FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bin Laden sons wonder why their father didn't get a trial
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Ne...et-a-trial

Really, Omar? You just can't figure this one out?  Huh?
Probably because they don't have any evidence against him.

By the way, what is the evidence?

Not that I believe the government killed him anytime recently.

This story, is for the brain dead to keep them stoked on Osama's great victory. I mean Obama's great victory.
Also what happened to the Dems idea that they were against the Military Tribunals and wanted to bring these "terrorists" to trial?

Was that just a show to give the idiotic  public the idea that they had evidence?

It was a big fight between the Republicrats and the Democans about 3 or 4 years ago.
If bin Laden was an Israeli the media would be screaming bloody murder and accussing th U.S.. military with a war crime.

Think about it.
And those thousands of people he murdered did get a trial
mmmmmm
(05-12-2011, 07:28 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]And those thousands of people he murdered did get a trial
mmmmmm

That argument would suggest anyone suspected of murder would be fine without a trial...that's an extremely dangerous path to start down.
I've gotta admit, I've wondered this myself.  We made a point of capturing Saddam Hussein and letting his enemies play courtroom before hanging him.  Why didn't we do the same thing with bin Laden?  Maybe Obama realized that Bush didn't gain anything by doing it by the "civilized" book.

When Clint Eastwood made the Dirty Harry movies, he thought they were cautionary tales about an out-of-control cop.  In short, he thought Harry was the bad guy, and was appalled when theaters full of people cheered for him to torture and kill real bad guys.  Maybe Obama's smart enough to know that he'll get more votes acting a little Dirty Harry than by pontificating about how important it is for us to respect a terrorist's civil rights.
I really find it hard to believe that Clint Eastwood made those films to show Harry as the bad guy. If he is sincere, in what I assume are later musings and reflections, then he completely failed in his initial goal.

The inept superiors and politicians he portrayed in his film make his comments ring hallow. I loved the "street justice" in those films.

And to call Bush's handling of the situation "civilized" is really going over the top. How many millions have died on these wars he started because Muslims hate our "freedom"? We don't know because none of our press-titutes, i.e., our media cannot, or will not, dig out that information.

And did I hear that right, there are people out ther clamoring for show trials? My, we are in quite a mess.

Watch more TV.
(05-12-2011, 01:21 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: [ -> ]Probably because they don't have any evidence against him.

By the way, what is the evidence?

Not that I believe the government killed him anytime recently.

This story, is for the brain dead to keep them stoked on Osama's great victory. I mean Obama's great victory.

Didn't Bin Laden take credit for 9/11 in some of his videos? 
That's a fair question. And yes, I believe you are correct to point out that we were shown such videos. But, the first thing that would have to be done is to foresically test those videos and audios to see that they were not manipulated by, I dunno, maybe some intelligence service in the world.

Then we would also have to authenticate the translation spoon fed to us. Then we would also have authenticate that the man appearing in the video is Bin Laden before we could call it evidence IMHO.

Also, the world is full of nuts that confess to horrible crimes for want of attention. Usually these fall into the category of the most sexually depraved of crimes. But, if a CIA asset was cut loose and now found himself hunted due to a double cross, he may enjoy falsely confessing to the crime of the century. A crime that even elipsed O.J.'s.

Either way, I don't think it would stand up in court as evidence based solely on what we have been fed.

I truly wish I did not have to be a skeptic. But, at this point I would be somewhat satisfied if the man they supposedly killed and gave a pair of cement shoes, was the same man, or men, in the audio or video files to which we have been made privy.

DNA evidence scares the heck out of me because who is going to argue with such scientific evidence? The truth is they can pin anything on anyone with such a tool. How are you going to argue with a government lab report? I guess you can get your own independent analysis if your lawyer is bright enough. But, if we are entering into a darker world, which all my indicators tell me we are, they can find ways to manipulate or surpress such evidence to the contrary. That is if they want you bad enough.

A trial would be bad for the official story as it would bring up the destruction of WTC 7 which was suppossed to be hit by the plane that was shot down in PA. But we were told that Todd Beamer said, "let's roll" and crashed it into a remote field.

Building 7, or WTC 7, is an interesting little tidbit. Most people don't know about it having collapsed, it was not even mentioned in the "official" 911 Report, and it housed the Financial Records of Lehman Brothers, the offices of the Securities and Exchange Commision, and was ironically where the Terror Command Post for NYC was housed. This Terror Command Post came into existence after the first terror incident at the WTC in '93. But, not a word about it in the 911 report.
Pages: 1 2 3