more of these guys in the wild so we don't have to deal with the consequenes and headaches of holding some of these fools captive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Do you feel the same about Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? And if they can kill these terrorists responsible for 9/11 anywhere any time and in any manner they wish, can't they waterboard them too? I hope you get 50 people to answer this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Do you feel the same about Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? And if they can kill these terrorists responsible for 9/11 anywhere any time and in any manner they wish, can't they waterboard them too? I absolutely do. I am in the camp that any of these jagaloons that were involved in 9/11 have no rights and we should be able to obtain information by any means necessary and when the well dries up dispose of the individual swiftly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 So when the President made mention of the $60 million dollar donation (of Stealth Copter) to the hunt for OBL. I just began to wonder how much money has truly been spent to off this one man. Had things gone horribly wrong during the raid and both helicopters were shot down, that's $120 million up in smoke. How many more hundreds of millions in man power and equipment have been spent to find this man. Is the number in the tens of billions? Hundreds of billions if you count the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm happy we got him, but the amount of money to do so boggles the mind. Again, money well spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I wonder if the costs associated with the Bin Laden hunt include housing his cronies at Gitmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I wonder if the costs associated with the Bin Laden hunt include housing his cronies at Gitmo. Yes. Anything that makes the war on terror look like a failure should be included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Oh boy, economic benefits of war... the WW2 ones are certainly arguable, but who honestly think there were economic benefits to the Civil War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 To the North there were some economic benefits,being largely untouched and controlling both govt tariffs and US manufacturing,quite a few bargains were found by carpetbaggers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 That chart pissed me off... How dare we go after Bin Laden and not see any economic benefits in the next 8 days... Within 8 days of Hitler being dead, we got DECADES of prosperity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 He asked about the cost of the whole thing, I remembered seeing that last week. Economics isn't my thing, didn't particularly care about that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I hope you get 50 people to answer this question. My own answer to the question is that it is not ok to torture terrorists and it is not ok to kill them when they don't pose a threat. This has nothing to do with justice but with the character of a country that is not lead by vengeance. But I don't understand how Bin Laden had abdicated his human rights yet somehow Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a victim of human rights abuses. Anyone who believes Bin Laden's death, no matter how it was carried out, was justified can't believe waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was unjustified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titaw Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 My own answer to the question is that it is not ok to torture terrorists and it is not ok to kill them when they don't pose a threat. This has nothing to do with justice but with the character of a country that is not lead by vengeance. But I don't understand how Bin Laden had abdicated his human rights yet somehow Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a victim of human rights abuses. Anyone who believes Bin Laden's death, no matter how it was carried out, was justified can't believe waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was unjustified. They are ****ing terrorists, how exactly do they not pose a threat? THEY ARE ****ING TERRORISTS!!! To be completely honest waterboarding isn't enough, we need to be doing some truly heinous **** to KSM, the POS was intimately involved in 9/11, **** him. I simply don't get this, how exactly can one be a terrorist and NOT pose a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I simply don't get this, how exactly can one be a terrorist and NOT pose a threat? You believe Khalid Shaikh Mohammed posed a threat while in CIA custody? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 My own answer to the question is that it is not ok to torture terrorists and it is not ok to kill them when they don't pose a threat. This has nothing to do with justice but with the character of a country that is not lead by vengeance. But I don't understand how Bin Laden had abdicated his human rights yet somehow Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a victim of human rights abuses. Anyone who believes Bin Laden's death, no matter how it was carried out, was justified can't believe waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was unjustified. I see your point. I mean, an unarmed terrorist is never a threat. I mean, there isn't any kind of a chance they have a bomb strapped to their chest. Or they have a gun hidden in the sleeve of their jacket. I especially see the point in terms of bin Laden. I mean, the guy only orchestrated the single biggest attack on American soil, killing over 3,000 people. No biggie. He should be given a fair trial, just as our people would have been if Osama had caught them in Pakistan. Sorry, not buying it. In this case, with someone this evil, the Hammurabi Code rules supreme. "Eye for an eye, mother ****er." Okay, I added the last part for effect. It's not like the guy simply beat up a guy in a bar fight. He killed thousands of people in one attack (as well as many, many others over his reign over Al-Qaeda.). I can't see why anyone would give any sympathy to that monster. It makes no sense to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.