Poor, Poor Bin Laden...He Didn't Get A Trial.......Well Perhaps This Is Why He Didn't Deserve One!

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
I don't believe Bin Laden was a saint by any means, but who told you he was bad?? GOVERNMENT.....So you immediately believe them, right?? Think about it

Oh please... give us all a break. There are plenty of video tapes with OBL threatening death and destruction to Americans and others. This whole business of making OBL out to be some sort of victim in all of this mess is really getting old.

WHERE DID I SAY HE IS A VICTIM??? WHERE, please quote me where I said that....PLEASE.....

I am pointing out that he was proclaimed a bad man from our government....The videos you saw were what the government wanted you to see...

You IMPLIED that OBL is a victim.... it's not that hard to see it.

So... are you implying that OBL never threatened death and destruction to the infidels? I don't get it, are you saying that because I saw only the videos that were released by the Govt. that the words coming out of OBL's mouth were also manipulated? Dude.... OBL declared HIMSELF to be an enemy of the US and ALL non-muslims. Why is that so hard to understand?

I figured there was no way to get through to you. When people defend their belief there is no turning them no matter what. Why did we not see Osama's body?? Because the real Osama wasn't the one who made the video's?? Maybe....Were those video's made by the real Bin Laden while Bush/Cheney helped them make it and then gave him money and hid him?? Maybe....How does it take almost 10 years to find someone who was living in a house (compound) when we found him?? Not in a cave....You have to stop believing what you see and put the pieces together yourself, that is the only opinion that should matter to you, but it should be YOUR opinion...Not the one the government gave you..

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Do you not know that Islam is also called the Nation? If you can't keep up, just say so....

Oh deary me.... :shk:

No my good man, The Nation of Islam is an American religious movement, not to be confused with the entire religion of Islam.

Weren't you criticising someone earlier about a lack of education?


I can keep up... you are a moron.

You have no point.

No NATION/COUNTRY declared war on America.... but America DID declare TWO wars on other NATIONS.

9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a small group of individuals who were pissed off.

They do NOT represent any nation or any religion, despite what they or the government may tell you.


I can't believe how the standards of education and debate have slipped on ATS.


I'm reduced to this?

:shk:

You are really defending your "position" for some reason when there is no proof to back it up....I have an open mind about it and try to put the pieces together for myself....If I believed what the government says I might as well buy a sheep and make a wool outfit for myself...

reply to post by blupblup



you seem to be hung up about about the word "war" only applying if 2 nations fight each other.

from wikipedia: War

War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality. As a behavior pattern, warlike tendencies are found in many primate species,[3] including humans, and also found in many ant species. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. When there is an absence of war, it is called peace. War generally involves two or more organized groups or parties (often, nations).

He didn't need a trial, he admitted that he carried out the attack.

People have been laying out comparisons to the Nuremburg trials. However, at Nuremburg, the high ranking officials of the Third Reich on trial were all denying their guilt.

Big Difference.

reply to post by yeti101




Yes because when we talk about war, that's generally what we mean.


You can find all manner of variations on the definition of war... however, when we're talking about an act of war... we generally mean between two countries or nations.



–noun
1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.


I'm well aware that you can have Civil war, a price war between supermarkets and many other types of war... but that was NOT what was implied in the post I originally replied to.



You certainly can't wage war on a religion or religious ideology.... as I said, you can't shoot thoughts and engrained hatred.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I see your point and the point of those that believe what the government told about bin Laden death just a few days ago.

But in my case I do research and weight the pros and cons, I guess is because even when I was born and American I grow up in the Caribbean and my education was a lot difference that the way it is in the states.

Is too many conflicting information even backed by our CIA to dismiss that Bin laden is actually the one to died in may 1 and the whole masterminded of 9/11.

Originally posted by blupblup

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Do you not know that Islam is also called the Nation? If you can't keep up, just say so....

Oh deary me.... :shk:

No my good man, The Nation of Islam is an American religious movement, not to be confused with the entire religion of Islam.

Weren't you criticising someone early about a lack of education?


I can keep up... you are a moron.

You have no point.

No NATION/COUNTRY declared was on America.... but America DID declare TWO wars on other NATIONS.

9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a small group of individuals who were pissed off.

They do represent any nation or any religion, despite what they or the government may tell you.


I can't believe how the standards of education and debate have slipped on ATS.


I'm reduced to this?

:shk:

Correction accepted. However it has no bearing on my argument that the attack on the Towers was an act of war; regardless of the affiliations of the attackers.

Why is it that so called "intelligent" people have to resort to name calling when engaged in a debate. If you'll read back through my responses you'll notice that I have not once resorted to that type of behavior. Please read my responses again. I did not accuse ANYONE of being uneducated, I responded to someone else’s accusation by pointing out that they actually seem to be lacking in that area.

Your pompous attitude really makes you sound convincing but I'd like to point out this little tidbit you so graciously provided.


9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a small group of individuals who were pissed off.


And now the leader of that "small group of individuals" is dead at the hands of the country he attacked, you think that's unjust, and you're calling me a moron.

reply to post by blupblup


the original post said 9/11 was an act of war. It is.

Just because your used to war being between nations doesn't mean it always is as the wiki entry clearly points out.. What about the history of human civilization before the rise of the nation state? Tribes fought wars against each other. Thats not war?

Like i said you cant fight a war against an ideology, but you can fight a war against the people who practice that ideology. Just like nazism.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Yeah well the one "claimed" to be in charge of 9/11 is dead, but the real "small group" of people in charge of 9/11 are still out there. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield, etc. Bush administration are the ones who need to be on trial and thrown in jail

reply to post by babybunnies


Did he really, really confess? or that was just US creating the boggy man to invade two nations.

THE PHONY SMOKING GUN

Perhaps the biggest outstanding question about his role in the 9/11 attacks is: Why would the U.S. Defense Department have produced a phony "smoking gun" video in a blatantly false attempt to claim that bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks? On December 13, 2001, U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld released, without comment, a video that later appeared on C-Span. The origination has never been published but some think that the video came from his Office of Defense Policy, headed by Doug Feith. In that video, a man who Americans were led to believe was Osama Bin Laden, indicated that he had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. But there is just one problem. The man in the video was obviously not Osama Bin Laden. Check out the pictures below of him from that video compared to other authenticated sources taken just before and after that time.

That Defense Department video was widely used to label Osama bin Laden as the mastermind of 9/11 even though bin Laden consistently denied involvement in authenticated Arab sources such as Al Jazeera. Years later, President George W. Bush admitted that bin Laden was not the mastermind after his administration obtained a confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. That confession came in 2007, after Mohammed was waterboarded and subject to a variety of other torture treatments prior to the coerced confession.

www.opednews.com...

Originally posted by yeti101
the original post said 9/11 was an act of war. It is.

Well I've already responded to this point so I'll just repost what I already said.


9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a small group of individuals who were pissed off.

They do represent any nation or any religion, despite what they or the government may tell you.

Just because your used to war being between nations doesn't mean it always is as the wiki entry clearly points out..

Well I'll go with the actual dictionary definitions thanks, it's more specific to what we're talking about.
I've clearly pointed out myself that there are other types of war, but they're not relevant to this discussion.

What about the history of human civilization before the rise of the nation state? Tribes fought wars against each other. Thats not war?

Of course that was war.... but there were two clear sides.
There was an actual conflict and a clearly defined enemy....

Like i said you cant fight a war against an ideology, but you can fight a war against the people who practice that ideology. Just like nazism.

Yeah.... I understand.
But when you just invade countries and kill people indiscriminately, all illegally... you're not really going to change this mentality that you seek to destroy.... just inflame it and breed more hatred.

We also fought a war against the axis in WWII.... not just Nazis.... there were 20+ countries on either side, not just Nazi Germany.

And if you look at racism today and the amount of Nazi groups that still flourish, Nazism is most certainly alive and kicking.

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Yeah well the one "claimed" to be in charge of 9/11 is dead, but the real "small group" of people in charge of 9/11 are still out there. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield, etc. Bush administration are the ones who need to be on trial and thrown in jail

Didn't you just accuse me of defending a position that has no proof to back it up?

Good lord have mercy.... this is rediculous. I'm done here.

So basically, the premise of this thread is running on the assumption that Bin Laden was in fact killed several days ago, although credible evidence (his body and head will only suffice as credible) has yet to be brought forth. Okey dokey, you just keep running with that assumption...

Originally posted by wcitizen

It's NOT about whether anyone DESERVES a trial, it is IMPERATIVE in any civilised society that EVERYONE be given a fair trial before being sentenced, and especially before being executed.

It's the LAW which has to be adhered to under all circumstances. If not, dangerous precedents are set and that can get out of control. The only thing that protects citizens from tyranny is proper adherence to the constitution and the rule of law and there should ne NO exceptions.

If you condone execution without trial, you're condoning mob rule, which is what dictatorships are. One day that might just come back and bite you on the bum.

Hear hear!

It's already started... we started it...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Correction accepted. However it has no bearing on my argument that the attack on the Towers was an act of war; regardless of the affiliations of the attackers.

No, It was an act of terrorism.... really.... it was.

Why is it that so called "intelligent" people have to resort to name calling when engaged in a debate. If you'll read back through my responses you'll notice that I have not once resorted to that type of behavior.

Apart from criticising someone's intelligence and being so arrogant and pompous you mean?

That's what made me join this discussion and conduct myself in the manner that I am.

And now the leader of that "small group of individuals" is dead at the hands of the country he attacked, you think that's unjust, and you're calling me a moron.

The fact that he's dead doesn't bother me.... hang the ****er.... firing squad, lethal injection... whatever.... I couldn't care less.


But PROVE, in a court of law, that he had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.... PROVE all the allegations.

They couldn't so they took him out in such a way that we'll never know.... he would have had some interesting things to say about the government and CIA I'm sure.

Convenient huh?

Originally posted by blupblup
They couldn't so they took him out in such a way that we'll never know.... he would have had some interesting things to say about the government and CIA I'm sure.

He didn't have ample time and opportunity to say whatever he wanted in the last 10 years?

He'd be more credible after he'd been bagged?

reply to post by blupblup

9/11 was NOT an act of war, it was an act of terrorism perpetuated by a small group of individuals who were pissed off. They do represent any nation or any religion, despite what they or the government may tell you.

they represent a group. This group vowed to attack another group, well actually 3 other groups. America, Jews & Christians,

Well I'll go with the actual dictionary definitions thanks,

How about the cambridge english dictionary definitions?
dictionary.cambridge.org...

armed fighting between two or more countries or groups,

and if you agree tribes fighting each other is war becuase they are clearly defined groups then you must accept bin ladens group capable of war. There's no difference, they're not countries they're groups.

you just want the word war to mean whatever you personally interpret to mean. You even choose 2 meanings when it suits you. The rest of your post is off topic so i wont bother replying.

reply to post by paxnatus


I get what you are saying. Crime by association. If you are associated with any criminal types, even if it is not true, you deserve to be murdered with no trial. Hmmmmm, could this be the new moral code of some nations. I don't want to live there.

Yet again, another thread turned into a B**CHFEST..

oh well...