AIBU to think that is was quite distateful

[ModreB]

For Obama and effectively the rest of the US Govt to watch live coverage of Bin Laden being shot dead?

At least Hilary Clinton looked pretty horrified here

"Bin Laden is now a martyr to his cause." and he is assisted in that by those bleeding hearts that seem to be mourning his death and proclaiming it as wrong.

I am not overly comfortable with celebration and I do wonder about what motivates someone to go out and celebrate. but...

He was an evil man who orchestrated the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children and then gloated about it publically. He was a coward who sent men and women out to die in the name of his cause. Often young, impressionable people who could be brainwashed into believing they were killing infidels in order that they could gain freedom in paradise. He led others to believe that the only way to achieve that was to die, and yet he wasn't prepared to do that himself - instead he lived in the lap of luxury, and even in the end he died cowering behind a woman. What a man.

A trial was an impossibility; where would he be tried? and by who? If he'd been imprisoned in the US there would be accusations of torture, and he would have become a political target - there would have been abductions, bombings, threats all in the name of his release and more innocent people would have lost their lives. He could not be tried in the hague because he does not represent a state - therefore it would have had to be a country - and which one? It wasn't just the US that was affected by his atrocities - he was responsible for the killing of many nationalities.

I've asked the question on several threads and no-one has been able to answer it as to how he could have been tried. And the reason is simple - he couldn't.

I think all that MLK stuff is just platitude tbh. No-one has to rejoice in someone's death but not all deaths are worthy of being mourned.

He had no value for life, therefore his life had no value, imho.

I agree totally with Hardhatonamission and bogus quote or not, it sums up how this whole situation makes me feel.

I find the bloodlust shown on the American news reports sickening. British people lost loved ones in 9/11 and in the London bombings, but haven't reacted en masse in the way Americans have been seen to - thank goodness.

wannaBe summed it up perfectly

Forgive my ignorance but what happened to the wife OBL was cowering behind - was she killed too?
I am shocked at the tone Obama used to deliver the news of OBL's death, and at the street parties in America. I think OBL should have been captured, given a trial and imprisoned forever. How can a nation on the one hand be seemingly pro-democracy and human rights, but on the other kill somebody in this way? 9/11 was horrible and the relatives of those killed must have their sadness and anger slightly alleviated by recent events, but what is going to happen now? The rift between the Western and Islamic worlds has just grown wider so where is the next bomb going to explode? What hope can there be for any dialogue when the so-called democratic world behaves in this way?
It may be that it was not a simple case of capturing OBL and his death was inevitable (?) but in this case could Obama have delivered the news in a less joyful manner - one not incendiary to Muslims and not treating Westerners as simple - the threat from terrorism is NOT over and if anything has just been made worse.

Forgive my ignorance but what happened to the wife OBL was cowering behind - was she killed too?

She was shot and killed ...

troisgarcons "Distasteful" was watching 2819 people die in the twin towers, including jumping thousands of feet to their death
"Distasteful" was watching 56 people being blown apart in the London bus/tube bombings
"distastful" was the 200+ in the Bali bombings
..... and I CBA to add in all the embassies around the world ..... frankly, some of you have very little in the way of priorities, moral decency or fibre of convictions.

Very well said! I am sickened by some of the views here, I dont care how un PC or immoral some people think the celebrations are but yes I would be to if I had lost a loved 1 in an attack this excuse for a human being had ordered.

Would you see the same be done to Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudary and the like? How about the church in America that protest at war dead funerals? Should all preachers of hatred be hunted down like dogs and shot? He alone did not create any of those atrocities, none of them could have been carried out without his followers doing his bidding.

Is the way forwards simply to shoot all our enemies? where would we be once we have done that?

"I would have preferred to see him taken alive and answer before a court for what he has
done." And to do that would have been to give him a voice. To have put him on a platform where he could have proclaimed his message to the world and ordered the killing of yet more innocent people. And he would have gained mass support and following. Is that what people would have preferred?

And still no-one has answered my question - where would he be tried? and how? and who would oversee it? and where would he be held prisoner? and who would pay for it?

so it's not ok for them to kill people, but it IS ok for us to kill people?

right.

glad we got that sorted

"petrified of the repercussions"

No, it is doubtful you are alone. I am not 'petrified' but know there are loved ones who live and work in areas that may be targets. I don't want a 'police state' which each new act of terrorism brings a step closer, nor do I want every movement tracked (already there is a big database recording each person's departure from the UK) but the more 'security' that is added, the greater the lack of being able to go about life without a 'Big Brother' state watching over us.

I'm not in a city. There are no CCTV camera watching me when I go down the street to the shops, and I truly hope that whatever happens, the measures are 'proportionate' to the dangers. I think we have perhaps exceeded that level to date, with proposals for ID cards being a step too far (and fortunately, IMO, reversed). I cannot say I am not concerned about repercussions, but in my view, the worry and paranoia which terrorist attacks cause, and the security build up as a result, actually mean that rather than feeling safer, I fear I would feel I was being 'stifled' by the precautions.

So I am concerned there may be terrorist attacks, but a major part of that concern is the way it will be reacted to (in terms of extra security measures) and probably not the attack(s) if they come (and who will know which were a direct result of last weekend, or would have happened anyway)...

The costs will be high, if security gets boosted, as it is rarely a short-term measure - almost anything they 'add' stays on forever.

I remember being able to walk into the cockpit of a 747 and my nephew went into the cockpit of a plane on a day trip to Lapland, and when I last flew (1999) I didn't need to take my shoes off, nor go through as many security checks, nor have a biometric passport (mine has expired, and they're what, near 80 quid now!), and I could have taken various items in my hand luggage onto the plane (I don't even know what the regulations are these days, I'm so out of touch on this aspect).

We're in danger of frightening ourselves into a self-imposed prison state, not just a Police state, if we react too strongly to any attacks, or even perceived threats. Can one still visit a nuclear power station as a visitor? I went around Dungeness with my brother and mother around 35 years ago but now I suspect that because of security concerns, many technical and industrial businesses are deemed off limits, and military locations, perhaps even some police stations, are given a level of security which may be 'over the top', so we are locking ourselves away against the possibility of some harm, even if it never happens.

The pictures of them all gawping like that made me feel sick.

I don't know the answer Wannabe - but we've had 10 years to try to work it out and I'm sure there must be a better answer than "Let's just kill him".

I wonder if those were your children on the 9/11 planes if you would be quoting Martin Luther King and decry the way OBL died

But even though I understand the concerns a lot of posters have here I wish they would answer wannaBe's question. Where would he be tried?

but obviously there isn't. By being killed he may well have become a marter but that will be short-lived. By imprisoning him for years (because that is how long it would take to bring him to trial) he would remain a marter and would even be entitled to a defence.

The difference between the people whose killings he ordered and him is that they were innocent. He was not.

Mamazon- they are the people responsible for the action-what were they supposed to do? They are not gawping, fgs.

I think killing him was something they had to do for their own self esteem, nothing more. The cost of that symbolic act may well be disproportionately high for the rest of us.
As for them watching it, I think they should have done. Perhaps if all those in command of military forces were faced with the visceral reality of their commands, instead of just signing papers and pushing buttons, we might have less mass bloodshed in the first place.
Or maybe not.......

winnybella you make sweeping judgments about people without knowing them or their history. Please think before doing so next time.

As far as the "where would he be tried" i would assume the UN or NATO would organise the legalities of the matter as it is an international issue.

thisisyesterday "so it's not ok for them to kill people, but it IS ok for us to kill people?"

There is obvious difference here - Al Queda have killed 1000s of innocent people - OBL planned and ordered the deaths of these innocent people. Obviously you cant see the difference by syaing what you did. Innocent he and the rest of his terrorists are most definately not.

In the eyes of Al-Qaeda and others the Americans have killed thousands of innocent people. In fact. The death toll of civillians is possibly comparable to the death toll of terrorist actions.

I condone neither side. There is no justification for either parties actions on this.

Hardhat- I lived in NYC for years and was there during 9/11. I knew people that died that day. I know there are MNetters who were in a same position (whether 9/11 or 7/7). Indeed I made an assumption that none of the posters on this thread were parents of the few children that died on those planes. I doubt that I'm wrong. Apologies if I am.

"I would have preferred to see him taken alive and answer before a court for what he has
done." And to do that would have been to give him a voice. To have put him on a platform where he could have proclaimed his message to the world and ordered the killing of yet more innocent people. And he would have gained mass support and following. Is that what people would have preferred?

wannaBe It is not about preference. I would prefer that everyone agreed with me and never spouted intolerant and violent propoganda. But I believe in the society and the ideals that western civilisation is meant to stand for, and some of these are the right to a fair trail, free speech and justice being served in public. Protecting these ideals is not easy. It sometimes means that guilty people walk free from court and that people can stand up and speak their despicable views to the world. I do not believe that we should kill people rather than give them a fair trail because they may offer unpleasant opinions during the course of this trial. To sign off on that kills a little bit of the society I want to protect and in my opinion moves us closer to the type of sociey Bin Laden and his ilk want to impose on us. As I said we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and protect what it is we stand for.

As for your points about 'where would he be tried? and how? and who would oversee it? and where would he be held prisoner? and who would pay for it?'

I am not a legal expert and I do not have all the answers but I refuse to believe that a combination of the most intelligent political and legal minds in the world in conjunction with the most powerful nations could not come up with a workable solution. Was the problem of where to have a trial so insurmontable that killing him was the only alternative?
The Americans managed to kill him, preform an autopsy and bury him at sea without anyone knowing, could they not have managed to get him on a plane to Guantanmo or similiar location, they have done so successfully with many others?

Why would because someone killed your family (9/11 etc) you want others to be killed? Many of us don't believe in revenge, don't believe in killing. Many of us have moral values which eschew that. I thought many in the US were Christians but it appears I am wrong. Instead they have etched in their DnA an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, the old way. Not all of us in either the US or UK believe this killing (and killing on either side) is right.

The coverage has been appalling and many are appalled by it. But men (usually not women) make war and always will unless we culled them all I suppose and then the planet might be rather awful.

I suppose some countries from time to time get better than others. We might try to ensure China and the US get rid of their death penalty. I was happy either about the kiling of the Gadaffi grandchildren.

If we condone a state to go to another country and kill without a trial others then in fact we are on the side of terrorists. If instead we do not hold people without trial and we give them fair hearings then we advance the cause of justice. The US in the last 10 years has sadly moved further and further away from the rule of law.

Why would because someone killed your family (9/11 etc) you want others to be killed? Many of us don't believe in revenge, don't believe in killing. Many of us have moral values which eschew that. I thought many in the US were Christians but it appears I am wrong. Instead they have etched in their DnA an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, the old way. Not all of us in either the US or UK believe this killing (and killing on either side) is right.

The coverage has been appalling and many are appalled by it. But men (usually not women) make war and always will unless we culled them all I suppose and then the planet might be rather awful.

I suppose some countries from time to time get better than others. We might try to ensure China and the US get rid of their death penalty. I was happy either about the kiling of the Gadaffi grandchildren.

If we condone a state to go to another country and kill without a trial others then in fact we are on the side of terrorists. If instead we do not hold people without trial and we give them fair hearings then we advance the cause of justice. The US in the last 10 years has sadly moved further and further away from the rule of law.

I don't think anybody is disputing that OBL was an evil man. He was responsible for thousands of deaths, yes, but does that mean he should have been killed? I don't believe so.

Those that think he should have been - do you therefore think all murderers should face the death penalty? And if not, why was it ok for OBL to be killed but not other murderers? Were the deaths they caused any less important or heartbreaking to those that loved them?

Winnybella - it disturbed me that he had ordered the assasination and made the decision to sit and watch it in live stream.

It wasn't like he wanted to watch teh footage at a later time so that he could ensure that correct protocal or whatever.
It was like they were sat around some kind of sport.

It was horrific.