Saturday, 7 May 2011

Bin Ladens Murder Was A Total Failure

Shooting Bin Laden was the wrong result - the SEAL's failed in their mission plan, as by killing him they did not succeed in their mission plan to arrest him unless the mission plan was from the start to execute him and not take him for trial.

Now that the American idiots have stopped howling like demented coyotes at the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, and the British 'Call of Duty Warriors' have finished congratulating the SEALS on their failed mission to arrest, remove and put into custody Bin Laden prior to his trial - shall we analyse events using that thing called 'logic'.

The mission was not to execute Bin Laden, that would be illegal under US and international law. The mission was to arrest him - so therefore saying the mission was a success as Bin Laden was killed is the sort of logic that comes only from an idiot or a Obama supporter.

The mission failed - the aim of the mission was to arrest him, take him to the US, interrogsate him, extract information to prevent future attacks and to dismantle the Al Qaeda network and to put him on trial to get justice, as opposed to venegance, for the victims of 911.

The mission failed - totally.

Its not PC dogma to take prisoners alive - its called 'International Law' and its what stops civilised nations acting like the same sort of savages they are supposed to be fighting against.By surrendering the moral high ground and executing unarmed prisoners in their pyjamas, then we become as bad as the enemy we are fighting against.

Now Al Qaeda have a martyr ( which is exactly what Bin Laden and Al Qaeda wanted by the way ), the information Bin Laden had in his head has been lost, there will be no trial and hence no justice for the victims and future attacks that could have been prevented will now happen.

The US could have arrested him and put him on trial, but we all know that would have opened up a whole can of worms as to how the CIA set up, funded, trained and armed Al Qaeda.

Hence he was executed - primarily to ensure the truth about Americas support for Bin Laden died with him.

A fair trial is the basis of western civilisation - surrendering that principle to the Islamists and endorsing extra judicial executions is to give the Islamist terrorists what they want - which is to destroy our civilisation from within in the name of vengence.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...

i think you missed out the preceding term `hypothetically` regarding this work of fiction.

Anonymous said...

Al-Qeada (CIA)are threatening a nuclear attack on Europe.
This murder (supposed) of Bin Laden is an attempt to set up this false flag attack by Al-Qeada (CIA).

Anonymous said...

So at least you acknowledge Bin Laden actually was killed in the raid, that's a good thing.

I'm glad that Seal Team 6 were successful in their kill. They took him out, dumped it in the sea.

No show trial, no martyrs grave site no nada. Fuck them. Let those pricks grieve in their own bullshit.

You think the SAS would'nt have given him a double tap to the brain??? Remeber the Iranian Embassy seige? They shot everyone but one terrorist and most had surrendered.

"Fair trial"....LOL

Fuck 'em. You saw those Islamists in London demanding revenge for OBL's death? You want to give those fucks a fair trial over deportation if the BFP gets in power? You want to give every asylum seeker, bogus asylum seeker a "fair trial" if the BFP gets into power? Seriously? That would cost the state millions of pounds and would be an endless game.

Anonymous said...

"Illegal under international law"???You mean you really want to bow down to the UN?

Fuck them.

The time is over for fucking around and dragging traitors and Islamists to show trials.

You want this? You want to entertain the Islamists? Give them their day in court? Give them more reason to fuck with our culture and laws?
What's better than giving OBL a watery grave, two's in the head and it's over, no liberal law suit, no martyrs trial.

I thought you Brits were made of sterner stuff? All the bitching coming out of Europe, is quite frankly, pathetic.

Defender of Liberty said...

The war against Al Qaeda is the war to save western civilisation - Al Qaeda win if we destroy western civilisation for them.

This isnt about killing Bin Laden - its about saving the West from those who would surrender our rights, laws and liberty to a corrupt government and military industrial block who armed, trained and set up Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the first place.

If you cant see that - then you are as much of the problem as Al Qaeda and the corrupt US government that helped Al Qaeda grow in the first place.

Defender of Liberty said...

Oh and as for bitching - we in Britain prefer to think before we pull out our guns and go blazing away.

Thats the difference - you yanks dont think first, hence you helped create, aided, funded and trained Al Qaeda in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Hmm I think you'll find that the UK, Germany and France were the ones who started all this Jihadist crap in the first place. Building up Empires, creating monsters.

Remember Lawrence of Arabia?

As for "guns blazing"?


Defender of Liberty said...

Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were a product of the CIA, the Pakistani ISI and Saudi Arabian security service - do the research.

Anonymous said...

looks like the WH as released more desperate footage - ;-)

Anonymous said...

And the saudi state was set up by the british, as was pakistan. Touche!

Defender of Liberty said...

what the hell does the fact that saudi arabia was set up not by the British but following the unification of the Kingdoms of Hejaz and Nejd, the new state was named المملكة العربية السعودية (transliterated as "al-Mamlaka al-ʻArabiyya as-Suʻūdiyya") by royal decree on 23 September 1932 by its founder, King Abdul Aziz Al Saud. This is normally translated as "the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" in English, although it literally means "the Saudi Arab Kingdom".

Nor was Pakistan set up by the Britishl, as Pakistan was formed after Partition in India which occured after Britain had already left India.

So you are wrong on both counts.