Omar bin Laden's Statement

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Basically, we make up the rules about these things as we go along.

I agree. Governments always have and always will do that.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

We are technically not at war with Afghanistan, nor any other entity of which Osama is a part.

Al qaeda is a non-entity? Damn, I'm soooooo out of the loop!

[Drolefille]

Yeah it's his dad, but...

Can I have his hair?

[DrPhil]

I know I'm wrong for this, but just let your soullllll glooooooooo.....

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

[URL]*****
I completely see where he is coming from and, from the perspective he is coming from, I agree with him.

Wait, what?

Let's start with "Summary execution" ... there are different rules for enemy combatants than civilians, and I believe Osama certainly qualified as an enemy combatant, right?

So essentially any action other than prostrating himself/giving himself up with a white flag nude could be considered a combative action per international rules. There's no shot at "summary execution" given the situation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, what?

My post is straightforward.

[Drolefille]

^^^ Can't be because his dad was killed and he's grieving the loss of a father no matter how much of an asshole the father was to him and the crimes he committed.

Regardless, he's not the first person to question the legality of the raid, and quite frankly I suspect that in this situation we're saying "Screw you guys, we told we'd break the rules, and we did, so wtf did you expect? Do something about it, try us." But I'm not an international law expert, and neither is he.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

^^^ Can't be because his dad was killed and he's grieving the loss of a father no matter how much of an asshole the father was to him and the crimes he committed.

I understand being upset, but he's invoking some difficult legal matters ... honestly, I feel horrible for bin Laden's family, because they're in a brutal spot, but that is Osama bin Laden's doing - not the United States.

Regardless, he's not the first person to question the legality of the raid, and quite frankly I suspect that in this situation we're saying "Screw you guys, we told we'd break the rules, and we did, so wtf did you expect? Do something about it, try us." But I'm not an international law expert, and neither is he.

There is a good amount of evidence that Pakistan (explicitly or implicitly) allowed actions within their borders that would get bin Laden. There are other matters beyond that, but it's not as simple as "invading a sovereign nation" or anything like that.

My (first-blush) reading of international treaties and agreements shows that many conflict or are vague - it's not easy to say either way. That obviously is its own problem, but at the same time, operating in a gray area is much better than "making up the rules."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I understand being upset, but he's invoking some difficult legal matters ... honestly, I feel horrible for bin Laden's family, because they're in a brutal spot, but that is Osama bin Laden's doing - not the United States.

Sure, but we're the easiest to blame. *shrug* It doesn't bother me that he blames us. What does it matter what he thinks?

There is a good amount of evidence that Pakistan (explicitly or implicitly) allowed actions within their borders that would get bin Laden. There are other matters beyond that, but it's not as simple as "invading a sovereign nation" or anything like that.

My (first-blush) reading of international treaties and agreements shows that many conflict or are vague - it's not easy to say either way. That obviously is its own problem, but at the same time, operating in a gray area is much better than "making up the rules."

Eh, I'm not even going to bother, I'm not an expert nor pretending to be here. Ultimately I don't think it matters, because no one is going to do a thing about it except complain.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

^^^ Can't be because his dad was killed and he's grieving the loss of a father no matter how much of an asshole the father was to him and the crimes he committed.

Regardless, he's not the first person to question the legality of the raid, and quite frankly I suspect that in this situation we're saying "Screw you guys, we told we'd break the rules, and we did, so wtf did you expect? Do something about it, try us." But I'm not an international law expert, and neither is he.

Pretty much sums up my reaction to his statement.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Pretty much sums up my reaction to his statement.

Yep.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

^^^ Can't be because his dad was killed and he's grieving the loss of a father no matter how much of an asshole the father was to him and the crimes he committed.

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!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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!

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.

[agzg]

Every time I read this thread title, I'm like "DrPhil you speeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllled it wrooooooooooong."

Then I remember he had 9,000,000 kids. I wonder if they all got O first names.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

Every time I read this thread title, I'm like "DrPhil you speeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllled it wrooooooooooong."

Then I remember he had 9,000,000 kids. I wonder if they all got O first names.

Shit, the Duggars had to have some competition.