I always make sure to get my news from Siasat Daily when I want the most accurate and up-to-date information, too.

Al Qaeda has ceased to be a relevant threat to America. They are gone.

Stop dreaming GeneralPE.

They are no longer any threat to America. Name one attack on Americans carried out by them since OBL died.

He should have faced the Justice and a trial

Yeah, that's a great idea. You really think Osama's allies would of just sat by and watched while we put him on trial? The day of the proceedings you would have several bombs detonated outside the courthouse, followed by terrorist agents storming the building and killing anyone who's not Osama. Even if you put a full military detachment on guard duty there would of been a massive bloodbath before the attacks are repelled. Then add on the fact that Al-Qaeda would have NEVER stopped trying to retrieve Osama until he was free or dead.

I know you like being on a higher moral pedestal, but you have to think things through sometimes. The "right" way isn't always that simple.

+ 1 Eklipse

PE, Al Qaeda is not gone, furthermore, there are more terrorist groups such as ISIL, and all of them have for main target the US. So if you think they are not a threat then keep thinking this way. May I just remind you 3 recent attacks in the American soil that occurred after Bin Laden's death:

April 15, 2013 – Boston Marathon bombings. Two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnev, planted two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The blast killed 3 and injured 183 others.

December 2, 2015 – In the 2015 San Bernardino attack, two people, one of whom posted on Facebook an "oath of allegiance" to the leader of ISIL, shot and killed 14 people and injured 21 others in a killing spree that the FBI was investigating as "act of terrorism"

January 7, 2016 – In the 2016 Philadelphia police officer shooting a lone wolf terrorist who pledged allegiance to ISIS attacked and injured a police officer


And Eklipse, the right way would have been a trial, what you did solved nothing, it worsened the situation again. You just allowed an evil person such as him to become a Martyr.

Holy shit, I never said there are no more terrorists, just that Al-Qaeda is no longer prominent or threatening. Get your head out of your ass. You listed 3 terrorist attacks. NONE WERE PERPETRATED BY AL-QAEDA!

"And Eklipse, the right way would have been a trial, what you did solved nothing, it worsened the situation again. You just allowed an evil person such as him to become a Martyr."
Did you not read his post? He was spot on. It would never had worked, and he would still have become a martyr.

Edited 2/9/2016 17:39:35

And Eklipse, the right way would have been a trial

Did you even read my post? Trying to put him on trial would just be a signal to endless terrorist attacks as Al-Qaeda would immediately try to free him.

it worsened the situation again.

And letting countless people die from terrorist attacks as Al-Qaeada attempted to free Osama Bin Laden would of been better.....

You just allowed an evil person such as him to become a Martyr.

He would of become a Martyr no matter what happened. You think we should of jailed him for life? Again, watch as his allies make attempt after attempt to free him. Meanwhile, we'd waste countless lives and resources trying to keep him under guard.

He would of been a rallying cry for terrorism either way. Imprisoned? They'll fight for his freedom. Dead? They'll fight for revenge. There was no good answer in this situation. You can sit on your high horse and dictate that a trial would of been the more moral thing to do, but that route would have been equally costly if not more so.

I never said there are no more terrorists, just that Al-Qaeda is no longer prominent or threatening.

The Boston attacks were led by 2 brothers admiring Al Qaeda... And it was after Osama's death. That's so easy to destroy your own arguments and contradict you it's not even funny.

Did you not read his post? He was spot on. It would never had worked, and he would still have become a martyr.

Again I invite you to read the very definition of Martyrdom.

Did you even read my post? Trying to put him on trial would just be a signal to endless terrorist attacks as Al-Qaeda would immediately try to free him.

And do you read yourself the insanities you are posting? I hope you are not serious when you say that Al Qaeda would have tried to free him, they have no chance to free him unless the security of your nation is terrible which I doubt in the case of the US. Your argument here is so unrealistic "endless terrorist attacks" this is very unlikely, you do not commit a terrorist attack that easily in Europe and in the US. So "endless" attacks this is even more unlikely.

And letting countless people die from terrorist attacks as Al-Qaeada attempted to free Osama Bin Laden would of been better.....

Again what you are saying is your own very unrealistic theories "countless people" would not die. Don't you think that Al Qaeda already attempted to commit terrorist attacks after knowing the death of Osama?
Now that Osama is dead, people are venerating him as a martyr or even an example of Islamic resistance. You generated more danger and threats from the assassination of Osama.

He would of become a Martyr no matter what happened. You think we should of jailed him for life? Again, watch as his allies make attempt after attempt to free him. Meanwhile, we'd waste countless lives and resources trying to keep him under guard.

You become a martyr in certain conditions: when you are resisting and murdered, you are not a Martyr if you are captured alive. But, this is exactly what happened to him. If you spared him and if he had a trial nothing similar would have happened.

He would of been a rallying cry for terrorism either way. Imprisoned? They'll fight for his freedom. Dead? They'll fight for revenge. There was no good answer in this situation. You can sit on your high horse and dictate that a trial would of been the more moral thing to do, but that route would have been equally costly if not more so.

There was a good answer: A TRIAL. But instead, by choosing to execute the al-Qaida leader the US has denied justice to the victims of 9/11 and perpetuated the 'war on terror' .

Edited 2/9/2016 17:59:39

Two guys admired Al-Qaeda, which obviously means that Al-Qaeda is still a threat to the US. WTF? And since when do you have to resist and be murdered to be a martyr? Christian martyrs did not resist, and they received the death penalty, which is not murder.

"That's so easy to destroy your own arguments and contradict you it's not even funny."
Says the guy using non-Al-Qaeda attacks as proof Al-Qaeda is strong


"There was a good answer: A TRIAL. But instead, by choosing to execute the al-Qaida leader the US has denied justice to the victims of 9/11 and perpetuated the 'war on terror' . "
pretty sure killing the mastermind of 9/11 is better justice than having him imprisoned like you suggest. You are so mental, read Eklipse's reasons for not having a trial and tell me which one is wrong.

Two guys admired Al-Qaeda, which obviously means that Al-Qaeda is still a threat to the US. WTF?

Hello hello? Are you dumb? These guys committed these terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda contributed on this, what is not clear here?

And since when do you have to resist and be murdered to be a martyr? Christian martyrs did not resist, and they received the death penalty, which is not murder.

*facepalm*

You still do not know what Martyr means do you? It's like the whole debate about Socialism, you know nothing about their meaning but you keep in your ignorance, lamentable.

pretty sure killing the mastermind of 9/11 is better justice than having him imprisoned like you suggest. You are so mental, read Eklipse's reasons for not having a trial and tell me which one is wrong.

Bin Laden had stood trial he would have faced the bereaved families and friends of those innocent civilians killed on 9/11. If found guilty he would deserve to be labelled a terrorist because it is the intentional killing of civilians that defines terrorism and distinguishes it from other forms of political violence. If he had been imprisoned for life then, like Sheikh Omar, he would also have been denied the status of martyr.
Imprisoned for life, Bin Laden would have been forced to reflect on the wicked crime of killing innocent civilians. He has been spared that fate.

"You still do not know what Martyr means do you? It's like the whole debate about Socialism, you know nothing about their meaning but you keep in your ignorance, lamentable. "

Martyr: a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc
Where does that mention resistance? And it doesn't even require death. Please refrain from calling me ignorant when you make up definitions.

"Imprisoned for life, Bin Laden would have been forced to reflect on the wicked crime of killing innocent civilians. He has been spared that fate."
Please. He would have felt not remorse but hatred for America and his captors. His ideology allows him to act without a conscience.

"If found guilty he would deserve to be labelled a terrorist because it is the intentional killing of civilians that defines terrorism and distinguishes it from other forms of political violence."
We know without a doubt he is already a terrorist; second, why would it matter to label him anyway? What would it do besides confirming what we already know? Calling him a terrorist is no solace to the mourning.

"If he had been imprisoned for life then, like Sheikh Omar, he would also have been denied the status of martyr."
Possibly, but as Eklipse said, they would have still fought for him and possibly attempted to capture him. Death is final and absolute; and he completely deserved it.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:20:32

Martyr: a person who is killed or who suffers greatly for a religion, cause, etc
Where does that mention resistance? And it doesn't even require death. Please refrain from calling me ignorant when you make up definitions.

Finally! You found a definition (which is even not a good one), but you seem too illiterate to even understand it...

"a person who is killed" is basically a dead person, so he does "require death"... You are contradicting yourself alone wow LMAO

Please. He would have felt not remorse but hatred for America and his captors. His ideology allows him to act without a conscience.

Any human being has a conscience. And the victims would have been satisfied to see he would have experienced a living hell in jail. By killing himself, you just gave him a quick death with almost no pain.

Possibly, but as Eklipse said, they would have still fought for him and possibly attempted to capture him. Death is final and absolute; and he completely deserved it.

I do not think you are qualified to judge someone, only the Justice has this ability and that's for some reason, because random people such as you have not any decent reflection on that matter.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:42:30

"or who suffers greatly", conveniently forgot that part. So it doesn't require death. Who is illiterate now?

"I do not think you are qualified to judge someone, only the Justice has this ability and that's for some reason, because random people such as you have not any decent reflection on that matter."
We know he was a terrorist. No one has ever disputed that. I believe any terrorist should be killed. It is that simple.

"And the victims would have been satisfied to see he would have experienced a living hell in jail. By killing himself, you just gave him a quick death with almost no pain. "
But he would have been given his basic "human rights" in jail, not a living hell. And I would have loved a slow death, the more painful the better, possibly burn him like so many 9/11 victims were burned by jet fuel. Unfortunately, the UN and all the lawyers wouldn't allow it, so a quick death is the best we can do with.

Angry Koala, I actually hope a terrorist kills you.

That would be a fitting, ironic end to your idiotic ramblings.

"or who suffers greatly", conveniently forgot that part. So it doesn't require death. Who is illiterate now?

You are illiterate since you cannot paste conveniently a whole definition. Btw, your definition is fake, here is a correct definition:

Martyr:
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death and endures great suffering on behalf of any belief.

both cases a martyr is put to death. Anyway good try again.

We know he was a terrorist. No one has ever disputed that. I believe any terrorist should be killed. It is that simple.

But first he shall face the Justice, are you form North Korea or any dictatorial like state? NO, you are BLOODY AMERICA!

But he would have been given his basic "human rights" in jail, not a living hell. And I would have loved a slow death, the more painful the better, possibly burn him like so many 9/11 victims were burned by jet fuel. Unfortunately, the UN and all the lawyers wouldn't allow it, so a quick death is the best we can do with.

How do you know what would have happened to him? "human rights"? Do you think Human rights are respected in Guantanamo... Seriously, the US have means to make someone's life a living hell.

Edited 2/9/2016 19:30:33

I agree martyrs are typically killed, my definition was just to annoy you further, but you still haven't explained your use of resistance in your first definition.

"But first he shall face the Justice"
Why should combatants face trial? If he were a citizen or common criminal OK, but I do not think we should give enemy soldiers trials. Should every ISIS fighter be given a trial before they are killed?

Edited 2/9/2016 19:32:43

King Jofferey (btw you can't even spell it correctly it is Joffrey douchebag) aka Varys aka Tyrion, grow up.