Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

[mc_squared]

So we kill him then?
Interesting logic.

I'm just saying no outcome would have been deemed "acceptable".
Ultimately, the only alternative to "death" would have been to lock him up for life.
Can't see how that would have worked.

[Braddock]

I'm just saying no outcome would have been deemed "acceptable".
Ultimately, the only alternative to "death" would have been to lock him up for life.
Can't see how that would have worked.

I can see why you rarely get involved in debate given your dangerous views on basic human rights and freedoms, Mark. Too much Daily Mail methinks. Are you for the death penalty under certain circumstances?

Locking him up for life would have been much better. Give the torture thread a read. Whilst centred around torture, plenty of people have given their insights into the way those in authority should behave, and the rights everybody has to actual justice.

You have to go through your own laws, so simply by saying 'no outcome would be deemed acceptable' and that locking him up for life wouldn't have worked does not justify anything that has been done. It is the law that you try and achieve that, and even if people don't agree with your law, if you are the people acting on the matter, you should follow the law and then answer to criticism later. In America they have the death penalty, so if he was found guilty then I think that is what would have happened, like with Saddam Hussein (another thing I don't see as justice, incidentally, because of my views on the death penalty).

It's an unsettling precedent to have set, if they did not have to kill him, which I feel should be investigated. I'm sure other terrorists would rather be shot that be put in prison for life, as it's a much quicker route to their reward. It could be more inspiring to budding terrorists to have acted in this manner.

[mc_squared]

I can see why you rarely get involved in debate given your dangerous views on basic human rights and freedoms, Mark. Too much Daily Mail methinks. Are you for the death penalty under certain circumstances?

Locking him up for life would have been much better. Give the torture thread a read. Whilst centred around torture, plenty of people have given their insights into the way those in authority should behave, and the rights everybody has to actual justice.

You have to go through your own laws, so simply by saying 'no outcome would be deemed acceptable' and that locking him up for life wouldn't have worked does not justify anything that has been done. It is the law that you try and achieve that, and even if people don't agree with your law, if you are the people acting on the matter, you should follow the law and then answer to criticism later. In America they have the death penalty, so if he was found guilty then I think that is what would have happened, like with Saddam Hussein (another thing I don't see as justice, incidentally, because of my views on the death penalty).

It's an unsettling precedent to have set, if they did not have to kill him, which I feel should be investigated. I'm sure other terrorists would rather be shot that be put in prison for life, as it's a much quicker route to their reward. It could be more inspiring to budding terrorists to have acted in this manner.

As I've already stated, no outcome would have been deemed acceptable, as there would always have been a vast number of people who wouldn't have been satisfied.
In America they only have the death penalty in certain states, so - assuming any trial would have taken place there (and this is by no means certain) - there would always have been a dispute as to where it should have taken place, waged between pro and anti death penalty campaigners.
I'm sure there are many people out there who would argue that the death penalty is justified in the case of mass murder/terrorism, even if they are generally against it.
Dismissing such an opinion, just because you don't agree with it, is equally wrong.
As somebody said on Question Time a few days ago, did bin Laden care about the "human rights" of those killed on 9/11 and in other terrorist attacks?
No.

[Braddock]

As I've already stated, no outcome would have been deemed acceptable, as there would always have been a vast number of people who wouldn't have been satisfied.
In America they only have the death penalty in certain states, so - assuming any trial would have taken place there (and this is by no means certain) - there would always have been a dispute as to where it should have taken place, waged between pro and anti death penalty campaigners.
I'm sure there are many people out there who would argue that the death penalty is justified in the case of mass murder/terrorism, even if they are generally against it.
Dismissing such an opinion, just because you don't agree with it, is equally wrong.
As somebody said on Question Time a few days ago, did bin Laden care about the "human rights" of those killed on 9/11 and in other terrorist attacks?
No.

So effectively what you're saying is...

1. People are always going to be against it, so that means he might as well be killed.
2. Bin Laden is a monster who doesn't care about human rights so therefore we can become monsters and not care about his human rights.


I have no problem with you believing that him being killed may have been necessary. It indeed may have been, but an investigation should take place so the truth can be outed. This you agree with, but are sceptical about, which is fair enough. I do not understand your reasoning behind the two points above however.

[mc_squared]

So effectively what you're saying is...

1. People are always going to be against it, so that means he might as well be killed.
2. Bin Laden is a monster who doesn't care about human rights so therefore we can become monsters and not care about his human rights.


I have no problem with you believing that him being killed may have been necessary. It indeed may have been, but an investigation should take place so the truth can be outed. This you agree with, but are sceptical about, which is fair enough. I do not understand your reasoning behind the two points above however.

All I'm saying is, there are so many complexities surrounding the legalities of any action taken against bin Laden, the outcome was probably the best one, assuming he wasn't summarily "executed" on-the-spot.
Otherwise the only "winners" would have been the fat-cat lawyers, as usual.

Somebody has even questioned how anything could actually have been proven against him legitimately, anyway.

Maybe there should be some clarification via international law regarding the human rights of mass murderers/terrorists. This might simplify matters, though I very much doubt this will ever happen, as I'm sure agreement would never be reached on this issue, either.

[Braddock]

All I'm saying is, there are so many complexities surrounding the legalities of any action taken against bin Laden, the outcome was probably the best one, assuming he wasn't summarily "executed" on-the-spot.
Otherwise the only "winners" would have been the fat-cat lawyers, as usual.

Somebody has even questioned how anything could actually have been proven against him legitimately, anyway.

Maybe there should be some clarification via international law regarding the human rights of mass murderers/terrorists. This might simplify matters, though I very much doubt this will ever happen, as I'm sure agreement would never be reached on this issue, either.

Whether it was the 'best' scenario or not, it should be investigated to see whether it was legal as everyone is bound by law and thankfully so.

Haha, fat cat lawyers? Yeah, we'd all rather see a man dead than them getting any money :confused:

The human rights of mass muderers and terrorists are the same as any other human being when they are not posing a threat to somebody. There won't be any clarification on it since none is needed.

Like I said, it may have been best to kill him in that situation, but simply saying 'we'll never know' or 'let's not go through the legal system or fat cat lawyers will make money' or 'who cares about his human rights?' isn't what anybody with any form of emotion would be suggesting.

[mc_squared]

The human rights of mass muderers and terrorists are the same as any other human being when they are not posing a threat to somebody.

It could be argued that his sheer existence posed a threat to thousands of innocent people worldwide, based on the continual terrorist plots he was undoubtedly involved in.
You might disagree, but I would argue that if you have had a hand, either directly or indirectly, in the deliberate deaths of thousands of innocent people, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequence, as happened in bin Laden's case.
If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.
I'd rather save mine for all the countless innocent people killed, maimed and beareaved as a result of all the terrorist atrocities over the years.

[Braddock]

It could be argued that his sheer existence posed a threat to thousands of innocent people worldwide, based on the continual terrorist plots he was undoubtedly involved in.
You might disagree, but I would argue that if you have had a hand, either directly or indirectly, in the deliberate deaths of thousands of innocent people, you should be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequence, as happened in bin Laden's case.
If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.
I'd rather save mine for all the innocent people killed, maimed and beareaved as a result of all the terrorist atrocities over the years.

Nobody in this thread is shedding tears over it as far as I am aware (and if they are then that is their prerogative, albeit a very unusual stance to take), and that in itself is a very interesting tone to take Mark. An apology, if you will. Several posters in this thread, and the torture thread are simply dismayed at the potential lack of legal grounding for these actions and the precedent that this may have set. It may have been the safest way to go about things, but the request of evidence to back it up is not something which should be frowned upon. If there was no legal backing, then I feel something should be done, as in the future this could be used against people who aren't actually guilty.

Simply trying to make people feel guilty for taking an interest in why he was actually killed is quite bizarre, Mark, and it won't help you in honest debate. This is not the Daily Mail letters page, it's a free thinking discussion regarding the potential problems towards others that these actions may lead to, after it appears a clear precedent has been set.

Do you understand this, Mark? Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters around who can spell it out for you.

[Braddock]

It isn't every day that I'm accused of shedding tears over terrorists. You're lucky I'm an adult about these things and won't be reporting the post, as you often do to other people, Mark.

[mc_squared]

Nobody in this thread is shedding tears over it as far as I am aware (and if they are then that is their prerogative, albeit a very unusual stance to take), and that in itself is a very interesting tone to take Mark. An apology, if you will. Several posters in this thread, and the torture thread are simply dismayed at the potential lack of legal grounding for these actions and the precedent that this may have set. It may have been the safest way to go about things, but the request of evidence to back it up is not something which should be frowned upon. If there was no legal backing, then I feel something should be done, as in the future this could be used against people who aren't actually guilty.

Simply trying to make people feel guilty for taking an interest in why he was actually killed is quite bizarre, Mark, and it won't help you in honest debate. This is not the Daily Mail letters page, it's a free thinking discussion regarding the potential problems towards others that these actions may lead to, after it appears a clear precedent has been set.

Do you understand this, Mark? Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters around who can spell it out for you.

By being sarcastic, trying to dictate your views, and continually bringing up publications which have no relevance to this discussion, your arguments start to lose credibility IMO.

Bin Laden's killing may well have set a precedent, which is why I suggested the situation/human rights regarding mass murderers should be clarified in international law as soon as possible.
I'm sure that many people will agree a different rule should apply in such extreme cases. In other words, if mass murderers happen to be taken out by an army or government-sanctioned "hit squad", so be it. They brought it upon themselves.

[Braddock]

By being sarcastic, trying to dictate your views, and continually bringing up publications which have no relevance to this discussion, your arguments start to lose credibility IMO.

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:
Unbelievable.

[Braddock]

Bin Laden's killing may well have set a precedent, which is why I suggested the situation/human rights regarding mass murderers should be clarified in international law as soon as possible.
I'm sure that many people will agree a different rule should apply in such extreme cases. In other words, if mass murderers happen to be taken out by an army or government-sanctioned "hit squad", so be it. They brought it upon themselves.

No, they know the laws, it should be looked into whether they followed the laws. It doesn't need to be clarified, they merely have to prove they didn't break the law. Human rights apply to all, just like if they had captured him they could have either imprisoned him or activated the death penalty if they felt that was legal too. That would have been following the law.

[mc_squared]

It isn't every day that I'm accused of shedding tears over terrorists. You're lucky I'm an adult about these things and won't be reporting the post, as you often do to other people, Mark.

If you read carefully, you will see you weren't accused of anything. I believe I made my position clear in my previous post regarding your comments.

[Braddock]

If you read carefully, you will see you weren't accused of anything. I believe I made my position clear in my previous post regarding your comments.


If you want to shed tears over the apparent disregard of his "human rights", that's up to you.

Say what now?

[mc_squared]

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:
Unbelievable.

I agree. I thought we were meant to be having a serious discussion. It seems I was wrong. In the circumstances, I reckon we should end it there before it gets out of hand.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Braddock]

I agree. I thought we were meant to be having a serious discussion. It seems I was wrong. In the circumstances, I reckon we should end it there before it gets out of hand.

Fine, if you want. Or you could just be a mature adult and debate.

[mc_squared]

Fine, if you want. Or you could just be a mature adult and debate.

As far as I'm concerned I was. It was unnecessary to bring up the Daily Mail.

[Braddock]

Why? Those are very 'Daily Mail' views you hold, and you appear to read the Daily Mail. Bringing that up doesn't change all that much. Just justify your points.
You don't appear to think that mass murderers or terrorists deserve human rights. One of the most volatile statements I've seen on here in a long time.

[mc_squared]

Why? Those are very 'Daily Mail' views you hold, and you appear to read the Daily Mail.

That is another incorrect assumption. It is merely a news source, like any other (including Al Jazeera, for example).

You don't appear to think that mass murderers or terrorists deserve human rights. One of the most volatile statements I've seen on here in a long time.

You're entitled to your opinion on that score. I could just as easily say the same about some of yours. However, as I said, I don't see any point in continuing with this.
It won't achieve anything.

[Braddock]

That is another incorrect assumption. It is merely a news source, like any other (including Al Jazeera, for example).


Take note of my use of the word 'appear'.


You're entitled to your opinion on that score. I could just as easily say the same about some of yours. However, as I said, I don't see any point in continuing with this.
It won't achieve anything.

Thank you for allowing me to hold my opinions. You are entitled to yours, but don't throw your toys out of the pram when asked to justify them. I don't mind ended it here, everyone can have a giggle when they read the last few pages.

[Alice]

I wonder who would carry out the investigation. America might want to carry one out, Pakistan might, is there a global war court too (forgive my ignorance)?

Yes, there is the International Criminal Court. It wouldn't have been possible to judge it in America, as in regarding american laws. Therefore there is no wonder about whether or not the death penalty would have apply. It would have been judged regarding international law. This court was created quite recently for huge matters such as people condemn for crime against humanity so it would have been "perfect" for Bin Laden.

[Braddock]

Yes, there is the International Criminal Law. It wouldn't have been possible to judge it in America, as in regarding american laws. Therefore there is no wonder about whether or not the death penalty would have apply. It would have been judged regarding international law. This court was created quite recently for huge matters such as people condemn for crime to humanity so it would have been "perfect" for Bin Laden.

Thanks Alice, I knew there would be something!

[Alice]

Fuck, I edited my post. I meant International Criminal Court.

You're welcome :)

[the_gloaming09]

I have really strong doubts that they'll do any kind of prosecution against the US on that matter, afterall they've gotten away with a lot of things in the past.

In terms of shooting Bin Laden I could understand doing it if he was armed and threatening the soldiers
but yeah he should've had a fair trial, much as how the Nazis as well as Saddam did.

To be honest though, if he was captured I have strong doubts of see him making it to the US alive. I'm sure some soldier or person would have disobeyed orders and killed him at some point.

[mc_squared]

I have really strong doubts that they'll do any kind of prosecution against the US on that matter, afterall they've gotten away with a lot of things in the past.

In terms of shooting Bin Laden I could understand doing it if he was armed and threatening the soldiers
but yeah he should've had a fair trial, much as how the Nazis as well as Saddam did.

To be honest though, if he was captured I have strong doubts of see him making it to the US alive. I'm sure some soldier or person would have disobeyed orders and killed him at some point.

As I said before, I can't see how any person accused of "crimes against humanity" could ever really be guaranteed a totally fair trial, as you're never going to be able to find an impartial "jury".
And I really can't believe that anyone can really have any sympathy regarding the nature of bin Laden's death after his undeniable involvement in terrorist atrocities.
The only possible exception could be if it could be proven without a doubt that he was killed inhumanely.
I don't think there's been any suggestion that he was made to suffer (i.e. tortured or anything like that).
If the general consensus happens to be that this should be investigated, then no problem.

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? Did any of them get a fair trial, or even deserve being tried for anything in the first place? How quickly people forget.:dozey:

[the_gloaming09]

As I said before, I can't see how any person accused of "crimes against humanity" could ever really be guaranteed a totally fair trial, as you're never going to be able to find an impartial "jury".
And I really can't believe that anyone can really have any sympathy regarding the nature of bin Laden's death after his undeniable involvement in terrorist atrocities.
The only possible exception could be if it could be proven without a doubt that he was killed inhumanely.
I don't think there's been any suggestion that he was made to suffer (i.e. tortured or anything like that).
If the general consensus happens to be that this should be investigated, then no problem.

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? How quickly people forget.:dozey:

That is a good point in trying to find an impartial jury. But the same could also be said about the Nazi's too. I mean the world knew about them at the time and how terrible they were still that was done.

I think I can speak for the others that none of us talking about a having a trial for Bin Laden is giving him any sympathy. He was a ruthless murderer that is responsible for thousands of deaths all over the world.

However yes it is not right from the Islamic extremists to be beheading people on video and posting it. No one forgets it. Its a horrific thing to do and show people. But at the same time they are on such a low level of moral standards that I wouldn't put anything past them. They are afterall willing to kill anyone and everyone including themselves for an invisible man in the sky... now how fucked up is that?

So why should we bring ourselves down to that level of barbarism? The Western World, but in this scenario the US has been known for it's guiding principles of giving people freedom and equality (though of course from some of our actions it can't be said that we fully follow them). So in some sense it's kind of a walking contridiction... We are a country that values freedom, equality, and fair chances but we'll abandon those principles in this case.


Now I don't know... I wasn't there. I have no idea if he was armed or not and threatening the soldiers. But from what I've heard he wasn't armed so I think he should've been taken in. I mean afterall when we captured Saddam Hussein and Nazis in WWII we didn't deliberately kill them.

[mc_squared]

That is a good point in trying to find an impartial jury. But the same could also be said about the Nazi's too. I mean the world knew about them at the time and how terrible they were still that was done.

So do you think if the Americans or Russians had got to Hitler before he had killed himself, and shot him, anyone of a sane mind would have given a damn? I very much doubt it.

I think I can speak for the others that none of us talking about a having a trial for Bin Laden is giving him any sympathy. He was a ruthless murderer that is responsible for thousands of deaths all over the world.

However yes it is not right from the Islamic extremists to be beheading people on video and posting it. No one forgets it. Its a horrific thing to do and show people. But at the same time they are on such a low level of moral standards that I wouldn't put anything past them. They are afterall willing to kill anyone and everyone including themselves for an invisible man in the sky... now how fucked up is that?

So why should we bring ourselves down to that level of barbarism? The Western World, but in this scenario the US has been known for it's guiding principles of giving people freedom and equality (though of course from some of our actions it can't be said that we fully follow them). So in some sense it's kind of a walking contridiction... We are a country that values freedom, equality, and fair chances but we'll abandon those principles in this case.

I do take your point, but at the end of the day, terrorism isn't at all fair, as it deliberately targets civilians. If conventional warfare was being waged, it would be a totally different matter.
The goalposts have been well and truly moved in recent years, and 9/11 was the point of no return.
At least the IRA generally used to give coded warnings before bombs went off (even though hundreds of innocent people were still killed).
The Islamic extremists don't give any warnings whatsoever.:angry:
How can they be expected to be treated "fairly" when they do things like that?:dozey:


Now I don't know... I wasn't there. I have no idea if he was armed or not and threatening the soldiers. But from what I've heard he wasn't armed so I think he should've been taken in. I mean afterall when we captured Saddam Hussein and Nazis in WWII we didn't deliberately kill them.

Exactly, none of us was there, so we don't know exactly what transpired. By all accounts he was given the opportunity to surrender, but refused to do so. As far as I'm aware, Saddam Hussein either surrendered or was captured without a struggle.
Presumably the majority of the senior Nazis in WWII were captured easily too, although I'm only speculating here.

[the_gloaming09]

I understand what you're saying, and terrorists don't care for the most part being that they target civilians. But like I said before if we are supposed to be a nation that values equal justice, freedom and equlity among citizens then it's kind of hypocritical.

If he was armed and ready to shoot a soldier then fine... shoot him in self defense. But otherwise I say capture him. To be honest I'd much rather see a criminal rot the rest of their lives in jail.

Also two wrongs don't make a right. Yes what they do is barbaric, but like I said if you do the same things right back to them you essentially become just as bad as them.

Also I think from an outside standpoint that the terrorists seeing us kill him will only make things worse in that we shot him, but also it will help fuel of him being a martyr.

Overall the whole thing is a delicate situation. But I still think that the worst thing people could've done was celebrate the way they did.

[Braddock]

However, how come there haven't been any investigations into the violation of the human rights of all those beheaded on video by Islamic extremists? Did any of them get a fair trial, or even deserve being tried for anything in the first place? How quickly people forget.:dozey:


Who has said those things are forgotten? So we are to behave in the same way as they do then, and that is OK? Because they behave in a barbaric way then we do?


The Islamic extremists don't give any warnings whatsoever.:angry:
How can they be expected to be treated "fairly" when they do things like that?:dozey:


I don't care what they expect, it is what should have been done.



Exactly, none of us was there, so we don't know exactly what transpired.

So why be so one sided in your statements and keep bringing up WW2? We have said that things should be looked into, and if they didn't need to kill him he shouldn't have been killed and answers must be given. I don't see why you have a problem with that. We have said if it comes out that he needed to be killed then that is fine. We don't have a problem with that.

[the_gloaming09]

^I agree completely

[mc_squared]

So why be so one sided in your statements and keep bringing up WW2? We have said that things should be looked into, and if they didn't need to kill him he shouldn't have been killed and answers must be given. I don't see why you have a problem with that. We have said if it comes out that he needed to be killed then that is fine. We don't have a problem with that.

Firstly, if you read the previous posts carefully, I wasn't the one that referred to WW2 first. I was merely responding to comments which raised the subject.;)
Secondly, I have never at any point said that an investigation into how bin Laden was killed shouldn't be carried out, if it is possible to do so.
I just think it is going to be virtually impossible to prove that he was killed in cold blood, even if he was.
Incidentally, opinions tend to be one-sided, as they tend to lean to one side of an argument or another.
Ask any politician.;)

[Braddock]

Firstly, if you read the previous posts carefully, I wasn't the one that referred to WW2 first. I was merely responding to comments which raised the subject.;)


I don't know why you are using that as some kind of yardstick and saying 'had someone killed Hitler would anyone have cared?'. It's just a random hypothetical irrelevant thing to say.


Secondly, I have never at any point said that an investigation into how bin Laden was killed shouldn't be carried out, if it is possible to do so.
I just think it is going to be virtually impossible to prove that he was killed in cold blood, even if he was.


To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea. If you're so confident he deserves death, then why are you not confident he deserves life imprisonment and don't believe he will get a fair trial? It's hard not to get a fair verdict when life imprisonment is the only outcome for what he has done.

[mc_squared]

I don't know why you are using that as some kind of yardstick and saying 'had someone killed Hitler would anyone have cared?'. It's just a random hypothetical irrelevant thing to say.

As I said, I wasn't the one that brought up the subject of WW2 and the Nazis.;)
Anyway, both Hitler and Bin Laden were responsible in one way or another for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, so I believe a comparison is valid, whatever your opinion on the topic.

To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea. If you're so confident he deserves death, then why are you not confident he deserves life imprisonment and don't believe he will get a fair trial? It's hard not to get a fair verdict when life imprisonment is the only outcome for what he has done.

None of that is relevant unless it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that bin Laden could have been captured without the lives of any of the SEALS being put at risk.

[Braddock]

As I said, I wasn't the one that brought up the subject of WW2 and the Nazis.;)
Anyway, both Hitler and Bin Laden were responsible in one way or another for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, so I believe a comparison is valid, whatever your opinion on the topic.

And both deserved their human rights.


None of that is relevant unless it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that bin Laden could have been captured without the lives of any of the SEALS being put at risk.

Which is what we were asking to be looked in to. You don't half squirm, Mark.

[mc_squared]

Which is what we were asking to be looked in to. You don't half squirm, Mark.

Again, an unnecessary "personal" remark. For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

[Braddock]

Again, an unnecessary "personal" remark. For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

How a person who doesn't believe everyone deserves human rights can attempt to play the victim, just because I said they squirmed, I'll never know :laugh3:

I never said your opinion wasn't valid, I'm glad you've finally entered into debate. I can see why you usually don't now though as you seem incapable of being challenged and dart around the subject between posts, hence why I said you squirmed. You seem to be moving between either saying 'Who cares, Islamic extremists don't care about our human rights so we shouldn't care about theirs', to 'Well the trial wouldn't be fair anyway so he might as well be dead', and then when all else fails you play the victim and say your opinion is valid, which is all well and good but it isn't really much of a reply.

[mc_squared]

How a person who doesn't believe everyone deserves human rights can attempt to play the victim, just because I said they squirmed, I'll never know :laugh3:

Again, for the record, I am not "playing the victim" in any way whatsoever, and I would appreciate your refraining from making false accusations.;)

I never said your opinion wasn't valid, I'm glad you've finally entered into debate. I can see why you usually don't now though as you seem incapable of being challenged.

Again, I am in no way whatsoever "incapable of being challenged". I was having a perfectly reasonable discussion with Mike before you butted in. You seem to be incapable of countering any of my opinions without making some kind of personal remark or insinuation.

That's why, as I stated before, I see no point in continuing any discussion or debate with you.

End.

[mc_squared]

Overall the whole thing is a delicate situation. But I still think that the worst thing people could've done was celebrate the way they did.

Good point. I don't think "celebrating" bin Laden's death was appropriate.
However, I can understand the reaction in terms of what happened on 9/11, whether appropriate or not.;)

[mc_squared]

Prince Harry (http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/862109-prince-harry-warned-off-pippa-middleton) is a target for a group looking to avenge Osama bin Laden's death (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862119-osama-bin-laden-is-dead-reaction-from-around-the-world), according to a report.



The killing of the Al-Qaeda mastermind was welcomed by many people in the Western world, but hundreds of extremists gathered outside the US embassy in London (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862613-extremists-hold-osama-bin-laden-funeral-at-us-embassy-in-london) to protest about it on Friday.
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/dn/2011/05/08/800523366_14016643-596x362-1304842942054_304x185_inline.jpg Prince Harry features in the Muslims Against Crusades video (PA)
Muslims Against Crusades is believed to have organised the demonstration and members of the organisation now appear to have threatened Prince Harry.
According to the News of the World, the group has uploaded a video with a clear message about the army officer to a jihadist website.
It features footage of Prince Harry talking about his time on active duty in Afghanistan, together with a photograph of him wearing a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party and the infamous clip in which he uses a racially abusive term to describe a colleague.
The scenes are designed to stir up ill feeling against the royal and the video ends with what appears to be a faked death scene.
News of the video comes just days after London was described as a potential Al-Qaeda recruiting ground and security expert Neil Doyle told the tabloid the threat to Prince William's brother should be taken seriously.
'The group's supporters make it quite clear they want to see Harry dead. We are in a high-danger period,' he said.
Prince Harry served with the Household Cavalry in Helmand Province in 2007 and 2008, but was withdrawn after his presence became public knowledge.
It is believed he wants to return to Afghanistan for further active service, but it is not clear whether army commanders will allow it.




Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862646-prince-harry-target-in-terror-video#ixzz1LnG7Bnve

[Reilly]

For the record, I'm not "squirming" in any way whatsoever, merely giving my opinion, which is just as valid as yours.;)

Hmmmm technically, I guess, in a way, somehow.

[NumbersGirl]

To be honest, bin Laden wouldn't have turned up to trial and pleaded not guilty. What would his followers have done then? The only way he wouldn't have pleaded guilty was through silence, and by doing that it's effectively entering a guilty plea.

Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

[the_gloaming09]

Good point. I don't think "celebrating" bin Laden's death was appropriate.
However, I can understand the reaction in terms of what happened on 9/11, whether appropriate or not.;)

I agree. I mean I can understand why people would react a certain way. I mean personally when I found out I basically thought to myself "it's about fucking time". Now it's about time that he was dead, but the fact that he was at least found and dealt with by the military, though of course if he was unarmed I still think he should've been captured.


Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

That is an interesting point. I'm sure if he had had the opportunity to he would've mocked and taken advantage somehow of the judicial system to send a message

[Braddock]

Actually I think it would have been more likely that he would have pleaded not guilty. Not from the perspective that he thought he didn't do anything wrong (although maybe he would think that based on the twisted logic which was the brainchild of all the atrocities to begin with); but from the perspective that he would just use the plea as a way to mock the system. And who knows what motivation that could have given his followers. And maybe he could have used it as a platform to somehow give "signals" to his followers to carry out certain plans? Whether he would have plead guilty from the beginning, or gone through a trial and then be found guilty, the end result would almost certainly have been his execution. So why not take a little time and screw the system first?

Signals maybe, but I'm not sure how widely it would be televised, if at all. If they are a stage where they can carry out something huge and only need the go ahead from him, then I'm quite sure his capture would be enough to actually spark them to do it anyway, just like his death would. This is not a reason to ignore justice however.

Other than that I honestly don't think he would enter a not guilty plea at all. He is very proud of his achievements. And besides, he could mock the system all he wanted, but if that's the only 'victory' he gets, then so be it. I'd be very happy with that scenario.

[mc_squared]

Just looking at pictures and video on BBC News from the US Department of Defence showing Bin Laden, grey beard and all flicking the channels. What's the chance he lands on babestation?

It appears you might have been right! :stunned:

Did Bin Laden watch porn as he hid in Pakistan? Stash of X-rated films found in his squalid lair



By Daily Mail Reporter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Daily+Mail+Reporter)


First it emerged Osama Bin Laden spent hours watching videos of himself as he callously planned new terror attacks against the 'decadent' West
But now it appears the Al Qaeda mastermind may have watched something else as he hid in his squalid lair - pornography.
Today officials revealed U.S. Navy SEALs discovered a stash of x-rated films in the terror leader's final hideout.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/13/article-1386856-0BF6283400000578-427_468x357.jpg What was he watching? Today it emerged U.S. Navy SEALs found a stash of pornography videos in Osama Bin Laden's squalid lair

It's the latest in a series of chilling revelations about the years Bin Laden spent in the specially-built compound, as investigators trawl through the treasure trove of evidence recovered by the SEALS.
According to officials, the commandos found a 'fairly extensive' collection of modern porn films as they searched the building after Bin Laden was shot.




The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they did not yet know where in the compound the films were found - or who had been watching it.
The terror leader shared the three-storey house in Abbottabad, not far from the Pakistani capital, with his three wives, several of his children and the families of two of his closest aides.
It is not known whether Bin Laden himself watched the pornography, which consisted of recent, electronically-recorded video.

[Braddock]

Come back with a story that a reporter will actually give their name to.
Every one knows never to read those stories as though they are fact.

If it was to be true he must have had it well and truly hidden if it's only been found recently.

[Cobalt]

BORING

[mc_squared]

Still could be true, though............................. :rolleyes:

[Cobalt]

So? Who the flying suck cares if he did or didn't. What difference does it make? OH NO OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS A TERRORIST PERVERT. Good grief.

[Braddock]

Next you'll be telling me that Ian Huntley swore once. :shrug:

[iccp]

Prince Harry (http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/862109-prince-harry-warned-off-pippa-middleton) is a target for a group looking to avenge Osama bin Laden's death (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862119-osama-bin-laden-is-dead-reaction-from-around-the-world), according to a report.



The killing of the Al-Qaeda mastermind was welcomed by many people in the Western world, but hundreds of extremists gathered outside the US embassy in London (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862613-extremists-hold-osama-bin-laden-funeral-at-us-embassy-in-london) to protest about it on Friday.
http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/dn/2011/05/08/800523366_14016643-596x362-1304842942054_304x185_inline.jpg Prince Harry features in the Muslims Against Crusades video (PA)
Muslims Against Crusades is believed to have organised the demonstration and members of the organisation now appear to have threatened Prince Harry.
According to the News of the World, the group has uploaded a video with a clear message about the army officer to a jihadist website.
It features footage of Prince Harry talking about his time on active duty in Afghanistan, together with a photograph of him wearing a Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party and the infamous clip in which he uses a racially abusive term to describe a colleague.
The scenes are designed to stir up ill feeling against the royal and the video ends with what appears to be a faked death scene.
News of the video comes just days after London was described as a potential Al-Qaeda recruiting ground and security expert Neil Doyle told the tabloid the threat to Prince William's brother should be taken seriously.
'The group's supporters make it quite clear they want to see Harry dead. We are in a high-danger period,' he said.
Prince Harry served with the Household Cavalry in Helmand Province in 2007 and 2008, but was withdrawn after his presence became public knowledge.
It is believed he wants to return to Afghanistan for further active service, but it is not clear whether army commanders will allow it.




Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862646-prince-harry-target-in-terror-video#ixzz1LnG7Bnve


WHAT???!?!?!?! what is happening in this world????? Prince Harry???
WHAT???

Osama is dead.....they should just forget about it!

[the_gloaming09]

alright? who really cares?

[Braddock]

Daily Mail readers.

[NumbersGirl]

They were reporting that story on Osama's stash of porn here too, on the national news.

Honestly I think it's interesting from the perspective that it makes him an extraordinarily huge hypocrite. That's one of the things he condemned in the societies he hated, yet it was perfectly fine for him to make use of it? Mmmmph.

[Braddock]

Well they say they have no idea if it's his. And with the other things they have said about him, like he used a woman as a human shield etc, I wouldn't believe it till there's actual evidence. It's easy to make silly claims, especially if you aren't even going to bother putting a name to the article.

[nancyk58]

Well they say they have no idea if it's his. And with the other things they have said about him, like he used a woman as a human shield etc, I wouldn't believe it till there's actual evidence. It's easy to make silly claims, especially if you aren't even going to bother putting a name to the article.

^this.

[Braddock]

A more credible and interesting article to post on the affair:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13398281

[mc_squared]

Next you'll be telling me that Ian Huntley swore once. :shrug:

I have a feeling that wouldn't actually surprise anyone, therefore it wouldn't be newsworthy........................ :rolleyes:

They were reporting that story on Osama's stash of porn here too, on the national news.

Honestly I think it's interesting from the perspective that it makes him an extraordinarily huge hypocrite. That's one of the things he condemned in the societies he hated, yet it was perfectly fine for him to make use of it? Mmmmph.

Yes, that is indeed what makes it newsworthy. Yes, it's speculative, as are many news stories, but as a stash of porn was definitely found on the premises, it was perfectly reasonable to suggest it might have belonged to Bin Laden.
Many stories begin as speculation before they are actually proven, including lots of scandals.

[Imke]

Men watch porn, big news.

[chuck kottke]

Justice, that's what I think we really need to look at. All the business about this or that is a distraction to me from the central issue - what is the right way to deal with those extremists who use terror tactics ?
As suspects, and for the sake of respecting the rule of law, they should be primarily arrested and then tried in court. Since it's an international matter, one should go with the international courts. We did this with Milosevic, Mugabe, Goring, Hess, Demjanjuk, and so forth. One can't make war on organized crime - it's not a state, it's an amorphous organization - it has no central location, and it's leadership simply gets replaced when one "takes out" the current leader.
I think if we did this and showed respect with how we conducted searches alongside Pakistani police forces, using credible evidence presented to a judge, obtaining warrants if the evidence is sufficient to justify arrests or collection of evidence, and then conducting careful searches with due respect for human rights and individual dignity - we would probably be solving the terrorism problem, by showing that we behave in a manner respectful of human rights. Combine that with reducing poverty and inequity, finding ways to offer meaningful work, education, and mutual respect for the citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the recruitment by Al Qaeda would drop, citizens there would see us as standing on their side as protectors of human rights.
It's a problem with states which were fragmented such as Afghanistan, but then the answer is working with locals to listen to their interests and respecting their rights, treating them as equals.
Bin Laden is dead, but solving the issues of reducing the threats of terror acts isn't - I think that is the more critical matter. Unfortunately the U.S. military brass is bent on hitting targets without much consideration for innocents killed, or the respectful way to conduct searches in private residences - they forget what so incensed Americans at the time of the revolution - the barging in unannounced by British troops under King George into people's homes, without protections of law and courts to safeguard one's sense of sanctuary - that had the colonists up in arms.
I really wonder about not being able to arrest Bin Laden and take him into custody - sounds like the seals could have done that, but why didn't they? Perhaps they really were threatened, but there are reports to the contrary.

[chuck kottke]

This is an excerpt from a very recent interview with Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon from DemocracyNow!: Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón on Holding Torturers Accountable, Why He Opposes the Killing of Osama bin Laden, and His Threatened Ouster from the Bench (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/12/spanish_judge_baltasar_garzn_on_bin)


JUDGE BALTASAR GARZÓN: Good Morning. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: And thank you to Tony Geist for translating.
Judge Garzón, let’s start with the latest news: the assassination of Osama bin Laden. You have condemned this. Why?
JUDGE BALTASAR GARZÓN: [translated] Any person who leads a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda is obviously a target. Under the rule of law, justice should be sought by legal means. According to the information we have, he could well have been arrested and brought to trial for his crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet he was assassinated. Talk about the example you believe this sets.
JUDGE BALTASAR GARZÓN: [translated] According to international law, the murder or the assassination of bin Laden was not the appropriate solution. Clearly, from the information we have, it’s an undefined situation, given the state of conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda.

[mc_squared]

I really wonder about not being able to arrest Bin Laden and take him into custody - sounds like the seals could have done that, but why didn't they? Perhaps they really were threatened, but there are reports to the contrary.

In other words, the only person that knows for sure is the one that pulled the trigger. It's highly probable the truth will never be revealed.

[chuck kottke]

In other words, the only person that knows for sure is the one that pulled the trigger. It's highly probable the truth will never be revealed.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. I can't estimate the probability, but if there were an effective inquiry, who knows what might happen. Let's say some of the members of the Seals who were there and saw what happened were willing to testify in exchange for protection and prosecutorial immunity - the truth may then be revealed in court. Or if the recorded footage of Bin Laden's shooting is made available through a subpoena and is presented to the court where the case is being investigated, we might find out the truth.
Or maybe other witnesses may all testify independently, and after cross-examination, based on their eye-witness account, shed some light on the truth as to whether Bin Laden posed a real threat or not.
Or if someone had orders to kill and not to capture Bin Laden, that may be revealed.
Seems like Judge Garzon was privy to information indicating that Bin Laden could have been arrested and brought to trial, so I wonder...

[mc_squared]

Perhaps, but perhaps not. I can't estimate the probability, but if there were an effective inquiry, who knows what might happen. Let's say some of the members of the Seals who were there and saw what happened were willing to testify in exchange for protection and prosecutorial immunity - the truth may then be revealed in court. Or if the recorded footage of Bin Laden's shooting is made available through a subpoena and is presented to the court where the case is being investigated, we might find out the truth.
Or maybe other witnesses may all testify independently, and after cross-examination, based on their eye-witness account, shed some light on the truth as to whether Bin Laden posed a real threat or not.
Or if someone had orders to kill and not to capture Bin Laden, that may be revealed.
Seems like Judge Garzon was privy to information indicating that Bin Laden could have been arrested and brought to trial, so I wonder...

All sounds a bit "iffy" to me.................................

[chuck kottke]

All sounds a bit "iffy" to me.................................
I saw the footage - he was harmlessly munching on popcorn like a rabbit, watching TV!

[mc_squared]

I saw the footage - he was harmlessly munching on popcorn like a rabbit, watching TV!

Do rabbits eat popcorn?:confused:

[howyousawtheworld]

Men watch porn, big news.

Certainly not men (and a religion) which repeatedly and publicly denounced the West for their relaxed and obsessed attitude to sex. Not on this case though. So he died a complete coward trying to get his wife to protect him (some martyr death) and then he's found to be a complete porn addict. How much more of an embarassment can this man get?

[mc_squared]

Certainly not men (and a religion) which repeatedly and publicly denounced the West for their relaxed and obsessed attitude to sex. Not on this case though. So he died a complete coward trying to get his wife to protect him (some martyr death) and then he's found to be a complete porn addict. How much more of an embarassment can this man get?

I was tempted to point this out, but I thought it was pretty obvious that Bin Laden's apparent hypocrisy was at the centre of the potential scandal.:dozey:
As you said, he incessantly accused the West of being "morally corrupt", citing this as one of the reasons for waging war against it.
If it were proven Bin Laden had been watching porn, he would be exposed as one of the biggest hypocrites of all time.;)

[Braddock]

If

Yup.

[nouratan]

before you start talking abt Bin Laden's publicly denouncing the West for their relaxed and obsessed attitude to sex, do you even what made him like he was...

his fight with his own government started coz they let American troops into Saudi Arabia
and he hated that the america was trying to control their oil rich nations

[mc_squared]

No different from saying "if" it were proven that Bin Laden's human rights had been ignored etc., etc.:rolleyes:
Speculative news stories crop up all the time.

[Braddock]

No different from saying "if" it were proven that Bin Laden's human rights had been ignored etc., etc.:rolleyes:
Speculative news stories crop up all the time.

Well what you are forgetting is that nobody is saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't the biggest hypocrite because of his other actions. Watching pornography would not be very high on his list of atrocities. His religion was often used as a veil for his atrocities, as well as perhaps influencing them but he broke plenty of Islam's key principles before that.

Do you honestly believe that his followers will believe the findings of pornography? They believe nothing that comes from the west anyway.

It is different from the human rights 'ifs' because if his human rights had been violated then that is something that we have to look into as it would people representing us who are at fault. On the other hand it is not illegal to view pornography, so it's kind of irrelevant in the great scheme of things, especially when considered amongst what else he has done. Your main misunderstanding is thinking that this is the piece of evidence that makes him into a hypocrite. It's merely another example, and it's far from proved yet.

[mc_squared]

I totally disagree. If it were proven, it would be totally damning revelation. Let's hope it is.:smug:

[Braddock]

I totally disagree. If it were proven, it would be totally damning revelation. Let's hope it is.:smug:

Like I said, he would be a hypocrite, but everybody knows he is a hypocrite. Do you remember 9/11 for example?

But it would not be a damning revelation for his followers because they would not believe it. It would simply be something for the west to s****** (edit - sniggger) at and associate him with. As of yet I've not seen anything conclusive to prove he did it, and whilst I'm not saying not to look in to it, I'll wait until I see some actual evidence. All I've seen is an article without a name, which is what you get in the transfer rumours section of a tabloid during the transfer window.

I have a suspicion that a lot more journalists from more respectable areas would be jumping on this and following it if there was some hard evidence available right now. I'm not saying it couldn't come about in the future. Re-read my last post as well Mark, regarding why this is different to the human rights 'ifs'. I'm sure you did read it first time, but your simplistic response sometimes makes me wonder.

[Imke]

If you seriously think watching pornography is on the top of the list of things that make him a hypocrite, then ... I don't even know how to continue this, it's just a big :facepalm:
We all knew he was a hypocrite for proven reasons ... this story is just supposed to attract people through SCANDAL11!!!!111!!!!! and look, it worked.

[Braddock]

According to this thread page he's already now a 'complete porn addict'. And people have already forgotten that he did not use his wife to protect him. These 'truths' stick though, and that is why they are printed. They plant those little ideas in your head and people forget about what is true and what isn't.

[Braddock]

If you seriously think watching pornography is on the top of the list of things that make him a hypocrite, then ... I don't even know how to continue this, it's just a big :facepalm:
We all knew he was a hypocrite for proven reasons ... this story is just supposed to attract people through SCANDAL11!!!!111!!!!! and look, it worked.

I'm glad you are in this thread Imke :)
When I post on my own about these things my words only get twisted and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

[the_gloaming09]

I really don't see why the big fuss is over all of this. He also had a bunch of wives (I think like 6) and children from multiple wives too.

[Imke]

I'm glad you are in this thread Imke :)
When I post on my own about these things my words only get twisted and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:

I really don't see why the big fuss is over all of this. He also had a bunch of wives (I think like 6) and children from multiple wives too.

... and the fact still remains that there were other men in that compound. I don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that it was his porn-stash.

Why would that matter anyway? Why would anyone feel the need to prove him a hypocrite by revealing his secret love for porn?
For fuck's sake, that man was a terrorist and abused and misinterpreted his religion to kill people ... he already is a proven hypocrite.

[the_gloaming09]

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:



... and the fact still remains that there were other men in that compound. I don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that it was his porn-stash.

Why would that matter anyway? Why would anyone feel the need to prove him a hypocrite by revealing his secret love for porn?
For fuck's sake, that men was a terrorist and abused and misinterpreted his religion to kill people ... he already is a proven hypocrite.

exactly I agree.

The fact that he or his compound had a pornography collection should really be the least of our concerns, and as mentioned before even if we were to reveal that to his followers I strongly doubt they'd believe us.

[NumbersGirl]

I could make a RH reference but I won't

[the_gloaming09]

do it do it do it.

if it was me you know i wouldn't hold it back :lol:

[NumbersGirl]

FINE MIKE. JUST FINE.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3KXN83kTfrJ4DvGs4MviVMEifesvFG gsUiX19VFnKjCtd7oMf

[Karencorpse]

Most people that I know think he was dead long time ago due to kidney failure.

[the_gloaming09]

FINE MIKE. JUST FINE.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3KXN83kTfrJ4DvGs4MviVMEifesvFG gsUiX19VFnKjCtd7oMf

i'm actually surprised... I thought that you were going to say that there were reports that the neighbors complained of Bin Ladens tapes from all The Amazing Sounds of Orgy :lol:


I also have the t-shirt btw

[NumbersGirl]

i'm actually surprised... I thought that you were going to say that there were reports that the neighbors complained of Bin Ladens tapes from all The Amazing Sounds of Orgy :lol::awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:

you know me too well


I also have the t-shirt btwschweeet

(looks like they still have some in the w.a.s.t.e. shop, might get one)

[Braddock]

Most people that I know think he was dead long time ago due to kidney failure.

Which is exactly why Al Qaeda have agreed with America and said that he has just been killed. Do you not think they would revel in debunking this American conspiracy instead of agreeing with them?

It's now common knowledge he wanked himself blind, then wandered out of the compound giving the game away. Keep up.

[Braddock]

I should use that first sentence to copycat your sig-idea. :sneaky:

I presume the only reason you haven't done so far is because you cannot match my egotism :wink3:

[Imke]

I presume the only reason you haven't done so far is because you cannot match my egotism :wink3:

Maybe I can. :wink3:

[Braddock]

Oooooh, it's aaaawn!

[howyousawtheworld]

The U.S did deals with Al Qaeda to announce that he was already dead and all this is a cover up? Jeez the conspiracy theorists are in full flow now.

[nancyk58]

According to this thread page he's already now a 'complete porn addict'. And people have already forgotten that he did not use his wife to protect him. These 'truths' stick though, and that is why they are printed. They plant those little ideas in your head and people forget about what is true and what isn't.


So very true. Couldn't agree more.

[mc_squared]

According to this thread page he's already now a 'complete porn addict'. And people have already forgotten that he did not use his wife to protect him. These 'truths' stick though, and that is why they are printed. They plant those little ideas in your head and people forget about what is true and what isn't.

That's the whole point. Nobody except for those who were actually there or involved in the operation actually knows the truth. Therefore it could be argued that all of it is just speculation. I'm not saying he isn't dead, of course, but it's still a case of everyone believing what has been fed to the media.:dozey:

and people take the argument down routes that don't matter.

In your opinion. ;)

The U.S did deals with Al Qaeda to announce that he was already dead and all this is a cover up? Jeez the conspiracy theorists are in full flow now.

True, but of course, as I mentioned above, how does anyone actually know what's true and what isn't?
Any story or information can be faked or exaggerated. Look what happened with the WMD "dodgy dossier".:rolleyes:
That's why you always get conspiracy theories. Some people will never believe anything they're told.;)
That's just as bad as believing everything you're told.:dozey:

[Braddock]

Quit writhing around Mark.

You said that it could be argued that this was no different to the 'ifs' of the human rights debate. I said why it was different. Of course, they may both be lies or the may both be true, but if you can't see the difference after having it spelled out for you, then there is no hope.

You've already moved away from your original point, which is what we were talking about. You can't just bring something else up randomly to argue a point. Back up what you say instead of your constant twitching.

You made a point, some people disagreed and made some of their own points. You ignored them and simply adjusted the way you worded one tiny part of it, then acted as though that was sufficient a reply, instead of actually either backing up your point properly, or admitting what you said wasn't entirely true.

[mc_squared]

Quit writhing around Mark.

As I've already pointed out before, I'm not. Please refrain from suggesting this.

You said that it could be argued that this was no different to the 'ifs' of the human rights debate. I said why it was different. Of course, they may both be lies or the may both be true, but if you can't see the difference after having it spelled out for you, then there is no hope.

As I said, that is only your opinion, not fact.;)

You've already moved away from your original point, which is what we were talking about. You can't just bring something else up randomly to argue a point.

Anything connected to what happened during the "operation" is relevant, whether you like it or not.
Whether you wish to discuss it or not is up to you.

[Braddock]

I'll refrain from suggesting it when you refrain from doing it.
It's not against board rules to point out when you do it, even if like you claim, you aren't doing it. Providing I believe you are I'm entitled to suggest it.

Do you have nothing to say to some of the posts on the last page?

And my point about moving was the difference between your post on 'ifs' and your post where you attempted to claim we were arguing the same point, almost. Given the posts made by others between those incredibly insightful posts of yours, other points had been raised which you conveniently ignored.

[Braddock]

I guess I presumed that since you had entered the debate and made a point, you would follow it through and further back up your points that bin Laden looking at porn is what makes him a hypocrite and that the ifs in the human rights discussion and the porn discussion are the same, given what others have said since, but I guess you don't have to.

It just makes it pointless trying to have a proper debate with you if you aren't going to acknowledge the majority of what was said.

[mc_squared]

I'll refrain from suggesting it when you refrain from doing it.
It's not against board rules to point out when you do it, even if like you claim, you aren't doing it. Providing I believe you are I'm entitled to suggest it.

As I said, that's only a personal opinion, just like saying somebody "twists everything". If you go down that road, you just end up with slanging matches again, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.;)

Do you have nothing to say to some of the posts on the last page?

I responded to what I felt warranted responses. If people don't care about certain speculation, that's up to them.

[mc_squared]

I guess I presumed.

Then please don't.;)

[Braddock]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13424843

Bin Laden killing 'may set precedent' MPs are told

Osama Bin Laden's death may come to be seen as a precedent for "targeted killings" by states in the future, a report written for MPs has suggested.

The report, prepared by the House of Commons library, says the former al-Qaeda leader's killing has "significant implications" for how the US and other countries deal with terrorist suspects.

Such methods could be seen to be "accepted politically", it argues.

The US argues it was lawful but critics say he should have been taken alive.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband both said the demise of Osama Bin Laden during a raid on his Pakistani compound earlier this month, had made the world a safer place without him and it was a significant step in the fight against global terrorism.

But questions have been asked about the legality of the US special forces mission after it emerged, contrary to initial claims by the White House, that although its operatives came under sustained fire Bin Laden was not armed at the time he was shot.

An internal report for MPs written by parliamentary staff, analysing the legal arguments surrounding the action and its repercussions, has been published.

It says many of the outstanding legal questions are only likely to be resolved if the White House releases the instructions given to the US Navy Seals who carried out the operation and discloses what efforts were made to get Bin Laden to surrender and what threat he was believed to pose at the time.

But it says the killing could have a major impact on how states deal with al-Qaeda operatives and other terrorist suspects in future.

"The nature of Bin Laden's killing may be a sign the US is increasingly likely to kill rather than to capture al-Qaeda members," it states.

"A wider implication is that the killing may be seen as a precedent for targeted killings of individuals by any state, across international boundaries, at least where terrorism is involved..The more states act in this way, the more likely it is to become accepted, at least politically if not as a matter of international law."

The death of Bin Laden could also have implications for the coalition's military strategy in the Libya conflict, it adds, as "some of the arguments used to present Bin Laden's killing as lawful could also be applied if coalition forces kill Colonel Gaddafi".

The UK and its allies have repeatedly stressed the United Nations mandate they are working under does not authorise the targeting of the Libyan leader.

However, they say command and control facilities - including compounds used by the Gaddafi family and other senior regime members - are legitimate targets if they are being used to direct attacks against civilians.

The Obama administration has said Bin Laden was a "lawful military target" and the raid was justified as an action of "national self-defence".

It says Bin Laden was still actively leading al-Qaeda and that he had made "no attempt to surrender".

Among those who have expressed reservations about the killing include the Archbishop of Canterbury who said it was "uncomfortable" and "did not look as if justice" was "seen to be done".

[Imke]

I don't deserve a reply, because I don't think speculations about a porn-stash are important in the big picture of a mass-murderer. Logic is a wonderful thing.

[Braddock]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/17/osama-bin-laden-guns-found-after-killing?CMP=twt_gu
Osama bin Laden's guns found 'only after' US Navy Seals killed him
• AP revelation fuels claims al-Qaida chief was illegally executed
• New account sheds light on sequence of US raid in Abbottabad
• Report comes amid news of clash between Nato and Pakistan

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/5/17/1305645816196/US-Senator-John-Kerry-vis-007.jpg
After Bin Laden: US Senator John Kerry (left) meets Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, during a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, on 17 May.



The American soldiers who killed Osama bin Laden found his two guns only after he was dead, while they photographed his remains, according to a detailed new account of the al-Qaida leader's final moments.

The Associated Press revelation will add further fuel for critics who say US forces acted illegally in killing the unarmed Saudi fugitive. The Obama administration insists the shooting was lawful.

Meanwhile, US relations with Pakistan, already at their lowest point in a decade, have found a fresh point of friction following an exchange of fire between Nato and Pakistani forces along the Afghan border.

Two Pakistani soldiers were injured after opening fire on two Nato helicopters that crossed into Datta Khel, North Waziristan.

Pakistan's military, already livid over the Bin Laden raid, condemned the incident as a "violation of Pakistan air space" and lodged a "strong protest". A Nato spokesman in Kabul said the shooting started after a Nato base came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border.

The AP account, based on interviews with senior US officials, resolves some subsidiary mysteries about the size and sequencing of the dramatic US Navy Seal raid that ended the world's largest manhunt on 2 May. But it also throws up fresh questions about how Pakistan's air defence systems failed to stop the American forces entering – or leaving.

The US raiding party slipped into Pakistan on five helicopters – two stealth Black Hawks carrying 23 Navy Seals, an interpreter and a sniffer dog named Cairo, and three Chinooks carrying 24 backup soldiers that landed in a remote mountain area north of Abbottabad, the garrison town where Bin Laden was hiding.

In recent days, two Pakistani television channels have identified the mountain area as Khala Dhaka, a semi-autonomous tribal area, interviewing villagers who saw the US craft landing and taking off.

The Black Hawks that swooped on Bin Laden's compound were equipped with special technology to muffle the tail rotor and engine noise, the AP reported. Some experts have speculated it was also equipped with a special skin to fool radar. The soldiers planned to swoop on Bin Laden's house from three sides: sliding down ropes onto the roof, the compound and outside the wall.

But the first Black Hawk swayed erratically as it hovered over the compound owing to higher than expected temperatures and crashed against a wall, irreparably damaging its tail. The pilot ditched the plane in Bin Laden's yard and the entire raiding party entered from the ground floor, using small explosives to blow their way through walls and doors.

The AP reported that the Americans found "barriers" at each stair landing of the three-storey building, encountered fire once and killed three men and one woman. The account did not specify how many of the dead were armed.

After 15 minutes the Seals, passing huddles of frightened children, reached the top floor where they found Bin Laden at the end of the hallway. They said they recognised him "immediately". Bin Laden ducked into a room, followed quickly by three Seals.

The first soldier pushed aside two women who tried to protect Bin Laden, apparently fearing they were wearing suicide vests, while the second opened fire on the al-Qaida leader, hitting him in the head and chest.

Moments later, as the Americans photographed his body, they found an AK-47 rifle and a Makarov pistol on a shelf beside the door they had just entered. Bin Laden had not touched the weapons, according to the AP account.

Just over 20 minutes later a Chinook helicopter arrived to collect Bin Laden's body, a trove of computer disks, and the soldiers whose helicopter had crashed, now destroyed except for the rear rotor and tail.

Controversy over the manner of Bin Laden's death has dogged the White House since 2 May, especially after early claims that Bin Laden had been armed and used one of his wives as a human shield proved to be false.

The only witnesses who could contradict the American account are Bin Laden's three wives and children, who are currently in Pakistani custody. After much pressure from Washington, US officials were allowed to briefly speak with them last week. The women reportedly refused to answer questions and Pakistan says they will be repatriated to their native Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It is not clear when this will happen.

The AP also reported that there had been four previous special forces incursions into Pakistan, echoing a December 2009 report in the Guardian. A senior Nato official said two of the clandestine raids targeted "high-value targets", while a third was to recover a crashed Predator drone.

The account comes a day after a visit by Senator John Kerry, who was in the capital, Islamabad, yesterday to try and "reset" the fragile alliance, claiming that Pakistan was not informed in advance for operational reasons and not due to any distrust of the Pakistanis.

A similar issue has arisen from the Bin Laden raid. Kerry, after intensive meetings with Pakistani military chiefs, said he had secured a promise that the rear rotor of the Black Hawk would be returned to US custody, amid US fears it would be passed to China and reverse-engineered.

Pakistan's leadership has moved closer to its decades-old ally China. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, today embarked on a four-day visit to China, a country he pointedly described as "our best and most trusted friend".

[mc_squared]

^They still might have suspected he had his finger on the trigger of a bomb, though, so that doesn't really prove anything, either. If they did suspect that, they wouldn't have had time to wait and see if they were correct.
Given Bin Laden's obvious love of all things incendiary, they would have had every reason to suspect this.
In that case, self-preservation would have come first.:smug:
Bin Laden wasn't stupid, so he must have known his hideout would be found one day. Therefore it's logical to assume he would have been prepared for such an eventuality.
Anyway, as I said, he had "made his bed" long ago by orchestrating the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Therefore, tough break.:rolleyes:

[Braddock]

I don't understand your first smiley.

[mc_squared]

There's nothing to understand. It's just a smiley.:dozey:

[Braddock]

I don't understand the context in which it was used.
I don't understand your smugness.
Surely you used it for a reason, and therefore there surely is something to understand unless your smileys are simply sporadic and random. You don't have to elaborate, I just thought it would help me understand the post a bit more.

[mc_squared]

I think the post speaks for itself, with or without the smiley.:dozey:

[Braddock]

Way to bring about some clarity.

I do understand the rest of that post, and you do make some good points, but that smiley really confuses me since it doesn't make any sense being there from what I can tell. All I wanted was for you to explain why it was there because I was clearly missing something, but oh well, it doesn't matter.

You might just be going for next years smiley award.

[mc_squared]

You might just be going for next years smiley award.

Not this year's?:confused:

[Braddock]

Not this year's?:confused:

That would indeed make more sense, but I don't tend to credit you with the ability to use logic, so no - next years.

[mc_squared]

so no - next years.

So more than one year, then? How many?:confused:

[Braddock]

Wow, I made an error in my grammar, well done. You understood what I meant.
I still have no idea why that smiley was there in your post though (and that's why it was legitimate to bring up) - does anybody else understand why it was used by the way? Either answer or quit trolling, Mark. You're already teetering from what I gather.

[Reilly]

In your opinion. ;)

As I said, that is only your opinion, not fact.;)


Oh the art of debate its beautiful.:cry:

[Reilly]

OOPS

[NumbersGirl]

OOPS
I did it again

/BritneyBinLaden


sorry, I'm bored

[chuck kottke]

I just think we've wandered into cowboy mentality again here in the U.S...:cowboy::whip:
Sure, Bin Laden could have been booby-trapped, oh sure, but he may very well have been unarmed, and the seals perhaps new this..
So it seems to me that by the policy (kill or capture as it is named may really mean kill mainly, capture occasionally) and then by omission, the policy was retained, the expectation was to kill Bin Laden.
As a matter of justice, it made more sense to capture Bin Laden and his associates because:
(1) This sets a standard of showing that the rule of law and justice through impartial trial, is what we in the U.S. stand for.
(2) By following a fair process, the impact in Pakistan and elsewhere would be to make citizens there see us as honest and fair, as credible in our claims to respecting human rights and democratic institutions. Because we would actually be walking the walk, not just saying one thing and doing another!
(3) The truth would come out in a trial. So if that's a bit embarrassing, so be it; better to live with what might be disclosed about past deals with Osama Bin Laden than to subvert the truth in this manner, or cast doubt upon U.S. motives. The best disinfectant is sunlight.
(4) Precedent. To ignore the rule of law, the system we have put faith in, is to subvert the very meaning of our democratic republic.
***** There is no such thing as a war on terror - this misnomer has allowed us to create an excuse to do anything anywhere - since the so-called "enemy" could be anywhere. Violating state sovereignty, individual privacy, protections of security in one's home and with one's papers, taking life without even so much as a trial, all for an amorphous war on terror, which has been parlayed into doing whatever we please, where-ever we please, does not build allies, but engenders mistrust towards the U.S. around the globe. It is a complete violation of all that we stand for, and the whole matter needs to be re-examined. What is called for is an international cooperative effort to reduce poverty and inequity, and simultaneously bring to justice those involved in terrorist training and attacks. Short of that, the whole thing fails on both its merits and effectiveness.

[Braddock]

***** There is no such thing as a war on terror - this misnomer has allowed us to create an excuse to do anything anywhere - since the so-called "enemy" could be anywhere.


3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, wrote:
As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright.


Perpetual War
Former U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "war on terror" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end", and was used by President Bush in his 2006 State of The Union address.

Terminology
Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has argued that there cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end."

[Braddock]

For the Brits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011cpbv/Newsnight_17_05_2011/

[the_gloaming09]

I sent this article to greg, and figured I'd share it with the rest of you, especially to those (if there are any on the forum, i'm not sure) who thought the way his death was celebrated was okay



Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry
By Tim Wise

There is a particularly trenchant scene in the documentary film, Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead, in which Blecker — who teaches at New York Law School and is the nation’s most prominent pro-death penalty scholar — travels to Tennessee’s Riverbend Prison for the execution of convicted murderer, Daryl Holton. Blecker is adamant that Holton, who murdered his own children, deserves to die for his crime. Yet, when he gets to the prison on the evening of Holton’s electrocution, Blecker is disturbed not only by the anti-death penalty forces whom he views as dangerously naive, but also by those who have come to literally cheer the state-sponsored killing. He agrees with their ultimate position, but can’t understand why they feel the need to celebrate death, to party as a life is taken. The event is somber, he tries to tell them. Human life is precious, he insists; so precious, in Blecker’s mind, that occasionally we must take the lives of killers so as to reinforce that respect for human life. But there is no reason to revel in the death of another, he tries to explain. While I disagree with Blecker on the matter of the death penalty, I felt sympathy for him in that moment, trying to thread the needle between advocacy of killing — any killing — and the retention of the nuance that allows the supporter of such a thing to still preach about the sanctity of life. It was a nice attempt, and heartfelt.

Of course, his pleas for solemnity fall on deaf ears. His ideological compatriots cannot comprehend him. They even misunderstand his position on the ultimate issue, presuming at first that his unwillingness to cheer the death of one as evil as Holton means he must oppose the death penalty, and that he doesn’t care about the children Holton killed. Ultimately, Blecker walks away, clearly shaken, not in his support for capital punishment, but by the way in which others on his own side seem to literally glorify death, even need it.

I was reminded of this scene today, while watching coverage of the celebrations around the country (but especially in Washington D.C. and Manhattan), which began last night when it was announced that Osama bin Laden was dead. In front of the White House were thousands of affluent and overprivileged (and mostly white) college students from George Washington University (among the nation’s most expensive schools), partying like it was spring break. Never needing an excuse to binge drink, the GW and Georgetown collegians responded to the news of bin Laden’s death as though their team had just won the Final Four. That none of them would have had the guts to actually go and fight the war that they seem to support so vociferously — after all, a stint in the military might disrupt their plans to work on Wall Street, or to become high-powered lawyers, or just get in the way of their spring formal — matters not, one supposes. They have other people to do the hard work for them. They always have.

In New York, the throngs assembled may have been more economically diverse, but the revelry was similar. Lots of flags, chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.,” and an overall “rah-rah” attitude akin to that which one might experience at a BCS Bowl game, and once again, mostly led by guys who would never, themselves, have gone to war, to get bin Laden or anyone else.

You have to wonder — or actually, you don’t because the answer is so distressingly obvious — would these throngs pour into the streets to celebrate in this fashion if it were announced that a cure for cancer had been discovered, or for AIDS? Would thousands of people be jumping up and down belting out patriotic chants if the president were to announce that our country’s scientists had found a new, affordable method for wiping out all childhood disease, malnutrition or malaria in poor countries around the world? Though these maladies kill far more than Osama bin Laden ever dreamt of slaughtering, and although any of these developments would be a source of intense pride for millions, there is almost no chance that they would be met with drunken revelry. Partying is what we do when we kill people, when we beat someone, when we grind them to dust. It is not what we do when we save lives or end suffering. Saving lives or doing humanitarianism is like making love, while killing people is tantamount to a good, hard, and largely one-sided fuck; and unfortunately we know which of these two things men, in particular, are more apt to prefer.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not a pacifist. I know there are times when violence may be necessary, either in self-defense, vicarious defense of others, or to prevent greater violence. If you were to break into my house and attempt to harm my family, let there be no misunderstanding: you would die, and I would kill you, without so much as a moment’s hesitation. But I would not, upon having taken your life (however justified), proceed to pop a cold one, invite friends over and dance around your bloody body. I would not be happy about what I had done. Taking a life, even when you have no choice, is no cause for joy. It is a grave and serious event; and it is utterly unnatural, such that militaries the world over have to dehumanize their enemies and work furiously to break down their soldiers’ natural human tendencies to not kill. The fact that violence may be necessary in certain cases, and even in the case of stopping bin Laden, cannot, in and of itself justify raucous celebrations of his death at the hands of the United States.

So yes, we can argue that bin Laden deserved to die. But that’s the easy part. Beyond what one deserves, whether they be terrorists or just street criminals, there is the matter of what society needs. And it may be that what a healthy society needs is less bombastic rhetoric, less celebratory embrace of violence, and less jingoistic nationalism, even if that means that we have to respond to the news of bin Laden’s death with a more muted tone, perhaps being thankful in private, or even drinking a toast with friends in our own homes, but not turning the matter into public spectacle, the likes of which cheapens matters of life and death to little more than a contest whose results can be tallied on a scoreboard.

It may prove cathartic that one the likes of bin Laden is dead. His death may provide an opportunity for a much-needed exhaling; but that doesn’t render it the proper subject of a pep rally. And given the larger need to challenge the mentality of disposability that is at the root of all murderous violence, it may be that in such moments we would be far better off to solemnly commemorate the death of the monster than to cheer it openly, when the latter is so likely to inflame passions on the part of those whose allegiance to the monster remained unsullied right to the end.

Ultimately, the mentality of human disposability that animates war, terrorism, gang violence and all forms of homicidal street crime, is a dangerous one to indulge, and certainly to indulge giddily. Such a mindset feeds upon itself, perpetuates itself without end, and serves to ratify the same in others. Surely we should strive to do better, even when, for various reasons, we can’t manage it, and are required to take life for one reason or another. Most soldiers, after all, are not happy or self-satisfied about the things they’ve done in war. For many, if not most, killing even when you have no choice, is life-changing. It scars. It comes back in the middle of the night, haunting the soldier’s dreams for years, and sometimes forever. We do not honor them or their sacrifices by treating the mortal decisions they so often have to make as if they were no more gut-wrenching than those made during the playing of a video game.

Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden’s demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved “America can do whatever we set our mind to.” If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden’s death, then this only suggests we clearly don’t want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren’t addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.

We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can’t manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can’t fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can’t reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can’t break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can’t protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.

But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child — maybe the age of one of my own — who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he’s watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.

And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?

http://www.timwise.org/2011/05/killing-one-monster-unleashing-another-reflections-on-revenge-and-revelry/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dbf7c61cf9d9df6%2C1

[nancyk58]

^Thanks for posting this article. It makes you think. :thumbsup:

[chuck kottke]

Great Article the_gloaming09! That sums up what my gut reaction was to it all, but I could not put words to it. Probably what many of us felt.
We certainly have the technology to do these sorts of operations, but if we put power above the rule of law, ultimately we degrade ourselves to the level of terrorists ourselves.
And the one thing we don't want is an endless cycle of revenge.
Bravo for posting this article.

[mc_squared]

Osama Bin Laden masterminded plot to blow up shoppers in Manchester city centre, files found in compound raid show



By Daily Mail Reporter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Daily+Mail+Reporter)

Last updated at 3:04 PM on 21st May 2011






Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind a bomb plot in which Al Qaeda operatives planned to kill shoppers in Manchester, it has been revealed.
Documents found at the compound where the terrorist leader died earlier this month show that the 'Easter shopping' plan to cause explosions in the city centre came straight from the top of the terrorist network's leadership.
The plot was foiled when anti-terror police arrested a number of suspects in 2009.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/21/article-1389426-0C303B2100000578-143_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/21/article-1389426-0C2F29C100000578-151_224x423.jpg


'Ringleader': Abid Naseer won the right to stay in Britain despite being suspected of leading the plot, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden




Some were subsequently deported but two were not sent back to their home country of Pakistan after a judge ruled the move would violate their human rights.


The files, retrieved by U.S. special forces during the May 2 raid on Bin Laden's secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, have been passed to MI5 for further investigation, The Daily Telegraph reported.
The evidence found by U.S. special forces soldiers who shot Bin Laden dead shows that he was more operationally active than previously thought and is the first such file seen by British intelligence officials.

One source told The Daily Telegraph: 'It appears that the Bin Laden files really will give us a comprehensive insight into the whole organisation and its operation.'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/21/article-1389426-0C306C9600000578-29_468x286.jpg Target: The plot centred on Arndale shopping centre where the terrorists hoped to kill people visiting during the Easter holidays in 2009

Police were unable to press charges against the group who were targeting the Manchester Arndale Centre with a 'mass casualty attack'.
Al Qaeda operative Abid Naseer and his accomplice Ahmad Faraz Khan avoided a deportation attempt in may last year.
Judges said Naseer, 24, and 26-year-old Faraz Khan - who came to Britain as students - should not be sent back to Pakistan because of the risk they could be tortured.
Naseer and Faraz Khan were part of a group of 12 - 11 Pakistanis and a Briton - arrested in a police operation in the North West of England in April last year.
Both came to the UK on legitimate student visas to study at Liverpool John Moores University before dropping out.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/21/article-1389426-0C303B2F00000578-365_468x517.jpg Raid: One of the suspects was detained by armed officers at Liverpool John Moores University in 2009


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/21/article-1389426-0C303BCD00000578-705_468x326.jpg Taken away: A terror suspect is removed by police as part of the large-scale operation

Police never found any bomb making equipment and were unable to bring criminal charges because of a lack of evidence.
The men were placed in immigration detention as ministers attempted to remove them.

All bar two of the Pakistanis returned home voluntarily but Naseer and Faraz Khan appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
In its judgment, the court found that Naseer was the ringleader of the plot and in regular email contact with a known Al Qaeda email address.
He claimed his emails were part of his attempts to meet women online.
But evidence given by MI5 agents suggested references to four different women was in fact code for the ingredients needed to make explosives.
Photographs of the Arndale Centre were found on a portable hard drive - and it was the likely target for the attack.
'Naseer's account of the emails is a lie, deliberately told to conceal their true meaning,' the commission's ruling stated.
Naseer remained in Britain but has since been re-arrested on a U.S. warrant, accused of providing material support to Al Qaeda.
He is fighting extradition inn the European courts.