9/11 and Biden - Biden was against the raid that killed Bin Laden

[pickles]

Yes... and as such, he deserved to be hung, good and proper... after he was tried.



There is considerable speculation that he was. And of course the proof one way or the other exists.. but we have not been allowed to see it.



It was my understanding that the Seal Team reported that the helicopter was disabled by a hard landing, and did not take fire.



And yet you indicated with a high degree of confidence that it was so.



I think I've made it clear that I have no problem with killing a combatant. Or rightfully trying and hanging a non-combatant by the neck until he is dead, provided his crimes warrant it.

I am simply raising a question as to whether or not he was a combatant, and if not, whether there is a moral obligation to try them before you hang them. Personally, I'd have been just fine with a military court-martial on the ship, followed by a hanging, and a deposition of the corpse in the sea.

But we are Americans... we don't murder in the name of defending our values. As this destroys the values we seek to preserve.

If we kill... we do so righteously. It would appear that this distinction is immaterial to some.

Bin Laden had 10 years (?) to turn himself in to American authorities to face justice for his crimes. He did not because he had no interest in surrendering. Instead he kept fleeing, killing Americans, and continuing his proclaimed war on America. Few in the history of humanity had their death coming to them as much as he did. He was not murdered.

[owknows]

Bin Laden had 10 years (?) to turn himself in to American authorities to face justice for his crimes. He did not because he had no interest in surrendering. Instead he kept fleeing, killing Americans, and continuing his proclaimed war on America. Few in the history of humanity had their death coming to them as much as he did. He was not murdered.

Once again, we do not, as Americans target people for assassination. Not even fugitives from justice. Not even fugitives from war crime accusations.

If the speculation is true that he made no effort to resist his capture, and that there was a standing kill order issued before the Seals even entered the compound... and he was shot in the head regardless of whether he resisted... that would be an assassination... a murder...

Telling me he had it coming is something I already know, and agree with. It doesn't change the circumstances, nor does it absolve us of our obligation to do it correctly if that is possible. If a standing kill order was in effect when the Seals entered the compound, then those who issued the order were in the wrong.

You are obviously a moral relativist... a practitioner of situational ethics.

I am not.

[NCRAVEN]

Once again, we do not, as Americans target people for assassination. Not even fugitives from justice. Not even fugitives from war crime accusations.

If the speculation is true that he made no effort to resist his capture, and that there was a standing kill order issued before the Seals even entered the compound... and he was shot in the head regardless of whether he resisted... that would be an assassination... a murder...

Telling me he had it coming is something I already know, and agree with. It doesn't change the circumstances, nor does it absolve us of our obligation to do it correctly if that is possible. If a standing kill order was in effect when the Seals entered the compound, then those who issued the order were in the wrong.

You are obviously a moral relativist... a practitioner of situational ethics.

I am not.

What about the Iranian General we just dropped a bomb on?

[owknows]

What about the Iranian General we just dropped a bomb on?

Same applies.

[pickles]

Once again, we do not, as Americans target people for assassination. Not even fugitives from justice. Not even fugitives from war crime accusations.

If the speculation is true that he made no effort to resist his capture, and that there was a standing kill order issued before the Seals even entered the compound... and he was shot in the head regardless of whether he resisted... that would be an assassination... a murder...

Telling me he had it coming is something I already know, and agree with. It doesn't change the circumstances, nor does it absolve us of our obligation to do it correctly if that is possible. If a standing kill order was in effect when the Seals entered the compound, then those who issued the order were in the wrong.

You are obviously a moral relativist... a practitioner of situational ethics.

I am not.

I don't think it is accurate to call me a moral relativist. Because I'm not arguing that it was sometimes ok to kill Bin Laden under the circumstances of his death and sometimes it is not. I'm saying it is ALWAYS ok to kill Bin Laden under the circumstances of his death.

All I see from you is rabid speculation with no facts behind.

There may have been a kill order.

There may have been no gun.

The helicopter may or may not have taken fire when approaching.

Bin Laden may have been surrendering.

This is all speculation.

We do know Bin Laden declared war on the United States. Bin Laden masterminded and funded the deaths of 1000s of Americans. Bin Laden then continued his war across several countries and a decade of time. He continued calling for war against the United States and continued to kill her citizens. He was unrepentant until his eye was shot out.

Bin Laden got exactly what was coming to him. And to call it assination or murder requires inventing facts.

[NCRAVEN]

Same applies.

I’m just saying we do assassinate people.

[pickles]

I’m just saying we do assassinate people.

There's a big gap between Bin Laden and Solemani. I'm much more inclined to accept that Solemani was illegally assasinated.

[NCRAVEN]

There's a big gap between Bin Laden and Solemani. I'm much more inclined to accept that Solemani was illegally assasinated.

Hard for me to say. I don’t know what laws govern these types of things.

[pickles]

Hard for me to say. I don’t know what laws govern these types of things.

The difference with Solemani is in order to justify it we would have needed actionable intelligence. Of course that will never be made public so we can only speculate on its existence.

It's the exact opposite case of Bin Laden.

We need to speculate to justify Solemani's death. You need to speculate to criticize Bin Laden's.

[owknows]

I don't think it is accurate to call me a moral relativist. Because I'm not arguing that it was sometimes ok to kill Bin Laden under the circumstances of his death and sometimes it is not. I'm saying it is ALWAYS ok to kill Bin Laden under the circumstances of his death.

You are a moral relativist because you tell me that it is somehow rightful for the government to take a man's life based on accusations of a crime, when you would very obviously object to that standard if it were applied to you.

All I see from you is rabid speculation with no facts behind.

Curiously... you have challenged my assertions, and been shown to be wrong with facts (to the degree that we can trust facts as represented by the news media). You have not taken responsibility for your mistaken assertions, nor have you attempted to substantiate any of your mistaken assertions... simply slid the goalposts each time... And frankly, I find that a little disappointing. While I agree with many if not most of your positions, I find your style of argumentation needlessly emotional and angry.

I'm right here in the room with you... no need to get excited... Show me I'm wrong, and I'll concede. Wish I could say the same for you.

There may have been a kill order.

The Navy Seals used the words "shoot on sight"

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/navy-...ry?id=17200191

There may have been no gun.

There was no gun, nor was one reached for... according the the Seals, and to the White House (and contrary to yourr wrongful assertion otherwise)

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama...ry?id=13520152

The helicopter may or may not have taken fire when approaching.

YOU stated that the helicopter took fire. I corrected your mistaken assertion. The Seals testified that the helicopter that was lost during the raid was lost due to a hard landing, and not fire.

Bin Laden may have been surrendering.

Given that the White House statement was that he was hiding behind his wife, and not reaching for a gun... and that that the Seals testified as to why they "shot on sight"... and that the White House had video footage of events as they unfolded and did not release them... and that they subsequently classified the event, and forbade all Seals from speaking after they contradicted the official story, I guess there's really no way of knowing if that's true.

This is all speculation.

Yes... you have been quite liberal in your speculation, and been refuted each time. Not once have you presented evidence of any kind to substantiate your claims... in fact, anyone following the conversation can clearly see that you simply ignore each introduction of evidence that disproves your claims... and then ultimately.. attempted (in this post) to obfuscate.

I had expected better.

We do know Bin Laden declared war on the United States.

I don't know that that's true in word... but I don't find it important enough to dispute... And certainly he declared war in his deeds.

Bin Laden masterminded and funded the deaths of 1000s of Americans. Bin Laden then continued his war across several countries and a decade of time. He continued calling for war against the United States and continued to kill her citizens. He was unrepentant until his eye was shot out.

Bin Laden got exactly what was coming to him.

Yes... I think I've made it abundantly clear that I think Bin Laden was a war criminal. And that he deserved to die... repeating it over and over doesn't really serve any purpose other than emotional masturbation.

We don't disagree over whether he deserved death.

We disagree over whether we as a nation consider it morally justifiable that someone be shot on sight while attempting to apprehend them, if they do not resist our attempts to apprehend them.

I submit that you would object to this standard if it were applied to you.

And that this makes you a rather transparent moral relativist.

[owknows]

I’m just saying we do assassinate people.

And I'm just saying that if we do so... we do so wrongfully.

[BustOfPallas]

Wait you are calling him out because he wanted more intel that the target was at the location? You would have been ok for him to send troops in without absolute knowledge that the target was there?

You mean like Obama? You freaking hypocrite.

It's called leadership, and judgement.

I have thought Joe Biden was an idiot since 1988. Anyone who has seen him in action as an adult knows he is and always has be-en a clownish buffoon. He's probably the reason I am not a Democrat as my family are die-hard Democrats and seeing him in 88 and especially in 91 made quite an impression on me. The weird facial expressions and general the goofiness and grandstanding.... he's an idiot... that an knowing in my gut Bill Clinton was a scumbag and he and Hillary were lying power mad scumbags. I did not vote in 84 or 88...when I saw Bill and Hillary on that 60 minutes post game interview I was like, these people are lying and full of shit.... I have been proven right. And I'm right about Biden. The fact you are defending him makes me respect you even less than I already do. You are captain contrary.