Every time I see it I think it says "Osamar" and I hear an old British man saying it and I smile.

What?! I was thinking dude looks like a darker Zappa.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.spinner.c...al-preston.jpg

Yep

Whatever, you want him to sex you up! You can do it 'til you both wake up,
Oh girl you're thinking of him, you'd do it all 4 love.

LOL. Stop.

I see a little bit of Antoine from "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo" too.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...2828-28555.gif

Maybe "Jr" is looking for his 15 minutes in the spotlight. Could he be looking to replace "good ol' dad" in the terrorist hierarchy?

And now ladies and gents the new look of Al-Qaeda!

Is this the same guy from The Mummy movies? Because I was thinking him, the guy with the tatts on his face.

And you're trolling again.

Read about him, he's not a fan of his dad's ways. But it seems like he, and his brothers, feel like they need to defend him in death and criticize the manner of his death. I can understand that even if I don't agree with it.

In other situations with innocent victims, offenders don't get trials and due process?

Other offenders who don't turn themselves in, and instead get caught, still receive trials and due process.

Does all this not apply because of the following?

He is not a U.S. Citizen.
The nature of the crimes
Other reasons?

If his son is genuine, what a horrible situation. I'm sure I would feel different if I was close to one of the victims.

Not "offenders" that fight back during the capture/arrest attempt. They get a hole (or twenty) in center mass.

I can't help but wonder what people would be saying if Obama did NOT give the OK for the assassination, and had OBL been responsible for another terrorist attack at some point in the hypothetical future, and then it came out that "well, the Americans could have killed him back in May 2011, but didn't." What a shitstorm that could have been.

That depends on what fighting back involves.

For example, Resisting Arrest is not automatically cause for a hole (and especially not twenty holes--excessive force, much?) in the center mass.

Disclaimer: The laws of our land aren't international laws and don't necessarily apply to terrorist suspects captured or killed abroad.

I wonder what people would be saying if the military had gone to kill (I don't think they ever intended to capture, but only they know) Osama; and Osama and his crew were fully prepared and ended up killing all of the military involved as well as staged another terrorist attack to pay the U.S. back for the attempt.

Who knows, right? I guess anything's possible when all we have to go by is the "successful" outcome.

I firmly believe in "I don't condone in, but I understand." That means that I can truly see why a particular outcome is preferred and accepted. I can even personally agree with it at some level. However, personal opinions and anger over Osama aside, I'm less inclined to say we could've killed someone and more inclined to say we could've captured someone. It's fine that people wanted him dead immediately and believe that payback's a bitch. People just need to understand how there are others who question the legality and even morality of it. That doesn't make those people less sensitive to terrorism, less American, or clueless about the victims of 9/11.

I said twenty because if there is a team involved, the person raises a weapon at the team, and the team fire at him all at once, then that can pretty much add up to something around there. I'm not talking about one cop unloading more than one pistol into some guy.

@IrishLake, they've said that Clinton had opportunities to kill him years ago and didn't:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/...opportunities/