"Regardless of whatever type of dementia you may be suffering from or even if you are one
of the conspiracy theory guys, bin laden did on dozens of occasions call for a jihad
against america. "

With your logic ... it would have been legal for the taliban regime in afghanistan to
assassin george bush because he declared war on the taliban and said that he want them
dead or alive? Same right for everyone or not? Yeah true, some can never be wrong and
others have to be wrong all the time, just because they have long beards, a different
religion. Step out of your cave, there is a whole world outside that isnt called usa. the
world is not black or white, good or evil, the world is everything between it and never
black and never white.

"Which part of it is hearsay? Bin Laden has openly claimed responsibility for many
terror attacks, and voiced his desire for many more against the western world. Are
you saying that we should give him the benefit of the doubt?"

As long as no court found him guilty the person is a suspect. Just ask the police how many
people claim that they are serial murders, especially when they are trying to find the
true serial murderer, jumping on a bandwaggon is not uncommon (IRA did that, ETA did that,
PLO, Fatah they all did that). As long as no legal court found a suspect guilty it stays a
suspect and is not the actor. This is one of basic principles of the law we know, the law
that is in place in the USA in UK, and numerous other countries who call them selfs
democratic and republic.

"About the Nurmberg trials, I'll just say this, the world is a very different place in 1946
compared to now. Also, supposing keeping bin Laden alive for 1 day costs $10,000,
that's $10,000 that could be put to good use for other, better things."

What has changed? just because the numberous have changed due to inflation? the $10.000
you are trying to save here, will cost you 100 times more while having the armed troops in
afghanistan and iraq faced with bombs and other terrorist attacks, those arent cheap, not
in money and also not in lives.

"You may see it differently, but if someone with a murderous past openly declares
that he has the intention to continue his killing, I would rather he be eliminated first,
using whatever means possible, no questions asked and no ethics applied."

And thats where your ethics stop to work, assumption you take, words you hear are enough
for you to judge about live or death. You are not judging out of facts but out of hearsay.
There is a reason why there is a law in use and courts who work. Putting them out of
charge would save a massive amount of money, so why still having them, when it is enough
that someone claims he wants to kill someone else, to shoot him down? So where is the line
you are drawing where courts should judge and where someone else is allowed to judge? and
who is controlling those non-judges if they did right or wrong?

@weylan

Well al qaeda admitted today that he was killed where and when we said.

As for the evidence supporting 9-11.

There where too many witnesses to the actual events to have faked them. Yes you have a
small percentage who claim to have witnessed strange things but the majority of the
witnesses all follow the same basic story. If you read up on all the facts being given out
by conspiracy nuts you will find that most hold no water or are outright lies. For
instance there is a famous quote in conspiracy circles where the witness says "it looked
like a missile with wings". However that quote is only part of the full quote which starts
out with the plane came in so fast it looked like a missile with wings. If you dig into
the facts you run into stuff like that 90 percent of the time.

Dumped them out at sea?

I think it would have been much better to put them on public display.

Now there's gonna be all this about him not really being dead.

What was this about bin laden being present at some gathering or meeting in the
US?
Maybe all that has been going on is just a bullshit excuse to start a war (It is
profitable for many individuals, after all) And Osama is, or was, just a person for
everyone to direct their hatred towards, and support the war effort, but was one of
the people behind this all along.

If that's the case or not, doesn't matter, it's not like it hasn't been done in the past.
Is there any way to really know? Media isn't the most trustworthy thing, you know.
In fact, especially with todays technology and skill levels involved, it's incredibly easy
to make up totally false reports that are believable.

@hidden69

Which part of it is hearsay? Bin Laden has openly claimed responsibility for many
terror attacks, and voiced his desire for many more against the western world. Are
you saying that we should give him the benefit of the doubt?

About the Nurmberg trials, I'll just say this, the world is a very different place in 1946
compared to now. Also, supposing keeping bin Laden alive for 1 day costs $10,000,
that's $10,000 that could be put to good use for other, better things.

You may see it differently, but if someone with a murderous past openly declares
that he has the intention to continue his killing, I would rather he be eliminated first,
using whatever means possible, no questions asked and no ethics applied.

Regardless of whatever type of dementia you may be suffering from or even if you are one
of the conspiracy theory guys, bin laden did on dozens of occasions call for a jihad
against america.

According to international law the nations he declared on had the right to defend
themselves in whatever means necessary.

Try actually studying the topic you attempt to talk about next time.

"Laden declared war on the US. As such he became a viable war target. "

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL made my day.

Laden declared war on the US. As such he became a viable war target.

"Sure, it may be an arbitrary way of seeing things."

Yes it is, because it is acting out of hearsay and not out of facts. All we know about
this case is from the media, and accepting that someone is killed because the masses want
him dead lynch law.

Maybe you should see it from a different point of view, what if your opinion about the
usa, christianity and other topics are quite similar to the one osama bin laden had, but
you dont accept the way he wanted to change (or how he called it "pacify") the situation
and the terror he produced. Now the opponent, who you feel sorry for, because of suffering
from a non-humanic way of changing things, is sending a death squad to kill this person in
an unlawful way and without any verdict. Would you expect that the sympathy for bin laden
will raise then or drop?

The processes in N?nberg after WWII lasted not even a year and have been finished by the
1st oct. 1946, have they been a waste of taxpayers money?

As soon as a state accept that people are killed without any verdict it has transformed to
a terror regime.

Ok England, we see your wedding, and raise you 1 funeral!!!!