So if he's been dead for a long time, how come Bush didn't announce it? And why would Bush resort to murdering thousands of civilians and taking down one of America's most known landmarks just to go to the Middle East? Even if he did try to really push the public opinion to go to war, couldn't he have come up with something that wouldn't embarrass his administration (or at least not nearly as much)? It was a risky mission for Al Queada, but I firmly believe that they were able to act alone. And Obama had a perfectly legitimate reason not to release the photo since it could be used as persuasive propaganda. There's also the "it makes America look bad" part of it too. Although that's not nearly as good of a reason, it was probably a big factor in that decision. If you ask me, president Bush put the America's hate for politicians in general at an all time low. It seems no matter what they do (Liberals and Conservatives), they get questioned. If America's going to prosper again, we have to stop hating each other. Obama was fucking born in the United States and he killed Osama Bin Laden on May 1st. Deal with it.
He sure didn't help himself by getting on a camera and saying he was behind everything and that he wanted to attack western nations more in the future.
Doesn't matter. If I go to police now and admit I committed a murder, they're not just gonna put me to electric chair. Law needs to be the same for everybody, whether you're an ordinary citizen or a leader of an extremist group. This could set a serious precedent that would allow governments to kill their political and other enemies by declaring them terrorists and creating the appropriate image of them in the media.
Did they actually prove that AQ was behind all of the attacks? I mean, it's one thing to say it and probably lie about it, just for sheer gloating sakes, but it's another to prove that AQ was held accountable for everything the US has accused them of?
In the same way you can voice your own theories about what happened I can post pics. No reason to get upset just because I don't agree with you like I usually do. The dude is dead. Theres no cover up or some conspiracy going on. As for a fair trial, how is he entitled to one?
Lolz at the PCness here. Dude went on video and said everything he did, Obama said lets not be pussies and ordered the hit. Theres no reason for stalling with that business, he was a terrorist and needed to be put out.
How about you prove they didn't instead of just being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious. You're better than that.
The CIA didn't supply anything directly to Tim Osman AKA Osama Bin Laden. Also what does that prove? That's right, nothing.
They spent over $6,000,000,000 training the Mujahideen and building training bases all over Afghanistan for them. They practically gave OBL everything he needed to become #1 terrorist in the world, knowingly. Now they come and claim world police. Of course, terrorism is right when it's done to someone else.
You just didn't say or post anything worthy of a constructive argument for that page and the page before that. And as for a trial, well, the Americans always rant on about how fair and just their judging system is, I don't see why he was an exception to their justice system if they were so dead keen on bringing "the terror victims to ease" if they are going to put him to the same fate they had. They were victims of a terrible crime, but seriously, eye for an eye? What does that leave one with, no eyes? Blind as a fucking bat and which they've proven to be nothing. It's only speculation. Because a number of "AQ attacks" the Americans claimed they were, weren't in the long run when other groups claimed responsibility for them leaving the US red faced. But consider that the CIA mislead the public about a lot of things, until someone or something like the Wikileaks project finally delivers the truth.
Ask any lawyer, just because you are personally affected by a crime, it doesn't mean somebody doesn't have a right to trial. Otherwise we'd all be killing each other for blood revenge. And bear in mind that people have committed much more bigger and more serious crimes and still had to be proven guilty. That's twisted logic. And it means that Osama's sons could just go and kill Obama because he admitted on TV that he ordered the hit of their father. Terrorism is a matter of viewpoint, in their eyes Obama is a terrorist. Code: There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Code: The unofficial or [B][U]unauthorized[/U][/B] use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Not authorized by the UN Security Council still equals illegal. And that's not the first time. That's one of the reasons UN was established in the first place, to not allow one country to act all on its own, because we all know how that can turn out.