Is killing Bin Laddin the wisest choice?

[Archbob]

Okay, since none of you agreed with me about the law thing, now I discuss is killing Bin Laddin the wisest choice.

The thing is we want his whole organization dead. I think there are well over 50,000 zealots in his organization and the total number of zealots who are suicidal as 10 times that. It has been said on CNBC that Bin Laddin only accepts 1 out of 10 into his camp, its like applying to Stanford.

Now, Killing Bin Laddin is fine with me(I'd nuke him if it were that simple), however the genocide of 500,000 islamics(even if they are terroists) is not.

If we do kill him and not the rest of the 500,000, then the situation of terrorism against the U.S. will be much worse than it is now.

So is capturing him and killing him the real answer?

 

[amadeus]

Take out bin Laden and anyone linked to him.

Use some nuclear weapon against some target, somewhere.

We have to teach to these terrorist countries that we mean business.

 

[Archbob]

I think this is more complicated than that.

I'd snipe Bin Laddin myself, but would not go as far as kill 500,000 people.

 

[CornMaster]

I've heard a lot about this topic.

Several people have suggested that killing him is excatly what he wants...it would also make him a maytr (sp?) for his cause. This in turn would be VERY BAD. But then again...killing him could make an example, this example could help snuff out terriosm world wide. It's a very questonable solution.

Detention and/or prosecution would also have a similar effect as above except not on such a large scale. The exception of course is if someone were to try and free Bin Laden. This could be much worse than anything so far.

Now I'm not lying here...someone at work suggested that we capture him. Then shave off all his facial hair and burn/scar his face so he can't grow it back. That's not the worst part........then give him a sex change and secertly deposit him back in Afghanstan, to live out his new life as a female. I think this is a little extreme. But funny none the less. I'm sure this solution will not be practised.

 

[G-Man]

CornMaster - The reason for this upcoming attack is not to make Bin Laden unhappy by not doing what he wants (although the female idea can be nice... Make him eat pork as well ) but to protect Americans from further attacks.
Fallen Angel Lord - When facing the Nazis and the Japanees the Americans fought armies much larger then Bin Laden's, but had no choice because whoever isn't dead or captured will continue to fight. Same for Al Qaida. And hopefully also for the Hizzbalah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

 

[scorch]

ok, i don't know really what i would do, but i know, if it was civ, i would have blown the **** outta the other country.

BUT, this is what i figure is happening, not what i agree with, but... of corse america is gonna kill osama, as well as everyone other person that aint white in the middle east. End of story.

 

[G-Man]

Israel has a large black community... and we also have a lot of arabs and people that come from arab countries. So you're saying that in the entire middle east there will be about 3 million people?
Anyway, it looks like the US is trying to reduce the number of casualties... But if 500,000 people attack you, you must fight back.

 

[dreadhead7]

I've already posted my views about what should be done to bin Laden. Though many would like to see him dead, I don't think that we can afford to do this. It would create another terrorist martyr, which the world certainly doesn't need.

I was listening to the radio the other day, and the commentator was discussing the problem of where to try bin Laden, if he should be caught alive. This person felt that bin Laden should be brought to The Hague because he would not receive a fair trial in the United States. Hmph! If one stops to think of the enormity of what happened, and if one is concerned with fairness and all, do you really think that he'll get what some would describe as a 'fair trial' anywhere on the planet? The United States has presented our allies with compelling evidence that bin Laden was behind the Tragedy. How could he not be found guilty of what he has done, regardless of where he is tried? I do think that if he is found and tried, he MUST be put in a U.S. prison. I believe that the tendancy would be towards executing him, but, again, that would create a martyr. I believe that he should be sentenced to life without parole, in permanent solitary confinement, inside a maximum security U.S. facility like Supermax. He'll end his life as a forgotten nobody, a fate far worse than death for him.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

IIRC, the war crimes tribunal in the Hague uses an easier burden of proof (as does almost all the world) than the USA uses in criminal trials. Most of the world uses one of: a mere properderence; clear and convincing; or even place the burden on the defendant. Not many use the USA standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but perhaps the current Hague War Crimes tribunal is one of the few.

 

[G-Man]

I really don't see what this has to do with the international court. He commited crimes against the US and against humanity. In such cases he should first of all be trialed and punished in the US, and he should be trialed in Hague only after serving his time in the US. And I'm pretty sure he won't live for 500 years (unless alla really does like him).

 

[Karl Marx the Penguin]

Europe wants him in the hague because they know something, that Americans refuse to admit.

Americans have no self-restraint, Osama would be killed eventually in the US.


The problem with the US is per capita gun usage, there would be no way Osama could be brought to the US without massive amounts of attempts on his life. In Belgium he would probably be safer, not safe but at least in less peril.

If we want to try to convict osama, we would have to do it in the Hague. There is no way to that someone who killed over 4500 american citizens (i know over 5600 died but many were of other nationalities) would last if his specific location in the US was known.

IF Osama lives through trial and goes to jail, eventually a guard would kill him.

Not to mention the fact that we would be forced to prosecute the man who killed Osama, if we didn't then we would only be sinking down to the terrorists level. If you prosecute Osama's assassin imagine the backlash in the US.

For these reasons: THE HAGUE

EDIT:inflammatory remarks edited, and spelling corrected somewhat.

 

[G-Man]

How about if he'll be trialed in an American court but the court itself will be somewhere else, preferbly an unknown place in the middle of nowhere... Or the US could just put him on Alcatraz... A minor loss of tourism and you get Osama's private Jail/court in an island where no one can get anywhere near him...
Anyway, he'll never surrender so I don't think there's anyway to capture him alive. The US can't get soldiers near him to capture him by force as well - he has a pretty large guard of fanatics.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you jailed Bin Laden I think it would just cause a HUGE spate of hostage taking by extremists to try to get him back. Killing him might make him a martyr but at least it would rid the terrorists of their most capable and well connected leader. In any case, as G-Man says it's unlikely he could be taken alive anyway.

 

[Archbob]

Germany and Japan in WWII were quite different Those were authorized by the country. The Japanese attack was a declaration of war on us by Japan and the U.S. would not have declared war on Germany so fast if they hadn't declared war on us. Remember, Jews were dying since 1939 and we didn't care until Japan attacked us in 1941.

We knew who the enemy were then and we knew who they were. This time we do not know:
a)Where they are(in the mountains somewhere I think)
b)Which muslims are actually terroists


And I really don't think the government of any country sponsered this attack.

 

[amadeus]

Karl Marx:

Why would you want Osama bin Laden to before the HAUGE? He didn't commit any crimes, after all, we don't have any proof that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with any crimes!

This is just racial profiling at work again, against the disenfranchised minorities.

Osama bin Laden isn't a "terrorist", he's an "potential alleged aide to hijackers that accidently flew two planes in to the World Trade Center, but it's not their fault because they probably couldn't see them..."

And Osama bin Laden isn't a bad guy, he's just misunderstood. We shouldn't have to be so mean and rotten all the time, like us evil Americans are.

[end sarcasm]

This man only belongs in the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Arafat, and other barbarians in the past. He should be executed just like the innocent people aboard those flights were.

Strap him on to the wings of a plane and crash the plane into a mountain.

 

[SunTzu]

Its simple, lets kill the bastard....There is nothing on this earth that we can do to him that he rightfully deserves.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Osama bin Laden should be re-named moron578 (I'm sure I could list the previous 577 morons easily, though I'm sure I'd miss one or two people out ).

With a name like Moron578 he would lose respect and in the history books he could not be mis-interpreted for what he was.

But, my moron definition could be hard pushed as it is being extended to those that say "God save the Queen" and "God bless, America".

 

[Craterus22]

Found this string after creating new topic so I moved it here... I agree with kitten... here is my original post that I moved here...

Are we making a Martyr?

mar·tyr (märtr)
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
------
I hate to say it... The people that are involved in this latest round of terrorism seem determined to die...

Supposedly the main reason Bin Laden is calling for Jihad is that we (the USA) have been too involved in the MiddleEast (especially concerning Muslim areas). Keep in mind that they (the extremists) did not want America's help during the Persian Gulf War.

It seems odd to me that someone would actually believe that they could change the policy of the United States by a series of acts of terrorism.

Maybe that is not the goal, perhaps the ultimate goal is to unite the Muslim world (with the fanatic extremists in the lead).

So what happens now?

We take out Bin Ladin (in the field) - and now the extremists have a martyr to preach about to the fringe population.

They turn over Bin Ladin - during trial he is sentenced to death -and now the extremists have a martyr to preach about to the fringe population.

Of course Bin Ladin is already the current heroic leader for the extremists.

I suppose we could try another approach - I believe in the Foundation Series - the author's main character suggested referring to all criminals and terrorists as Moron #1, Moron #2, Moron #3, etc.

One of the main goals of terrorism is to bring about attention to your cause and to yourself. Let's start calling Bin ladin what he really is - Moron#1

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I chose not to have him as moron1 as that would give him too much praise and in some way make it special.

Same with moron007 and moron666...no moron578 is his name and so we should be using it about moron578 -I am not a number I'm a free man...you are moron578...get used to it!

 

[Sixchan]

The west shouldn't try to bring Bin Laden to justice if it can't even hold up to its ideals of justice. In an interview, Jack Straw (British Foreign Secretary) was asked why they won't give the Taliban evidence. He said: "We know they're guilty, they know they're guilty, they know we know they're guilty, we aren't going to play games with them." Now, if I were to accuse Mr. Straw of, say, espionage, he'd want to see evidence, wouldn't he? Would it be fair for a jury to make a decision without the defence seeing the evidence and making a case? Now consider the fact that the prosecutor IS the jury! Does that seem at all fair?