My father's death was criminal and I may sue the U.S.: Bin Laden's son slams Al Qaeda leader's ki

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Gotta have a boogie man!

reply to post by spacedonk


i hope he doesnt sue we dont have a trillion dollars to give him

as fooks said

no body no evidence no proof

GOOD LUCK cause they are gonna need it.

altho the thought of obama going to court would be one of the priceless moments

just wonder how hard it will be to get him to put his hand on a bible and swear to god.

Originally posted by spacedonk

If they had just caught him, charged him and tried him there would be no conspiracy theories either. I hope he sues and I hope he wins a trillion dollars. Might stop the US wandering the Earth thinking they are top banana and can do what they want.

www.daily mail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 11/5/11 by argentus because: repair formatting

It was this "top banana" that saved the UK's a$$ in WWII.

Perhaps Osama should have turned himself in and faced trial if he was innocent. Turning himself over to the authorities would have given him the opportunity to tell his side of the story. Indeed, he must have been truly innocent not to do that. If he did it in the UK, I am sure they would have welcomed him with open arms and he would have been found not guilty of the crime if your jurors all had this same mentality.

As for Omar, I would think that he should be waterboarded just like his daddy.

P.S. Amen Don Rumsfeld.

If your local police summarily shot (insert person you love) in the face alleging, "Eh, we know who's guilty".. you'd sue for the injustice, and win.

Why is it different when the "World Police" do it?.. Local Police don't get to kill who they want, neither should the World Police, so called.... I hope they sue and bankrupt the US Govt as a lesson.. the days where the king and his merry band of lackeys extrajudicially kill people are over.

Wont happen tho.. nothing will come of this and the propaganda machine that says 'politicians deciding who to kill = good = obey' will roll on..

reply to post by neo96


Do they need proof? They have multiple confessions recorded on multiple medias.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by neo96

 

Do they need proof? They have multiple confessions recorded on multiple medias.

Were these alleged confessions accepted as evidence, meaning credible & relevant, in a court of law?.. if not, they're not really "confessions"..

They are confessions. Court would have to decide wheter to allow them or not. And they're not "alleged". Just look at any media site including white houses own webpage or pretty much any news channel.

bbc - Bin Laden death 'not an assassination' - Eric Holder

US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was "not an assassination". Mr Holder told the BBC the operation was a "kill or capture mission" and that Bin Laden's surrender would have been accepted if offered. The protection of the Navy Seals who carried out the raid was "uppermost in our minds", he added. Bin Laden was shot dead on 2 May in the complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The raid has had a mixed reaction in Pakistan, and on Thursday several hundred supporters of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif rallied in Abbottabad shouting anti-US slogans. The marchers shouted "Go, America Go", "Down with [US President Barack] Obama" and "Down with [Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari", and waved the green flags of Mr Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N party. Mr Sharif has called for a full judicial inquiry into the raid.

Ok so an assassination is different to a kill mission how? From what we are being told OBL was unarmed, how did they know he did not surrender? From what we understand from the reports in the press he could easily have been captured...

reply to post by Nite_wing

The military history of the United States during World War II covers the involvement of the United States during World War II. The Empire of Japan declared war on the United States of America on 7 December 1941, immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor on the same day.[1] On 11 December 1941, Germany and Italy also declared war on the United States. Until that time, the United States had maintained neutrality, although it had, since March that same year, supplied the British with war materiel through the Lend-Lease Act. The British then went on to supply a significant part of that aid to the Soviet Union and its Western Allies. Between the entry of the United States on 8 December 1941 and the end of the war in 1945, over 16 million Americans served in the United States military.[2] Many others served with the Merchant Marine [3] and paramilitary civilian units like the WASPs.

en.wikipedia.org... d_States_during_World_War_II


You entered the war after Pearl Harbour, prior to that you had offered support with materials, no doubting the help and commitment of the US army, but get your facts straight. You didn't at the end of the war go round assassinating war criminals you took part in their trials to see them tried and punished within the confines of the law. In the case of OBL you could have easily done the same, not taken unilateral action to be judge jury and executioner.

Furthermore I think I understand the reasons the US are seemingly charging off around the world trying to consolidate their international alliances and improving their volume of overseas 'territories' - Afghanistan, Iraq et al. In my opinion it all has to do with the epic rise of China and the fact that it is estimated that as soon as 2013 they will become the pre-eminent superpower in the world through volume of economy, people, military - the key for this date being economic supremacy over the US, the rest have been in place for some years now.

IMHO the US has identified this as the time when their international influence will wane, potentially rapidly, so they are making sure that they do everything they can to make alliances and make certain nations beholden to them.

I do think the behaviour of the US in recent times has deteriorated and they should be held to account for their actions. The unilateral action to kill OBL which is seemingly utterly unnecessary and contrary to international law if you accept OBL as a terrorist and not the general of an army. The benefit of having him captured and tried like Saddam would have been immeasurable on the international stage as I said previously. Why capture Saddam who they could have legally killed with nerry a murmour and kill OBL in an illegal act?!?

P.S. I, as all UK people should be, am grateful for the assistance of our US allies in WW2 and the long 'special relationship' between our two nations where you will find we have supported you in many difficult situations - bay of pigs, Iraq, sanctions against Iran just to name a few. So it is not a one way street. That said I can still be objective with my opinions even in regard of an ally.

Originally posted by spacedonk

Ok so an assassination is different to a kill mission how? From what we are being told OBL was unarmed, how did they know he did not surrender? From what we understand from the reports in the press he could easily have been captured...

The Americans have an explanation lined up for why "Osama" was shot. The Seals judged on the spur of the moment that he might have been wearing a bomb belt and could have detonated it. So they had to shoot him dead.

Whether this excuse sounds plausible is beside the point. No one is going to question the judgement of Seals, and so the Americans can get away with this action whether it was planned assassination or done on the spur of the moment.

Most likely last Nazi trial in Germany

MUNICH, Germany, May 12 (UPI) -- A Munich court has sentenced John Demjanjuk to five years in prison for helping to murder Jews at a Nazi death camp during World War II, the end of what could enter history as the last Nazi trial in Germany. Read more: www.upi.com...

That's how you prosecute war crimes, and this some 60 years after the event. Take note America.

To the poster above RE: the excuse, that would no doubt be the story as frustrating as it is!!

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by neo96

 

Do they need proof? They have multiple confessions recorded on multiple medias.

Are you talking about the US governemnt confessing to killing bin Laden, or bin Laden confessing to 9/11?

If it was the later, I would like to point out that never happened.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States," Bin Laden told Ummat, "As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

The supposed Osama "confession video" in which the terrorist leader discusses how the attacks were carried out has been widely debunked as a hoax. On closer analysis, the individual in the tape is clearly not Bin Laden and he makes statements completely inconsistent with Bin Laden's previous public comments. Other so-called Al-Qaeda tapes have been directly traced back to the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld.

Claim: Bin Laden Told Hamza Al-Qaeda Not Behind 9/11

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

US / Obama confessing to killing OBL. That's what the discussion was about. Evidence of their actions.