he got a trial by M-16
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."
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."
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Any kind of a trial for him probably would have been a bad thing overall. More time for him in the public eye = also more people to believe he is a martyr. Also any trial location would be a dangerous place to be and there is always potential for attacks or the threat of attacks if he is not released.
Of course there will most likely be some form of counter attack, but I think the was this has gone down limits what could happen a bit.
Of course there will most likely be some form of counter attack, but I think the was this has gone down limits what could happen a bit.
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.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."
Honestly, the best possible thing that could've happened would've been for him to end up like the Man in the Iron Mask, shut away for decades, with a mysterious disappearance somewhere down the line.
Last edited by Jay (2011-05-02 13:01:18)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nothing will shut up conspiracy nutters, given insurmountable facts, they will still fall back on "It's all a lie." and the theroies will just get more out there. Also the longer he is kept in prison the more attacks to free him there would be.Jay wrote:
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.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."
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:
Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.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?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
lowing wrote:
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.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
implication being human shielding is something muslims do. inb4 you backtrack and argue semanticslowing 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)
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
There would have been almost zero chance of him walking free. Hell, we convicted McVeigh, we could easily have convited Osama.presidentsheep wrote:
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:
Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.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?
The way I see it, this was no different than police busting in to someone's house to arrest them, only to have that person fire at the police and then be shot in retaliation. Granted, this was apparently a "kill mission" but tomato tomato.
Not really, but it doesn't make it a show trial either.presidentsheep wrote:
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:
Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.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?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yep... I mean this is a post just yesterday on another forum I'm on:Nic wrote:
Nothing will shut up conspiracy nutters, given insurmountable facts, they will still fall back on "It's all a lie." and the theroies will just get more out there. Also the longer he is kept in prison the more attacks to free him there would be.Jay wrote:
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.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."
You can't possibly convince people who've already convinced themselves.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJgY86nmEHc...player_embedded
Very important to watch. Regarding the "birther" movement. He's not eligible for the presidency, even with the birth certificate he finally produced. We need to arrest this usurper.
There was absolutely no way that he wouldn't be executed if put on trial, it achieves the same end and sends out a don't fuck with us message at the same time whilst still remaining reasonably fair.Jay wrote:
Not really, but it doesn't make it a show trial either.presidentsheep wrote:
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:
Guilt is not to be decided by politicians, guilt is to be decided by trial by jury. It's the foundation of Anglo Law.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
actually you would be the one arguing semantics. I showed how UNCOMMON it is for Islamic govts. to NOT use human shields in their conflicts. you are trying to argue I am wrong because not every single Muslim in the world does it. So if you wanna argue against what I post feel free to do so, just stop inventing things that I said and argue against them.FatherTed wrote:
lowing wrote:
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.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...sillyimplication being human shielding is something muslims do. inb4 you backtrack and argue semanticslowing 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.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6713|Graz, Austria
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.
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.
Last edited by globefish23 (2011-05-02 13:16:13)
Anyone going to try to beat the world hide and seek record then?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Harriet Tubman has always been #1. Haters gonna hate.presidentsheep wrote:
Anyone going to try to beat the world hide and seek record then?
DB Cooper.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
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.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.
that's what i'm saying. glad we're on the same page lowing.lowing wrote:
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.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.
What kind of bullshit article about Iran are you using;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,"
They use these two statements and conclude;Mehmanparast pointed out that "according to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences."
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.Human Shields In A Nuclear Iran
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.
inane little opines
Agree to disagree then. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It just would've been a great opportunity to 'be the bigger man' and display the real side of what it means to live in a free and just society, not the trappings of consumerism that we normally show the world.presidentsheep wrote:
There was absolutely no way that he wouldn't be executed if put on trial, it achieves the same end and sends out a don't fuck with us message at the same time whilst still remaining reasonably fair.Jay wrote:
Not really, but it doesn't make it a show trial either.presidentsheep wrote:
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?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well as I said, it has been Islamic govt. policy. You asked for examples and I provided it. What more do you want?Shocking wrote:
What kind of bullshit article about Iran are you using;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,"They use these two statements and conclude;Mehmanparast pointed out that "according to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences."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.Human Shields In A Nuclear Iran
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.
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.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
no, the only thing we agree on is that you THINK there won't be a problem. I however do not agree.13/f/taiwan wrote:
that's what i'm saying. glad we're on the same page lowing.lowing wrote:
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.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.
I just told you that your examples are absolute bullshit. The stuff about Iran did not make sense, and you use dictators as if they're a benchmark for Islamic behavior of sorts.lowing wrote:
Well as I said, it has been Islamic govt. policy. You asked for examples and I provided it. What more do you want?
So how do you explain Saladin, a figure who is actually revered in Islam for his actions? Doesn't really fit with your image does he?
inane little opines
I think it would have been better to strap a bomb vest on him put him in a room and let him dwell on that ticking noise coming from it for a few days.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.