• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

BenBurch said:
That, and he has a lot of people who don't much care for him. Security would have been a much bigger problem than for just Obama.
Click to expand...


I think GWB coming to Ground Zero would have led to a lot of booing, and embarrassing moments for the 43rd president of the US.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I could be wrong (I've been wrong before), but I get the impression that a lot of truthers with feminine screen names or avatars are actually guys. If the subject comes up, they do nothing to deny or confirm their sex.

It would be consistent with their paranoid state of mind. It's a way of further obfuscating their true identity.
Click to expand...
That was my bad, see above. It was JJ as in Jihad Jane not JJM that was referred to in the post.
 
geni said:
And yet you are talking about them. If you are not made uncomfortable about goverments getting involved with extra judical killings you clearly have a lot of faith in them.
Click to expand...

OBL is an extremely dangerous individual, it doesn't take the government to be involved in some "extra judicial killing", just some extremely capable and cautious soldiers doing their job. As someone more or less pointed out, if Bin Laden did anything other than surrender he was bound to get shot. This is not even a moral issue - he's the most wanted man in the world with the blood of thousands of people on his hands. Even if the gvmnt did give the order to shoot, who cares? The circumstances of the "victim" come into play heavily. I could understand of he was some political agitator or maybe even a normal garden variety killer,but in OBL's case - screw him and his rights.

geni said:
A fundimental principle of english and welsh civil law is that civil dissputes can be settled by any mechanism that both parties agree to. Thats is what Rowan Williams was talking about.
Click to expand...

So where is the need for (parts of) sharia law to be present in the English common law? If it's agreed by both parties (in specific cases) it must be valid by what you just said, it doesn't need for it to be part of the legal system.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I give the soldiers who were there risking their lives the benefit of the doubt in their decision to shoot. If Bin Laden didn't raise his hands to surrender in the first 2 seconds, if OBL made a move toward anything but obvious surrender, split second decisions are part of the deal when you risk your life on a mission such as this one.

So the ethics are misplaced being out of context, not having been there. The Archbishop's position is based on a hypothetical scenario and yet he gives his opinion as if he knows the facts.
Click to expand...

As is yours and as have you.

:)

IMO, Osama Bin Laden was not coming out of that house alive because the alternative was considered by those in authority as far too complicated and/or problematic. That makes me feel uncomfortable.
 
Red3 said:
...snip...

So where is the need for (parts of) sharia law to be present in the English common law? If it's agreed by both parties (in specific cases) it must be valid by what you just said, it doesn't need for it to be part of the legal system.
Click to expand...

I think when Williams made his remarks he was very unclear and seemed to me to not understand the legal system. From the BBC report at the time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

I'm going to start with this to get it out of the way:

...snip....

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

...snip...
Click to expand...

So we can avoid any idea that he is talking about any of the many excesses and barbarism we see within some countries that adopt a system of sharia law.

The article reports that:

"For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."​

This is where I think he is both unclear and perhaps ignorant of English law as the above would not be any change in the legal system. (The current government is pushing this further and wants all but the rich to have arbitration resolve marital disputes rather than the civil courts.)

There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."​

Again it is unclear but it could be referring to "Beth Din courts" which have been around for a long time and are allowed based on our legal right to choose arbitration to settle certain civil matters. If he is referring to Beth Din courts then again there would be no requirement for any change in the law.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I think when Williams made his remarks he was very unclear and seemed to me to not understand the legal system...
Click to expand...

I don't understand why he needed to say anything it all. The whole issue could have gone quietly by with most "people in the street" having no idea about sharia/common law. It was almost inflammatory at the time - he just waded in for no good reason and set the tabloids alight with nonsense.

And this is kind of similar. He doesn't know what happened and yet he's waded in again.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Several times with the expected rancor from GWB fanbois.
Click to expand...

I've appaqrently missed those arguments and I doubt I want to get involved at this point. I never saw the argument presented in this thread and didn't realise it was raised at the time of Saddam's capture
 
Rodney said:
If Obama got Bin Laden, does that mean Bush got Saddam?
Click to expand...

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. My personal view on the matter is the cost, both economic and lives lost, because Bush was bent on using 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq was not worth what benefit we have seen to date and what benefit I expect to ever see from that self righteous decision.
 
nathan said:
Hm, apparently the archbishop of Canterbury has weighed in on this Osama thing, saying the shooting of an unarmed Osama makes him 'extremely uncomfortable'.
Click to expand...

I suppose that explains why they send SEALs and not priests to do this kind of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom