Dave (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 5:35 pm Please don't forget that Osama Bin Laden declared war on the USA in a Fatwa and pledged that he would destroy the USA.

Consider him a soldier fighting against us and it is easy to see why the mission was shoot first and ask questions second. What does one do in the middle of a war?

moi621 (imported) wrote: Fri May 06, 2011 6:27 pm Absolutely, the killing of UBL was not assassination or murder. It was an act of war!

And not releasing the picture is allowing "him" to influence us. Another Al Quaida win.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/238865/the-da ... rt-faceoff

I agree with Jon Stewart, clip above.

If you want gory, watch prime time television he sez.

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat May 07, 2011 12:32 am You need to get over this, and move on. Al Quaida did not win anything by us not showing a picture of a dead guy.

Francis (imported) wrote: Thu May 05, 2011 9:55 pm I think that the US is over-reacting and getting into somewhat deep water with the current round of removal of heads of state. Attempts made on Gadaffi, abandonment of Mubarak after he strongly supported us in the Middle East and now the latest killing of Usama bin Laden which whatever you want to call it was an assanation also since he was unarmed and unable to do anything about being collared and hauled off into the helicopters. It is not a good precedent because what goes around comes around. How long before the wheel comes around 180 degrees and US presidents are attacked following the precedent we are setting?

Usama could have and should have been taken alive. Even the worst murderer is given his day in court and wouldn't it have been better to haul him back and run him through a very public legal process and then hang him?? Or put him in a dungeon for life? Whatever was done should have been done with due process which didn't happen. The outcome would have been much the same but justice would have been seen to be done.

About the only sensible things that were done were to bury him at sea and not telling the Pakistanis given the leakysystems they have there. Shooting him in cold blood when he was not armed, front of his wife and daughter, doesn't set well with me. Dont get me wrong, I think he was a dangerous demagogue and needed to be stopped but the way it was done was in fact an assassination and not according to any rule of law that I know of.

Francis (imported) wrote: Thu May 05, 2011 9:55 pm I think that the US is over-reacting and getting into somewhat deep water with the current round of removal of heads of state. Attempts made on Gadaffi, abandonment of Mubarak after he strongly supported us in the Middle East and now the latest killing of Usama bin Laden which whatever you want to call it was an assanation also since he was unarmed and unable to do anything about being collared and hauled off into the helicopters. It is not a good precedent because what goes around comes around. How long before the wheel comes around 180 degrees and US presidents are attacked following the precedent we are setting?

Usama could have and should have been taken alive. Even the worst murderer is given his day in court and wouldn't it have been better to haul him back and run him through a very public legal process and then hang him?? Or put him in a dungeon for life? Whatever was done should have been done with due process which didn't happen. The outcome would have been much the same but justice would have been seen to be done.

About the only sensible things that were done were to bury him at sea and not telling the Pakistanis given the leakysystems they have there. Shooting him in cold blood when he was not armed, front of his wife and daughter, doesn't set well with me. Dont get me wrong, I think he was a dangerous demagogue and needed to be stopped but the way it was done was in fact an assassination and not according to any rule of law that I know of.