Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 9:47 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:I support the capture and trial of OBL on suspicion of causing the death of 3,000 New Yorkers in 2001 provided Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are captured and tried for the death of 4,000 Serbians in 1999.

...and then the Serbians for the death of 8,000 Bosnians and so on?

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 9:51 pm**

HapSmo19 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:I support the capture and trial of OBL on suspicion of causing the death of 3,000 New Yorkers in 2001 provided Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are captured and tried for the death of 4,000 Serbians in 1999.

...and then the Serbians for the death of 8,000 Bosnians and so on?

Milosevic, Karadicek and others were put on trial. I disagree with the charges but they were tried.

Justice is balance. If NATO has a carte blanche there is no justice, only a pirate regime that does as it pleases.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 9:53 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
caymanmew wrote:
codeblue1018 wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
john9blue wrote:
who said thatttt

codeblue wrote:It was worth it

stahrgazer wrote:It was worth it, and I love the God that I don't believe in

jefjef wrote:AMURIKA!

Let's say it again; the mission that led to the potential capture and the subsequent/unfortunate death was without a doubt WORTH IT!! The world is now far better off. Thx for helping out AOG. God Bless The USA as well as the rest of the worlds countries.

is the world better off? now we dont know who to fear who to look out for and when we find out it will only be by a big death toll. obl could only do so much with the world hunting him but there will be another person just as bad....or much worst maybe.

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 10:00 pm**

You got us good in that one thread about religion.

I think it was a year ago...

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 10:43 pm**

Anyway, the video game is gonna be awesome!

Posted: **Tue May 03, 2011 11:00 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:As of right now, I'm convinced that the people who are saying "it was worth it" are all trolls.

who said thatttt

codeblue wrote:It was worth it

stahrgazer wrote:It was worth it, and I love the God that I don't believe in

jefjef wrote:AMURIKA!

ehh they didn't say it (code did just now, but you still put words in people's mouths)

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 12:38 am**

The big ? is did it really happen?,i think we need some kind of proof

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 1:19 am**

I got your proof right 'ere.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 6:25 am**

can the OP add a poll to see how many people want to see photographic evidence? Thanks

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 6:47 am**

stahrgazer wrote:Good. I'm glad you can see that "God" doesn't have to mean, "a deity." Many don't get that.

I'm going to sig this.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 10:06 am**

Everyone have right on trial, and in eye of all countires,its will be better for capturing hem alive. Serbian commanders and other official who are responsibile for war crimes are in hague, but Croatians, Muslim,Albanians, NATo, they not get real punisment for killing serbians, and expeling 500000 serbians people from Croatia and Kosovo. Unfortunatly justice its not same for all people, but i hope that one day, all people responsibile for war crimes will get hes punisment.

If they executed osama,instead to capturing hem, and if he dont use women for shield,like US official claim, then these could be one reason,why they dont want to show video, or pictures of these operation,because if all muslim community see how us soldiers execute osama bin laden,who are not use any weapon do defend himself,or dont use any women like shield, then these could be negative for US.
In WWII ,american soldiers capture all high ranked officers of NAzi Germany,and put hem on trial, for war crimes, why? Why they not executed all these officers withouth any trial?
You have full guantanamo of terrorist, why? why you just dont put hem on base wall and executed hem,instead to hold hem in custody for decade- bulet cost less,then holding hem for long period.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 12:17 pm**

qwert wrote:Everyone have right on trial, and in eye of all countires,its will be better for capturing hem alive. Serbian commanders and other official who are responsibile for war crimes are in hague, but Croatians, Muslim,Albanians, NATo, they not get real punisment for killing serbians, and expeling 500000 serbians people from Croatia and Kosovo. Unfortunatly justice its not same for all people, but i hope that one day, all people responsibile for war crimes will get hes punisment.

If they executed osama,instead to capturing hem, and if he dont use women for shield,like US official claim, then these could be one reason,why they dont want to show video, or pictures of these operation,because if all muslim community see how us soldiers execute osama bin laden,who are not use any weapon do defend himself,or dont use any women like shield, then these could be negative for US.
In WWII ,american soldiers capture all high ranked officers of NAzi Germany,and put hem on trial, for war crimes, why? Why they not executed all these officers withouth any trial?
You have full guantanamo of terrorist, why? why you just dont put hem on base wall and executed hem,instead to hold hem in custody for decade- bulet cost less,then holding hem for long period.

Exactly, the contradictions for the distribution of arbitrarily meted justice are resounding.

No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

And it's amazing how justice propagated through American Might turns a blind eye on all sorts of similarly related criminal war activities like those of the Croatians killing and exiling Serbian civilians, or the Saudis killing protesters in Bahrain, or the US enabling the Turkish government to use US airbases to bomb Kurds, and even the unlawful (and unofficial) act of declaring war on Libya through a NFZ without congressional approval (dictators do that too).

The historical record for this contradiction within justice is perverse.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 12:54 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 1:12 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 1:13 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Well, I believe that too, but if a person is throwing out fallacies, they might as well be corrected.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 1:17 pm**

Did Japan have the right to come and shoot Truman in the face for his war crimes?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 1:21 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:Did Japan have the right to come and shoot Truman in the face for his war crimes?

He didn't commit war crimes, but yes, they could have come over and killed either FDR or Truman while they were at war with us. That's one of the primary goals in war: capture or kill the enemy's leader. I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:14 pm**

Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

Here's how it was extrajudicial:
1) Congress has Constitutional authority to issue a Resolution of War. Congress failed to do that with Al Quaeda.
2) Congress does NOT have Constitutional authority to relinquish its power to declare war and instead grant it to the President of the United states; but with part of that Patriot act, authorizing "the President to pursue terrorists to the ends of the earth," Congress relinquished its power to declare war.
3) By various treaties, the United States is expected to uphold the rights of other sovereign nations (with whom we are not at war,) by making no unauthorized entry or acts against its citizens. Whether this was violated is ambiguous. Did Pakistan allow us there? Yeah. Maybe not specifically for what occured May 1, but we were allowed to be in Pakistan, so the rights of that sovereign nation were not violated. Then, the question is, was OBL's residency there a sign that he was a citizen of Pakistan? Well, since the Pakistan government has been the victims of OBL actions, and since at least publicly the Pakistan government has continued to offer US some support in "get Osama," then it's probable that going in against Osama did not violate sovereign nation/citizen rights after all. But, it's ambiguous, since none of these actions were officially sanctioned by treaty.
4) Obama ordered the "kill or capture," of a person with whom the United States was not officially at war. The President doesn't have that authority, other than the ambiguous and non-constitutional Patriot Act (ambiguous because, "persue to the ends of the earth," does not specifically say, "assassinate.")

I wish Congress would make an official Constitutional Amendment to explain just how America should respond to non-sovereign-nation groups that declared war on us (U.S.) but.. it has not.

Since it has not, Obama's actions were, indeed, "extrajudicial."

And I'm okay with that... in this instance. His other choice was to bomb, which legally and by treaty he could have done, as that does not mean he sent in troops to a sovereign nation to assassinate someone.

I prefer the strike team/assassinate method over bombing, and doing nothing would have been intolerable to this United States citizen.

Fortunately, "impeachment" - while feasible - is also impractical, because impeachment also requires political influence. And, while there are a few Americans who believe Obama shouldn't have directed what he directed, those are, fortunately, DAMNED FEW... so impeachment is not viable and as such, won't be attempted.

But the "impeachment" is feasible simply because Obama failed to "uphold the Constitution," (as Bush failed to uphold the Constitution, as several terms of Congress have failed to uphold the Constitution) by operating against Al Quaeda using the Patriot Act instead of a Constitutionally authorized Declaration of War.

p.s.
However, Obama is NOT guilty of War Crimes. The United States was never Constitutionally at War with Al Quaeda; if it was, then what Obama did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. Reason: It's perfectly legal to KILL an opposition commander, and that's precisely what OBL was. (It's just not legal to capture and torture him.)

Thus, Obama's orders were extrajudicial because the United States Congress under Bush or Obama, never officially, Constitutionally, declared War.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:29 pm**

stahrgazer wrote:p.s.
However, Obama is NOT guilty of War Crimes. The United States was never Constitutionally at War with Al Quaeda; if it was, then what Obama did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. Reason: It's perfectly legal to KILL an opposition commander, and that's precisely what OBL was. (It's just not legal to capture and torture him.)

So he is just guilty of murder then?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:33 pm**

Gypsys Kiss wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:p.s.
However, Obama is NOT guilty of War Crimes. The United States was never Constitutionally at War with Al Quaeda; if it was, then what Obama did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. Reason: It's perfectly legal to KILL an opposition commander, and that's precisely what OBL was. (It's just not legal to capture and torture him.)

So he is just guilty of murder then?

Sure. Try to come get him.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:35 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Gypsys Kiss wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:p.s.
However, Obama is NOT guilty of War Crimes. The United States was never Constitutionally at War with Al Quaeda; if it was, then what Obama did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. Reason: It's perfectly legal to KILL an opposition commander, and that's precisely what OBL was. (It's just not legal to capture and torture him.)

So he is just guilty of murder then?

Sure. Try to come get him.

Obama could've raped children and no one would care. As long as he got OBL, the Amerian people are happy.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:39 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Personally, I'm similar in that regard, except I care about pointing out the contradiction.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:40 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Personally, I'm similar in that regard, except I care about pointing out the contradiction.

You're like a younger, more educated, less swarthy, less oiled, less well-muscled, less wrestling version of me.

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:41 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Gypsys Kiss wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:p.s.
However, Obama is NOT guilty of War Crimes. The United States was never Constitutionally at War with Al Quaeda; if it was, then what Obama did was PERFECTLY LEGAL. Reason: It's perfectly legal to KILL an opposition commander, and that's precisely what OBL was. (It's just not legal to capture and torture him.)

So he is just guilty of murder then?

Sure. Try to come get him.

Obama could've raped children and no one would care. As long as he got OBL, the Amerian people are happy.

Hey, it's war, children get raped in war, that's life.

What kind of wussy liberal are you to not accept that children getting raped is a necessary sacrifice we must sadly endure in order to kill some fucker?

Posted: **Wed May 04, 2011 2:46 pm**

Night Strike wrote:I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Is being "soft" a negative attribute?

Myself, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world would become "too soft".

Conquer Club

Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Re: Osama bin Laden is dead