Osama is dead :D

DeletedUser

Guest
2 billion viewers make me believe it wasn't meaningless.

THE US using up close to 400 billion dollars to kill one man, well thats like charlie sheen is winning...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Im gladly surprised, all the missions weren't for nothing. I lost one of my friends while he was in afghan... When I heard OBL was dead he was the first one I was thinking off.

Thumbs up,

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."
Enjoy your 72 male virgins motherfucker!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
secondly by applying your logic to any warzone, every soldier on both sides deserve a trial as well, and do not recieve them. why? because they are too busy fighting for their country. people die on both sides, and osama is one of them.

You clearly misunderstand the logic of international laws. You don't put soldiers in court, because their duty is to follow orders, and everyone respects that. You do however make a trial IF a person in command orders something that violates conventions. Then you accuse them for "war crime" - but you do trial only people in command, not the privates...

Secondly, just for the record, "war on terror" is not a real war. Terrorists don't form a state, they are criminals. This makes a significant difference in which laws apply here, but I don't want to go that deep in this topic, so just I'll just point that out.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
So, the man is dead with this picture as proof?

Osama+Bin+Laden+Dead+Body+Fake+Pictures.jpg


...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You clearly misunderstand the logic of international laws. You don't put soldiers in court, because their duty is to follow orders, and everyone respects that. You do however make a trial IF a person in command orders something that violates conventions. Then you accuse them for "war crime" - but you do trial only people in command, not the privates...

Secondly, just for the record, "war on terror" is not a real war. Terrorists don't form a state, they are criminals. This makes a significant difference in which laws apply here, but I don't want to go that deep in this topic, so just I'll just point that out.

Although during the Nuremberg trials the excuse of "I was following orders" was deemed as non admissable and therefore every soldier on the battlefield or indeed in anywhere needs to be able to account for his her actions. It was used during the Serbia Bosnia conflict recently.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Although during the Nuremberg trials the excuse of "I was following orders" was deemed as non admissable and therefore every soldier on the battlefield or indeed in anywhere needs to be able to account for his her actions. It was used during the Serbia Bosnia conflict recently.

In Nuremberg there were main leaders put on trial so this argument was dismissed :) Also yeah, it would be hard to say that the verdict wasn't known since the beginning there..

But generally yes you are right - every soldier does account for his actions too. But there are few points to mention:

1) killing enemy soldiers during war is not considered a crime, if done by methods allowed by conventions. So you can't say (like the guy I quoted) that every soldier should face the court like I think Osama should.
2) if you followed orders to commint a war crime, you blame it on your commander
3) if you didn't follow your orders and performed a war crime, you are responsible for that.. but keep in mind your army prosecutes you first already for disobeying.. This kind of situation happen rarely I think, since soldiers are trained to follow orders since their first steps in military.

Oh and yeah, this picture is known to be fake since long ago.. But this also show what big mistake U.S. did to bury the body in sea and showing no real proof...
 

DeletedUser99468

Guest
Think about it anyway if Osama had been taken alive how many people would take hostages or blow places up if he doesn't get released more innocent people would probably have died because of him, it isn't really worth more people dieing just for him to have a trial is it ?
Then you have to take into account the amount of police and guards around a court ect it would cost millions of dollars to keep him alive during a trial.
 

DeletedUser3155

Guest
I'm glad he's gone, but as always there will be someone to take his place.... Like with Saddam, he got captured and his sons stepped in who are just as bad/evil as him.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm glad he's gone, but as always there will be someone to take his place.... Like with Saddam, he got captured and his sons stepped in who are just as bad/evil as him.

Wtf? I couldn't even tell you his sons names, let alone their occupation, what country they live in, or what evil deeds they spend their time doing.
 

brymon

Guest
THE US using up close to 400 billion dollars to kill one man, well thats like charlie sheen is winning...

Did you know that stuff costs money? We'd better stop doing stuff eh?

Oh and nonsou, some idiot photoshopped that picture. A fake picture doesn't mean anything; these days a picture certainly does not say 1000 words.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Did you know that stuff costs money? We'd better stop doing stuff eh?

Oh and nonsou, some idiot photoshopped that picture. A fake picture doesn't mean anything; these days a picture certainly does not say 1000 words.

I know. Just sayin'
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Talking about ammunition, I'm expecting a bomb around the corner from where I live irl.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If I come face to face with one of then al-Queda guise, I'll just say "It wasn't us who killed your Bin!"
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Indeed. Two white guys in that white house couldn't kill the Bin. But the first black man to be in charge of the US did it. The black man killed the Bin.
 
Top