More Lies Surround the Alleged Killing of OBL.

[Peikko 1,575]

Men or man?

Keep in mind also that many people in America live in compounds with armed men. I personally live in a house that's fenced off and has armed men. Should the SEALs come kill us too?

So, you can shoot someone for carrying information?

Laughable? I'm telling you, if Bush would've ordered the killing of an unarmed man, nobody would be laughing.

Perhaps you could post a link to where it says unarmed people should be shot on sight.

And while you're at it, Mr. attorney, why did they shoot the wife in the leg but the prinicple in the chest and head?

If that's true, which part do I fall into? Which side of the aisle am I sitting on?

The only reason it's not controversial is because of who's in office. That is my point. That was Paul's point. That is what most of you are denying.

So it doesn't matter if he was armed or not? The ROE for this mission dictated he could be shot on sight? And if so, how is that not a combat action? And if it is a combat action, doesn't Pakistan have all rights to retaliate against us?

How can you vote if you're not allowed to carry your gun into a polling place?

This has always confused me a little bit. You're going to take part in an election but you can't exercise your rights while doing so. Hmmmmmm.....

Indeed, guns in the polling booths, that's just what every election needs.

Seriously Slim, this is pointless. There are lots of things that the government does no matter who is occupying the WH both internally and externally that are controversial end even hypocritical but killing Bin Laden in the context of the US zeitgeist isn't one of them.

[slim 1,525]

no matter who is occupying the WH both internally and externally that are controversial end even hypocritical but killing Bin Laden in the context of the US zeitgeist isn't one of them.

It isn't controversial because of who's in the white house. If someone else was in there, it would be highly controversial because bin Laden was unarmed.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Personal attack removed. Cool it or administrative action will follow.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Slim, repeating yourself doesn't lend credence to your false premise. You assume a level of endorsement for obama from posters here that is entirely fictional. I'm not going to argue against belief i don't hold, except to point out that your assumptions are partisan as well as being entirely false.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It isn't controversial because of who's in the white house. If someone else was in there, it would be highly controversial because bin Laden was unarmed.

Another in a misguided string of posters who just can't quite wrap his partisan brain around Obama getting the job done. I would not have cared if Bush had captured Bin Laden and personally shot him on live TV at a press conference.

[Peikko 1,575]

It isn't controversial because of who's in the white house. If someone else was in there, it would be highly controversial because bin Laden was unarmed.

If you are going to quote me, at least quote it in a way that makes some kind of sense, your quote does not even remotely resemble the point I was making. I know, it makes it hard to counter what I said if you leave it as I wrote it, but them's the breaks Slim.

Edited May 6, 2011 by The Truth™

[Peikko 1,575]

At least there's one thing, you have stopped calling the guy a 'non combatant'. The fact that he turned out to have been unarmed after he was shot really isn't that big of an issue in the context of the operation.

[B_J 2,752]

While I disagree with Michael Moore on pretty much everything. He's the only person on the left, that I'm aware of, that has not changed his position with the change in Presidents.

Michael Moore

[slim 1,525]

Slim, repeating yourself doesn't lend credence to your false premise. You assume a level of endorsement for obama from posters here that is entirely fictional. I'm not going to argue against belief i don't hold, except to point out that your assumptions are partisan as well as being entirely false.

Which part?

Also, I'm not assuming anything. Those of you who are denying that you wouldn't be all (excuse the pun) up in arms over Bush executing an unarmed man in a sovereign nation are lying.

Another in a misguided string of posters who just can't quite wrap his partisan brain around Obama getting the job done. I would not have cared if Bush had captured Bin Laden and personally shot him on live TV at a press conference.

Partisan?

Again, I ask, which part? If you mean partisan like "WOLVERINES!!!" then thanks for the compliment!

If you are going to quote me, at least quote it in a way that makes some kind of sense, your quote does not even remotely resemble the point I was making. I know, it makes it hard to counter what I said if you leave it as I wrote it, but them's the breaks Slim.

Where did I change your words?

At least there's one thing, you have stopped calling the guy a 'non combatant'. The fact that he turned out to have been unarmed after he was shot really isn't that big of an issue in the context of the operation.

Non-combatant = civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities,[1] as well as (under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977) persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function as well as soldiers who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

Please explain to me how bin Laden was a combatant. While you're at it, please explain to me why an early morning raid on a private home inside a sovereign nation is combat.

Thanks in advance.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which part?

Also, I'm not assuming anything. Those of you who are denying that you wouldn't be all (excuse the pun) up in arms over Bush executing an unarmed man in a sovereign nation are lying.

Partisan?

Again, I ask, which part? If you mean partisan like "WOLVERINES!!!" then thanks for the compliment!

Where did I change your words?

Non-combatant = civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities,[1] as well as (under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977) persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function as well as soldiers who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

Please explain to me how bin Laden was a combatant. While you're at it, please explain to me why an early morning raid on a private home inside a sovereign nation is combat.

Thanks in advance.

Are you saying that Al Qaeda is a civilian, non-hostile organistion? Fascinating.

Oh, you are right at one level, the level where the US deliberately fudged the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in order to be able to inflict enhanced interrogation techniques on them and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. It is true that as far as the US government is concerned these are people with no rights or status, sort of like the undead.

However, despite that designating Bin Laden, the Bush era public enemy No 1 as a non hostile civilian is a novel concept. You go for it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes slim, the entire argument that "if Bush... then outrage... but because obama... then none" relies on assumptions. You're just too stuck in your partisan mindset to accept it. You need it to be true because you can't make sense of the world otherwise. It's sad.

[slim 1,525]

Are you saying that Al Qaeda is a civilian, non-hostile organistion? Fascinating.

What I'm saying is someone - regardless of their alleged affiliations - who is unarmed typically cannot be eliminated as a combatant.

For every legality against it, there's one authorizing it so it's kind of a moot point. That being said, the hypocrisy of certain posters - and people in America as a whole - is rampant.

People are saying it's just fine for our military special forces to invade a sovereign foreign country, infiltrate a private residence in the dark of night, and shoot unarmed people. "It's OK because we don't like the people they shot." When we allow our government to do things such as this, we start down a slippery slope in which the rule of law becomes acceptable to break. Is that really what we want to do? Is that really what you folks are celebrating?

Oh, you are right at one level, the level where the US deliberately fudged the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in order to be able to inflict enhanced interrogation techniques on them and hold them indefinitely in Guantanamo. It is true that as far as the US government is concerned these are people with no rights or status, sort of like the undead.

However, despite that designating Bin Laden, the Bush era public enemy No 1 as a non hostile civilian is a novel concept. You go for it

Who said he was a non hostile civilian?

Yes slim, the entire argument that "if Bush... then outrage... but because obama... then none" relies on assumptions. You're just too stuck in your partisan mindset to accept it. You need it to be true because you can't make sense of the world otherwise. It's sad.

Which party do I belong to? You keep saying I have partisan mindset. Well, which party?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When we allow our government to do things such as this, we start down a slippery slope in which the rule of law becomes acceptable to break.

What law was broken?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I'm saying is someone - regardless of their alleged affiliations - who is unarmed typically cannot be eliminated as a combatant.

For every legality against it, there's one authorizing it so it's kind of a moot point. That being said, the hypocrisy of certain posters - and people in America as a whole - is rampant.

People are saying it's just fine for our military special forces to invade a sovereign foreign country, infiltrate a private residence in the dark of night, and shoot unarmed people. "It's OK because we don't like the people they shot." When we allow our government to do things such as this, we start down a slippery slope in which the rule of law becomes acceptable to break. Is that really what we want to do? Is that really what you folks are celebrating?

Who said he was a non hostile civilian?

Which party do I belong to? You keep saying I have partisan mindset. Well, which party?

Democrat or Republican? It doesn't matter. You view people as being either liberal or conservative and having opinions to match. Think your question is clever? It ain't. You stupid.

[slim 1,525]

What law was broken?

I'm no expert on Pakistani law, but I'm pretty sure choppering into someone's private compound in the middle of the night, executing them and then stealing all their technological equipment is illegal. Not to mention snatching a body and dumping it into the sea.

Our military members are beholden to follow local law while in foreign countries. Doesn't sound like they did that in this instance.

Now, I'm pretty sure they followed official orders but since the US kind of forgot to inform the Pakistanis about it, what's that say about the legality of the mission?

Can you imagine if the Mexican military choppered commandos into Texas to execute a drug lord? That wouldn't be legal, would it? Or would that be OK with you guys since we don't like drug lords either?

Democrat or Republican? It doesn't matter. You view people as being either liberal or conservative and having opinions to match. Think your question is clever? It ain't. You stupid.

Now who's making assumptions?

Also, I'm noting that it's now acceptable to say "You stupid." Way to keep it classy!