BF2S Forums Obama Press Conference: Bin Laden Is Dead

Jay wrote:

13rin wrote:

I dunno, not a JD.

I think it would just give the guy a platform.  Unnecessary expense too.  Either way....

I'm more interested at this point to here the paki's response to this.... "Oh, you meant 'Osama' bin laden... And all this time we though you were looking for 'Husianna' bin laden... Fuck -our bad."

It would give the guy a platform, but it would also A) shut the 'truthers' up B) pre-empt the 'deathers' and C) uphold the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty. It also destroys his ability to be seen as an instant martyr, especially if he ends up like every other death row inmate and drags out his death sentence until he's forgotten.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

muslim people using human shields =/= all muslims use human shields

just like

i eat a cheezburger =/= everyone eats a cheezburger

so now we're set that this is a portion of the sample size, not the whole, lets break down your HAMAS bit

estimated muslim population of the world = 1.57billion
estimated population/members of hamas = about 11k active fighters

so some maths, 11k is (a very small number)% of the total muslim population.

so the portion of muslims (represented in your post by hamas) who use human shields is less than 1% of the total, i.e. a radical minority


Even if you throw in the numbers for any islamic related terror/bad people group i think you'd struggle to come to 1% of the total amount of muslims worldwide. so saying this is a typical islamic thing is...silly

lol here we go again with the few argument...what I said and showed is true... Islamic govts. have employed such tactics... Nowhere did I say shit about "ALL MUSLIMS"... Please find something better than to make up shit I never said to argue against.

lowing wrote:

I also heard he used a woman as a human shield, who apparently was also killed.. How very Islamic of him. I expected nothing less.

Last edited by FatherTed (2011-05-02 13:05:07)

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

If you agree with him having a trial surely you agree there's a chance he was innocent then? If not, why bother?

Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.

So you reckon you could have given the man who is number one on americas most wanted list a trial completely free of political influence with a chance of him walking free?

Jay wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Jay wrote:

Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.

So you reckon you could have given the man who is number one on americas most wanted list a trial completely free of political influence with a chance of him walking free?

Not really, but it doesn't make it a show trial either.

Last edited by globefish23 (2011-05-02 13:16:13)

presidentsheep wrote:

Anyone going to try to beat the world hide and seek record then?

globefish23 wrote:

Hmm...
I retract my comparison with the Eichmann trial.
At that time, the Nazi regime was already defeated and the atrocities revealed to most people.
A trial against Bin Laden would indeed stir up the pot and induce quite a lot of new terror.

Basically though, it does not matter if you can't defend an obvious criminal. (No Israeli lawyer wanted to defend Eichmann, so they actually changed the laws and allowed a German lawyer to defend him.)
It's about convicting him by a fair and objective jury.

Edit:
BTW, I wouldn't mind if Gaddafi got liquidated the same way.

lowing wrote:

and I wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … -Iran.aspx <-----Iran


https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/gen … ex.html#01 <-----Iraq


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/0 … 05<---- Libya

we already are well aware of hamas and its tactics against Israel, so I see no need to go there.

what else ya got? So ya see it does happen in Islamic nations, did I miss a point here? Or were really gunna have to go back 1000 years for your argument?

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it,"

Mehmanparast pointed out that "according to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences."

Human Shields In A Nuclear Iran

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

and I wrote:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … -Iran.aspx <-----Iran


https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/gen … ex.html#01 <-----Iraq


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/0 … 05<---- Libya

we already are well aware of hamas and its tactics against Israel, so I see no need to go there.

what else ya got? So ya see it does happen in Islamic nations, did I miss a point here? Or were really gunna have to go back 1000 years for your argument?

What kind of bullshit article about Iran are you using;

"Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they're in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it,"

Mehmanparast pointed out that "according to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences."

They use these two statements and conclude;

Human Shields In A Nuclear Iran

That is such incredible bollocks. Also, Saddam was a well-known heartless dictator. What, you think his actions were motivated through Islam or had anything to do with it? That, again, is just outright bullshit.

You twist and turn everything to suit your own ridiculous worldview. How can you even claim something like that; "It's islamic to use human shields". Absolutely not.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lowing wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

Hmm...
I retract my comparison with the Eichmann trial.
At that time, the Nazi regime was already defeated and the atrocities revealed to most people.
A trial against Bin Laden would indeed stir up the pot and induce quite a lot of new terror.

Basically though, it does not matter if you can't defend an obvious criminal. (No Israeli lawyer wanted to defend Eichmann, so they actually changed the laws and allowed a German lawyer to defend him.)
It's about convicting him by a fair and objective jury.

Edit:
BTW, I wouldn't mind if Gaddafi got liquidated the same way.

Why would a bin laden trial stir up terrorism... There are only "a few" Islamic terrorists  remember?  Nothing to worry about according to the BF2S brain trust.

that's what i'm saying. glad we're on the same page lowing.

presidentsheep wrote:

I can see what you mean, stuff like that is what differentiates America from extremists and if there was any way to give him a fair trial i'd agree with it. I just think in this case it was better he was killed straight off instead of dragging it out and increasing the risk of anything happening.