Poll: Sniper

[Sethzard]

I would shoot his bodyguard and capture him. It this is not possible then probably.

Why?

Why does he deserve life but not the body guard?

Because his body guard would shoot at me, and Osama is more likely to be made a martyr, it would be better to give him a public trial than anything else.

You're a sniper in this hypothetical.

You still need to consider the real world consequences of what would happen. The point of hypothetical situations is that they still consider real world effects, they aren't consequence free environments.

So you think you could, as a sniper, detain Osama?

I could incapacitate him, and there would be allies reasonably near.

 

[Arctarus'sCookie]

The world is a safer place without Bin Laden in it. That much I'll say.

Here's what else I have to say:
I'm a New Yorker. Most New Yorkers see this as achievement of revenge for 9/11. War, or any killing whatsoever, should never be about revenge. I would kill Bin Laden only because he posed a threat to the well-being of my country and the world. That said, it would be easy to see Bin Laden's point of view, which was that the United States was threatning what he precieved to be the Islamic lifestyle. And it IS true that many Arab nations have been influenced by the United States. Recall that it was oil trade with the United States that caused the first Iranian revolution against Shah Rezah (hope I'm spelling that right), led by Ayatollah Komeini (Hope I'm spelling that right, too). The Shah did not contribute themoney from oil sales to his people, leading to revolution. Our first mistake was to not support the Iranian people. Our second mistake was to allow a person hated by the Islamic community into the United States for treatment that would prolong his life, rather than delivering him into the hands of those he oppressed to face justice. Had the United States not accepted the Shah for treatment, it is a safe guess that there would be a lot less anti-American sentiment coming from the Mid-East. It would be a safe bet that Bin Laden would've been a continued ally after kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But unless someone invents time travel, we just have to accept the fact that we, the U.S., f***ed up in a way that seems to be unforgiveable to a portion of the Islamic community.

So would I take the shot?

With all the people who would hale it as the U.S. getting revenge for 9/11?

No.

9/11 is a terrible tradgedy, and I will always mourn for those who lost their lives at the hands of Al Queida.

But I do NOT kill for revenge.

I agree with you there, but still I heard the man was worth $25,000,000. So... a bit of moral conflicts there. Shoot a man for money and anger an entire religion or allow the man to possibly attack your home again and prevent things from escalating. Tough choices sometimes, man.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.

Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.

Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.

Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.

Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.

And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.

after seeing how long it to america to finally kill osama i believe there must be some really incompetent generals up their.
but then again killing osama wont do america any good anyway.

The reason we couldn't kill him for so long was because elements in the Pakistani government were protecting him and it did do us a lot of good we got a whole lot of information from his hideout, phone numbers, computers, videos. Osama was definitely not inactive in Al Qaeda he was not just a figurehead.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.

Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.

Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.

Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.

Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.

And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.

after seeing how long it to america to finally kill osama i believe there must be some really incompetent generals up their.
but then again killing osama wont do america any good anyway.

The reason we couldn't kill him for so long was because elements in the Pakistani government were protecting him and it did do us a lot of good we got a whole lot of information from his hideout, phone numbers, computers, videos. Osama was definitely not inactive in Al Qaeda he was not just a figurehead.

 

[Brusveen]

So you think you could, as a sniper, detain Osama?[/quote]
I could incapacitate him, and there would be allies reasonably near.[/quote]

How do you incapacitate an armed person who's bodyguard u've just killed? No reply is needed it will probably be bullshit anyways.