To Bomb or Not to Bomb to Kill bin Laden - Page 5




 
--
To Bomb or Not to Bomb to Kill bin Laden
 
June 15th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
To Bomb or Not to Bomb to Kill bin Laden
Quote:
however Osama is worth 50,000,000 dead
Who are you to say that. You're a fool if you believe that.
June 15th, 2005  
Entoxy
 

Topic: Bomb.


Oops my finger slipped... I would bomb the hell out of him
June 17th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
Urgh
--
To Bomb or Not to Bomb to Kill bin Laden
June 18th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
We have the US which lays claim to being a land where we respect the rule of law. In trials we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused are allowed by law to have the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence and witnesses to that effect. And now they come with a "wanted dead or alive" bounty for a man accused of crimes that they supposedly have evidence for that were the self-same individuals who proclaimed Iraq to have WMD and Osama and Saddam shackin up together.

Why would they disregard their own laws in an obvious attempt to deny the accused due process?

Something stinks and it aint the hummus.
Dear Member,

OBL is not accused. He flat admits he has done what was done and has in a video declared war on the US and made it clear that he has in the terms of the unwritten Laws of Nations "raised the black flag." This put him in a catagory of "outlaw" which means "outside the protection of the law." It is not a subject of a criminal or a enemy combatant -- ie it is more in the catagory of a "brigand" or "pirate" which international law has always treated by not applying laws to them.

Jack E. Hammond
June 18th, 2005  
Dread Mogus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
We have the US which lays claim to being a land where we respect the rule of law.
Are we to assume that you are claiming to be American (frankly, you don't sound very American)?
Anyway, OBL should never be afforded the luxury of hiding behind civilians. Anyone he would be associated with would much more likely than not be his supporters and as such could quite correctly be considered accomplices ergo, not innocent.
I really find it difficult to imagine a scenario where he would find himself surrounded by non-supporters unless he had been captured In that case the point is obviously moot.
Now as to the question of whether any "laws" would be violated by the death of this terrorist, I can't think of a single law that provides this self-confessed murderer any quarter whatsoever. As Jack just said. he has already declared war on the US and his goal in life is to have every Muslim kill every American, every Jew, and every Christian.
He observes no laws and therefore is a criminal and should be treated as one. In my opinion, it's really very simple.
June 18th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
I agree that the choice would be quite simple, but in the scenario put before us i would never bomb him, not in this instance.

Rich.
June 19th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
He observes no laws and therefore is a criminal and should be treated as one. In my opinion, it's really very simple.
But you've gotta maintain morals and ethics in warfare, otherwise you lower yourself to the same level as terrorists. If somebody takes refuge behind civilians, you DON'T kill the civies, even if a terrorist would do the same. You've gotta be more gentlemanly than them. It just goes without saying.

PS. Terrorist or not, he is still entitled to the rule of law.
June 20th, 2005  
ozmilman
 
That's absolutely right dude - completely what i'm getting at.

Rich.
June 20th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozmilman
20 or less man? are you kidding me? One innocent death is one too many.

Maybe you're missing what i'm saying, okay... why bomb the darn building and kill innocent people, when you could go in there at night with all the wonderful technology that America posesses, and t ake him without killing ANYONE at all... That way at least you're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you have him.... It's the more moral, probable, and intelligent way to do it.

Rich.
I am going to throw my 2 cents into this bit. By now, the whole world knows that the US wants Bin Laden dead. Being close to the man will only bring danger and the threat of death. With this in mind, the US would not be responsible for the deaths of civilians near Bin Laden. The heads of those families that are allowing Bin Laden to live in their house with their family are the ones that are responsible for endangering the "innocent" lives.

History has always shown that civilians will die in combat. We as soldiers must do our best to prevent civilian casualties but it is almost ignorant to think we can prevent them all. As Sherman put it, "War is Hell." If anyone complains about civilian casualties today, they need to read up on the times of the Spartans. When cities and nations were conquered, men, women and children of the losing side were almost always killed or enslaved. We have come a long way from those times, but we can never stop civilians from dying on the battlefield.
June 20th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
And if the smart bomb has a brain fart and hits the wrong target?

Or if the wrong location is targeted owing to faulty intelligence?

No easy answers when you try to shortcut the rule of law. This is why the propaganda wing of the war machine is so busy pumping out disinformation in the form of press releases so readily consumed by the masses. It stirs up nationalism and jingoistic fervor and alleviates the guilt associated with killing an innocent, even to go so far as to dehumanize the loss as being "collateral damage".