Posted on 05/06/2011 7:48:42 AM PDT by Dogbert41
All leftists would think it is murder and calling for impeachment had it been George Bush.
>> It WAS murder, plain and simple. Don’t get excited about it.
“Murder” by definition is an illegal act.
I doubt it will be proven how UBL’s life ended.
During the Battle of the Bulge, 84 American soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans were summarily executed on the battlefield in the Malmedy Massacre.
We rightly condemn this action and the Germans were tried for war crimes as a result.
Osama was killed, but we’re tetting the 72 versions. But of all the versions I have seen, none of them indicate that he was presenting a threat at the time he was killed.
I call it a meticulously executed clean-up job!
Well done, SEAL Team 6! America thanks you.
Take every opportunity to comment on every Fox News Facebook feed. They will get the idea.
We already are Inconvenient.
we don’t need to go through what we think to get obama , we have to look at what will hurt him regardless of what we think and tagging him with words and names he does not like will only hurt his numbers and that is what we want.
we have to see a bigger picture instead of getting defensive, shame others cannot see this.
anyway weekend is here and lets hope Kate and the prince state she is pregnant and get this idiot off this topic.
If he is ashamed of what he has done this will stop him from milking it plus we have to call him out on his hypcorisy
remember bigger picture
You just really are out of touch with the facts. You might want to check with the information retrieved from the compound....as well as use some common sense. History of war has zero to do with the type of war against terroism currently. Different time...different era...different in every way...including how and when one can be killed. Read some of the military manuels on engaging the enemy and your opinion should change.
So, in your opinion, based on the information you have seen, was OBL presenting a threat to the SEAL Team when he was killed?
Because the information I have seen indicates he was no threat, and that he was killed because that was the mission.
Dumb move, though with the details that have come out that is how it will be played up.
Absolutely, it was a murder. A lot of commentators here are getting their panties in a bunch over a FOX News reporter calling it what it was.
Look, I’m elated beyond measure that Bin Laden was assassinated; however, since Obama has espoused idealistic morals and made his living decrying the immorality of the Bush administration in its war on terror, is it not okay to point out Obama’s hypocrisy in all of this?
Obama ordered Osama Bin Laden killed. There was no standing order to capture Bin Laden. It was a kill order, plain and simple. Yes, I know that the Obama administration has tried to backtrack on all of that, saying that had Bin Laden held his hands up and waved a white flag, they would have captured him under the rules of engagement, but where is that memo? Did Bin Laden get that memo? Obviously not!
Like I said, it was a kill order. Obama claimed responsibility for nearly every aspect of the operation which killed Bin Laden. Where are Obama’s idealistic morals now? He’s a friggin’ hypocrite!
Have you read Obama’s God Interview? In it, Obama was asked what he considered sin to be. Obama defined sin as, “being out of alignment with my values.” What are Obama’s values? Does anyone really know? I mean, here he made a living bashing Bush’s use of torture. So it was just assumed by most that he had holier-than-thou morals and values which precluded him from debasing himself (and, by extension, America) by torturing or assassinating the enemy. Yet, what did he do when it came right down to it? He ordered the assassination of the enemy!
It would be like me morally opposing abortion, and then when my teenage daughter gets knocked up by her boyfriend, driving her down to Planned Barrenhood!
Are you getting the picture yet?
We need to focus on Obama’s hypocrisy in all of this.
He’s like a ship without a rudder; driven by the prevailing winds and soon to be dashed against the rocks. I, for one, have no intentions of going down with that ship!
Furthermore, Obama’s idealistic kumbayah rules of engagement in Afghanistan are directly responsible for a huge increase in the number of our brave men and women—OUR children—coming home in body bags. Yet, when Obama himself is involved in a military operation, he gets to waiver his own kumbayah rules of engagement to assure success? If he is such a man of great morals and holier-than-thou values, one would think that he would have adhered to his own hamstringing kumbayah rules of engagement. But he didn’t, now did he?
Obama’s kumbayah rules of engagement do not allow for firing upon the enemy if that enemy is anywhere near civilians—even if the enemy is actively firing upon our troops.
Do you remember the first reports coming out about Bin Laden’s assassination? They told of a female who was used as a shield by Bin Laden. If this story is accurate—which we don’t know for sure because now, in an obvious CYA maneuver, we are being told that the helmet cams were mysteriously not working for 25 minutes of the 40 minute operation—then Obama’s kumbayah rules of engagement were not in effect.
Obama, in his speech immediately following the assassination of Bin Laden, fell all over himself to self-aggrandize and take personal responsibility for just about every aspect of the operation. If we are to take Obama at his word, then Obama himself ordered that his own kumbayah rules of engagement were not to be followed in the assassination of Bin Laden.
Why is the necessity for Obama’s personal success so much more important than the lives of our children who are fighting in Afghanistan? It isn’t!
Obviously, because Obama waivered his own kumbayah rules of engagement, his rules are not based upon his own moral imperatives; they are merely political rhetoric and posturing. For shame, Obama!
Mr. Obama, get rid of your fatuously idealistic kumbayah rules of engagement which have been directly responsible for an untold number of our own children’s deaths!
Mr. Obama, if you truly believe that Bush was morally reprehensible for merely authorizing the non-life-threatening use of waterboarding, then YOU, SIR, ARE A COLD BLOODED MURDERER!
“Ask them what they would do if George Bush unilaterally ordered a team of hired killers into a sovereign nation to shoot a confused unarmed old man in the face, MURDER (emphasis added) those around him, then whisk his body off and toss it in the middle of the ocean, then refuse to release any video or photographs of the event. Would they be cheering and high fiving then?”
Now you are using the term “murder.” We should choose our words carefully, just as should the reporter. We are in a war, Osama was an enemy commander, and Osama was apparently killed by a SEAL team. From the confused statements coming out of the White House, I am not sure we can be confidant of much more than that.
There may be a possibility that Osama was murdered. If he was trying to surrender at the time he was shot, if the shooter knew Osama was trying to surrender, and if the shooter knew that shooting Osama was not necessary for the safety of the SEALs, then maybe the correct term would be “murder.” However, I certainly do not know the nuances of U.S. and international law. For example, it may be that the President can lawfully order the execution of an enemy commander during wartime, even if the enemy commander is trying to surrender and the execution is not necessary for anyone’s safety (I doubt that the President can lawfully do that, but I do not know). What I do know is that the SEALs deserve every benefit of any doubt and neither any of us nor the ditsy reporter knows what happened; and therefore, we need to be careful about the words we use.
As has been stated...the only way Osama woukd have lived is if he had been naked. Otherwise it was suggested he could very well be strapped with a suicide vest and engage that if he felt his life was in danger. Therefore the Seal team made the decision based on what they were facing....one or many firefights doesn’t matter...guns were firing from those at the compound and that means there is a firefight.
That's the first thing I thought.
I might add the old saying...."we might as well be hung for a cow as a calf."
Leni
It’s too bad the headline of this report wasn’t “Fox reporter indicates 0bama committed murder.” She should be asked to clarify whether she thinks 0bama presided over this mission, and gave it the go-ahead.
So much for her. In the bigger picture, what 0bama did here was either legal or not. And if not, I think it qualifies as high crime, as in, impeachable offense.
Further, if it violates any international agreements or treaties or other TP we’ve gotten stuck to our boots over the past few decades...a process could begin by which 0bama, at the very least, has to cross several countries off his vacation list or carry a very big bail wad. :)
Based on pic...NOT GUILTY.
And even if it is technically “murder”, what goes around comes around.
Though I would have settled for an old fashioned duel out in the yard between Osama and a Navy SEAL.
Well, that is the critical determination, as far as I’m concerned. If there was a reasonable conclusion that he was a danger to the SEAL Team, I have no problem with them killing him. If not, I do.
What I don’t have a lot of patience with is the attitude that it doesn’t matter, that OBL should have been killed on sight whether or not he presented a threat. It bothers me that so many people endorse our government having that kind of power.
During the Battle of the Bulge, 84 American soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans were summarily executed on the battlefield in the Malmedy Massacre.
“We rightly condemn this action and the Germans were tried for war crimes as a result.
Osama was killed, but we’re tetting the 72 versions. But of all the versions I have seen, none of them indicate that he was presenting a threat at the time he was killed.”
You are not thinking clearly. The Germans in yout example are in no way analogous to Osama unless Osama had surrendered or was trying to surrender (and the shooter knew he was trying to surrender) at the time he was shot.
An enemy combatant does not have to be presenting a threat at the time he is killed for the killing to be lawful. Otherwise, the targeting of enemy commanders and troops by drones would be murder, as would bombing enemy commanders as they sleep, eat, or engage in any other activity or inactivity that is not a threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.