Summary, "sources" say he was killed, Obama to address the nation about it live.
[edit]
From the TV coverage, it was a week ago, they just got DNA confirmation, and it was in Pakistan.
[edit]
AP Article
Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
If this is true, and I am not sure it is, he just won the 2012 election.
Seriously not trying to bait you but are you actually saying this is a conspiracy? Osama isn't dead? It's a hoax?
The douchebag is dead, be happy dammit!!!
LOL
ITS A CONSPIRICY!!!!
HE is still out there somewhere.
he cloned himself two years ago and all they find is his clone's dead body in Pakistan.
the US failed in kill John Wilks Booth and they likely failed here too.
yeah I'm bsing.
if he's dead, good, if not oh well.
And please keep the topic to this thread and not spread it all over the place.
Thanks.
Okay guys, we can keep this thread open as long as it doesn't devolve to political debate. Or spam.
And please keep the topic to this thread and not spread it all over the place.
Thanks.
You're an optimistic one
- As non-american, I haven't been living in a anti-Bin-Laden/war-on-terror culture
- I'm aware that many ppl will be glad that he died. I'm never comfortable with 'glad' and 'died' in the same sentence.
- I didn't sleep to well, and then I'm always a little down in the morning.
But, oh wel. enough self analising. Where's my coffee!?
Thus ending the reign of "Hide and Seek" World Champion, 2001-2011
I'm surprised this is as big news as it seems to be. Apparently people are going wild in Times Square over it. Really?
If entire countries can go wild over the death of an American, then times square can go wild over the death of the man who orchestrated 9/11. ::shrug::
I wouldn't go wild, but I'm not going to look down on those who are.
Weird. It is not like this will prevent terrorism acts in American soil
true.
In fact, now is the time for any Al-Quada member who wants vengeance ...
on Europeen soil.
how you figure?
Rather see it as an opportunity to celebrate while you can, before we go down another spin of the spiral.
Point taken Plu, but we've known for quite some time that another attack is coming. Islamic Radical Fundamentalists have a litany of reasons to want Americans, Europeans, or anyone else dead. Osama's death is no more dangerous than the invasions of Iraq or Afganistan. Bin Laden is dead and I'm happy about it regardless what happens next because it is going to happen regardless.
So let me get this straight, the same people that have been trying to attack us for the past ten years are going to try to attack us? That's the reason we shouldn't celebrate?
You miss the obvious point. It's not one organization with one leader anymore. This just splintered the entire thing into a nightmare for intelligence and policing agencies. Not to mention the fact that now there's a martyr for them to rally around. And with middle eastern and north african governments falling right and left, there's not much reliable intelligence to come.
This will make things very bloody, very quickly.
So let me get this straight, the same people that have been trying to attack us for the past ten years are going to try to attack us? That's the reason we shouldn't celebrate?
You miss the obvious point. It's not one organization with one leader anymore. This just splintered the entire thing into a nightmare for intelligence and policing agencies. Not to mention the fact that now there's a martyr for them to rally around. And with middle eastern and north african governments falling right and left, there's not much reliable intelligence to come.
This will make things very bloody, very quickly.
So again, we're going to be attacked by people that have been trying to attack us for ten years and so we shouldn't celebrate when the mastermind of one of those attacks is killed?
The organization has been splintered since the invasion of Afganistan. Lots of terrorist groups modeled after Al Qaeda sprang up after that with no real ties to Bin Laden's outfit but spouting his ideology. Bin Laden's death hasn't changed that. They existed long before his death and those organizations have been trying to attack us for 10 years but now that Bin Laden is dead, we're supposed to be shaking in our boots?
C'mon man.
So again, we're going to be attacked by people that have been trying to attack us for ten years and so we shouldn't celebrate when the mastermind of one of those attacks is killed?
The first successful attack is going to make whatever group that pulls it off the reigning champ in the "we got revenge for Osama" race. The number of attacks being planned jumped the second the news broke. This is a nightmare from a policing standpoint.
Point taken Plu, but we've known for quite some time that another attack is coming. Islamic Radical Fundamentalists have a litany of reasons to want Americans, Europeans, or anyone else dead. Osama's death is no more dangerous than the invasions of Iraq or Afganistan. Bin Laden is dead and I'm happy about it regardless what happens next because it is going to happen regardless.
Exactly, just like the other way around. Americans still have, and can find, plenty of reasons to want Islamics dead. I at least hope you can understand their rejoice when they kill one of yours, considering you rejoice when you kill one of them.
So again, we're going to be attacked by people that have been trying to attack us for ten years and so we shouldn't celebrate when the mastermind of one of those attacks is killed?
The first successful attack is going to make whatever group that pulls it off the reigning champ in the "we got revenge for Osama" race. The number of attacks being planned jumped the second the news broke. This is a nightmare from a policing standpoint.
I would argue that that race has been going on since 9-11 or at least since the invasion of Iraq. In fact, if I recall correctly, Al Qaeda in Iraq was trying for that title for the longest time. Like I said, this changes nothing other than the fact, that a son of a bitch who deserved to die is dead. If someone wants to take his place then so be it. It was happening anyway. Bin Laden was little more than a figurehead anyway.
However, as long as he lived he was a symbol of America's impotence. That's not the case anymore. We've shown that we will hunt down and kill those who seek to harm us. You want to be a martyr, we'll make you one. I see no problem there.
Point taken Plu, but we've known for quite some time that another attack is coming. Islamic Radical Fundamentalists have a litany of reasons to want Americans, Europeans, or anyone else dead. Osama's death is no more dangerous than the invasions of Iraq or Afganistan. Bin Laden is dead and I'm happy about it regardless what happens next because it is going to happen regardless.
Exactly, just like the other way around. Americans still have, and can find, plenty of reasons to want Islamics dead. I at least hope you can understand their rejoice when they kill one of yours, considering you rejoice when you kill one of them.
That's the kicker isn't it? They can celebrate every American death but we're supposed to say "oh gee whiz, why'd we have to kill a guy that's trying to kill us, now they'll be mad and want to kill more of us".
My point is we are celebrating the death of a guy that decided to kill over 3,000 people in the span of a few hours and they celebrate the death of innocent people working in an office building or riding a train, or riding in a jet, or walking down the street, etc, etc.
We've shown that we will hunt down and kill those who seek to harm us. You want to be a martyr, we'll make you one. I see no problem there.
Neither did he.
Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins.
You are celebrating the death of a man. That man had a mother and children. That man had friends and family. Do you accept reponsibility for his death? If he died for the deaths of others, who is going to die for his death?
We've shown that we will hunt down and kill those who seek to harm us. You want to be a martyr, we'll make you one. I see no problem there.
Neither did he.
Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins.
You are celebrating the death of a man. That man had a mother and children. That man had friends and family. Do you accept reponsibility for his death? If he died for the deaths of others, who is going to die for his death?
Whoever dies next doesn't matter because it isn't about Bin Laden. They hate us for a bunch of reasons, Bin Laden's death changes nothing about that. Sure, they'll say "This is vengeance" but it's vengeance for a lot more than Bin Laden's death. One more reason isn't all that important.
Whoever dies next doesn't matter because it isn't about Bin Laden. They hate us for a bunch of reasons, Bin Laden's death changes nothing about that. Sure, they'll say "This is vengeance" but it's vengeance for a lot more than Bin Laden's death. One more reason isn't all that important.
And that's the reason there will be more blood. It's all vengeance. Push the button already, neither side wants to make peace. Destroy the world so that both sides can quit killing each other.
Is he dead? - magically fast dna tests, burial at sea (so we cannot see the corpse for ourselves)
Information from gunantanemo detainees (thus justifying it in the first instance)
Then it takes place in pakistan without their knowledge or consent.. sounds like war moves to me..
Okay, okay. He's dead. They haven't released the pictures yet but there is proof coming.
The DNA tests were expedited. The reason they usually take longer is because there is a back log of 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands. I'm pretty sure Bin Laden's would go to the top of the list.
The burial at sea was because if his body had been buried the grave site would become a monument to him.
And finally, there will be no war with Pakistan. At least not by us. India would gladly do the work for us.
Whoever dies next doesn't matter because it isn't about Bin Laden. They hate us for a bunch of reasons, Bin Laden's death changes nothing about that. Sure, they'll say "This is vengeance" but it's vengeance for a lot more than Bin Laden's death. One more reason isn't all that important.
And that's the reason there will be more blood. It's all vengeance. Push the button already, neither side wants to make peace. Destroy the world so that both sides can quit killing each other.
Yay for hyperbole!
So what if America decides to do nothing, they'll stop trying to kill us? I think you're mistaken.
Edit:
fixed a spelling error
That's the kicker isn't it? They can celebrate every American death but we're supposed to say "oh gee whiz, why'd we have to kill a guy that's trying to kill us, now they'll be mad and want to kill more of us".
My point is we are celebrating the death of a guy that decided to kill over 3,000 people in the span of a few hours and they celebrate the death of innocent people working in an office building or riding a train, or riding in a jet, or walking down the street, etc, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't celebrate his death. I'm just saying you shouldn't feel like you are better than them if you do.
Feel free to celebrate the death of another all you want; as long as you keep in mind that it means you're essentially stooping down to their level, it's fine by me.
That's the kicker isn't it? They can celebrate every American death but we're supposed to say "oh gee whiz, why'd we have to kill a guy that's trying to kill us, now they'll be mad and want to kill more of us".
My point is we are celebrating the death of a guy that decided to kill over 3,000 people in the span of a few hours and they celebrate the death of innocent people working in an office building or riding a train, or riding in a jet, or walking down the street, etc, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't celebrate his death. I'm just saying you shouldn't feel like you are better than them if you do.
Feel free to celebrate the death of another all you want; as long as you keep in mind that it means you're essentially stooping down to their level, it's fine by me.
That is essentially saying that Bin Laden is no different than the innocents killed on 9-11 and that is patently false assumption. They are in no way equal.
That is essentially saying that Bin Laden is no different than the innocents killed on 9-11 and that is patently false assumption. They are in no way equal.
That's your take on it. Celebrating a man's death makes you a sad excuse for a human being.
Celebrating a safer world; sure. But celebrating that someone was killed? No.
Apparently Donald Trump won't be satisfied till he sees the death certificate.
That is essentially saying that Bin Laden is no different than the innocents killed on 9-11 and that is patently false assumption. They are in no way equal.
That's your take on it. Celebrating a man's death makes you a sad excuse for a human being.
Celebrating a safer world; sure. But celebrating that someone was killed? No.
And it is your take that Bin Laden qualifies as man. He was a homicidal maniac, a rabid dog, and he was shot like the animal he was. So since I'm not celebrating the death of a "man" then I guess I'm all good in the being a good human being category.
Thanks Plu.
So since I'm not celebrating the death of a "man" then I guess I'm all good in the being a good human being category.
I think this post qualifies you to join the "homicidal maniac" category, actually.
So since I'm not celebrating the death of a "man" then I guess I'm all good in the being a good human being category.
I think this post qualifies you to join the "homicidal maniac" category, actually.
Well since, you have decided to attack me personally, what kind of man are you.
Sorry your buddy is dead.
I'm just giving you the heads up.
I suppose this would explain Obama's upbeat tone at the correspondent's dinner. (Well that and Trump really did leave himself so open that he needed the smack down)
He's dead and gone. It's funny I was just talking to one of my friends the other night about how it took us how long to catch Rudolph, and remarked it's about time that we found Osama. There's only so many years you can hide in even the most remote locations. I figured it would take about ten years.
Also, I'm glad the son of a whorebiscuit is dead. I was glad when Sadam was tried and killed. If I had been alive at the time I'd have been glad that Hitler was killed as well. Contrary to your poverly pacifistic anti american views Plu, hating someone that is Irredeemably Evil is not Wrong. You can't save or redeem everyone there are people that really are just that far gone. Osama, was one of those souls. This is a man, who came after America, because we like Jews. This is a man that came after America after we helped them push the Russians out of Afghanistan. This is a man who not once, not twice but Three Times, attacked Innocent people without provokation or reason. And that's just counting what he did against America, this isn't counting for the countless other acts of terrorism he helped organize over the decades that he was operating.
This is a man, that if he had known about you, and could get access to even you Plu, would have tied you up, did god knows what to you, videotaped your final moments and slit your throat. And then dropped a copy of the tape off to the Muslim Extremist News, and then later watch the original for posterity, to take joy in how terrified you were.
I have no issue with the death of Osama; only with the celebrating violent killing.
I'm saddened that we once again had to kill someone to save others, and that once again a human fell to such deep levels as to take pleasure in killing innocents, or for some other reason feeling justified in doing it.
I'm also glad that many people around the world can go around living in a little more safety. Or, at least, I hope they can. But that doesn't make the act of murdering another human being something that makes me happy.
It's like rejoicing when someone puts down a rabid dog. It's just... not the proper response. It's sad that the dog was rabid, and it was sad that the dog had to be put down, but it was just for the better. I approach this situation the same way.
Boooooo hoooooooo hoooooooo
Why oh why?
Whaaaaa
Is that better, Plu?
being evil is a choice, you don't catch evil
This is ultimately true and might just be the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say. No matter what the Nanny Style Shrinks say, ultimately every human being is given Choices when it comes to good and evil. Osama picked Evil everytime. Hatred is not an evil emotion in of itself, it just is. If someone broke into your home, raped your wife and killed your family you would Hate that person. If you later found out (assuming you didn't do it yourself) that person was killed in a firefight with police when they came to apprehend him, you would probably feel glad. That isn't wrong. That isn't evil, nor does it make you as bad as the person that perpetrated such a tragedy. It's natural.
Evil is action of unjustified hatred. Evil is enjoying the actions that you perform. Evil, is when you've justified your actions, and twisted the original concept of what you're supposedly fighting for to further justify your actions for equally twisted goals.
Nah Idolis, it's not. It's kinda childish, in fact.
Wait, you just said, I should be sad. When I'm sad, I usually cry. You know, like a human being would act. I thought that's the reaction you expected.
Edit:
Anyway, I'm still glad the son of a bitch is dead. Once again, I'm a happy campy.
Yippeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Yaaaaaahooooooo!!!! Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa!!! and all that jazz. LOL
Wait, you just said, I should be sad. When I'm sad, I usually cry. You know, like a human being would act. I thought that's the reaction you expected.
No I didn't. I said you shouldn't celebrate it. You don't need to feel sad. I don't. I don't even know the guy. It's just not a good thing to celebrate the murder/killing of someone.
You're essentially acting like Fred Phelps and his church. You are celebrating the death of someone because you disagree with how that person lives. He may very well be evil (I'm sure he was, in fact) but that doesn't mean you should go to his funeral and bring flags to celebrate him.
(I'm pretty sure that everyone here thinks that the Westboro Baptist Church is full of #$@%@#$ers for celebrating the death of american fighting men. At least have the decency to not be like them when an iraqi fighting men dies, whether you agree with their cause and/or methods or not)
Anyway, believe what you want. If you wish to think of Bin Laden as just another guy, go for it, but don't expect me or anybody else to share your thoughts.
I'm not seeing the difference in this aspect. Maybe it's the hypocrisy-o-vision though. Or the lense of I-decide-who-is-evil-and-who-is-not.
edit
Also you seem unwilling or unable to read my posts. I don't think Osama is "just another guy". I think he was an evil being and killing him was for the better. I just don't think it's good to celebrate the killing of anyone.
--
Also I'm not sure if you're unwilling or unable to read my posts. I did not say Osama was "just another person". I think he was a bad person and killing him was certainly for the better.
I just think it is not right to celebrate the killing of anyone. It's very disrespectful.
We essentially have two groups of people, who feel that certain people are less then human and should be murdered, and that their deaths should be celebrated because they are evil beings. But you agree with one group that those they target are evil, so they are noble human beings, and you disagree with the other group that those they target are evil, so that group consists of disrespecful, horrible people.
I'm not seeing the difference in this aspect. Maybe it's the hypocrisy-o-vision though. Or the lense of I-decide-who-is-evil-and-who-is-not.
Oh, you're so enlightened. Forgive me oh wise one. I did not wish to offend you with my ability to make a judgement call on the matter of a mass murderer's death. I had no idea that I'm not supposed to make my mind up when a jerk decides to attack my neighbor. Of course, Bin Laden death is a sad day for all human kind.
How foolish of me to demand justice and be thankful it was finally brought to bear.
/sarcasm
OMFG that's hilarious.
Oh, you're so enlightened. Forgive me oh wise one. I did not wish to offend you with my ability to make a judgement call on the matter of a mass murderer's death. I had no idea that I'm not supposed to make my mind up when a jerk decides to attack my neighbor. Of course, Bin Laden death is a sad day for all human kind.
How foolish of me to demand justice and be thankful it was finally brought to bear.
/sarcasm
I'll stick with "unwilling to read my posts".
We essentially have two groups of people, who feel that certain people are less then human and should be murdered, and that their deaths should be celebrated because they are evil beings. But you agree with one group that those they target are evil, so they are noble human beings, and you disagree with the other group that those they target are evil, so that group consists of disrespecful, horrible people.
I'm not seeing the difference in this aspect. Maybe it's the hypocrisy-o-vision though. Or the lense of I-decide-who-is-evil-and-who-is-not.
Or you just aren't capable of thinking in real world terms. You're justifying your views of non violence by condeming anyone that doesn't share those views. You are trying to ride the High Horse. The only problem is, people like you rely on people that do not share those views in order to sleep soundly at night. However you think that if everyone had your views the world would be totally safe and happy. Have you ever seen the movie, where Lies didn't exist? Until the main character accidentally lied, and discovered that he could get away with it? Ignoring brain chemistry alone, and differing social upbringings, the moment someone accidentally killed someone else, and then lied about it in a moment of panic if they got away with it and in such a world as your fantasy world it would happen eventually that same person might discover they enjoyed the rush. And then you have an unstoppable monster on your hands until someone else realizes that Yes infact there are times when you have to kill someone for the greater good. (by the way Plu. I've never killed a man. Nor have I ever beat someone unprovoked or unjustified. So your theory about everyone needing to view things the way you do is completely False)
We aren't talking about Iraqis soldiers or people forced to fight here. We're talking about the man behind it all. We are talking about the head of a Terrorist Organization here. We're talking about a man who perpetrated attacks against Innocent Civilians for No Reason What So Ever. We are talking about a Sadist in the worst sense of the word, a bully and psychotic murdering religious extremist Mastermind.
People are A, glad this man is dead because now he can't committ any further acts against innocent people. B Glad this man is dead because he really is an evil douchebag on a scale only comparable to a lame comic book villain. C are glad because family members, or friends of people that lost family members have some small measure of closure in their lives. D, people that felt tragedy on a scale they never could Directly Experience until that moment, have some measure of justice.
Now let's compare that to say the Westboro Baptists, who Hate Innocent People. (Gays) These are people that are infact Domestic Terrorists. The WB, are nothing more than Al Qaeda operatives that don't have the balls to act on their destructive and hateful feelings towards people that are no better, or worse than the majority of humanity. These people celebrate the deaths of soldiers who die to defend people like Them, along with the groups WB Hates.
Now, you tell me with a straight face that the above groups are the same as the WB. I hate to break your hippy bubble but there is a such thing as right and wrong, and good and evil.
being evil is a choice, you don't catch evil
This is ultimately true and might just be the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say. No matter what the Nanny Style Shrinks say, ultimately every human being is given Choices when it comes to good and evil. Osama picked Evil everytime. Hatred is not an evil emotion in of itself, it just is. If someone broke into your home, raped your wife and killed your family you would Hate that person. If you later found out (assuming you didn't do it yourself) that person was killed in a firefight with police when they came to apprehend him, you would probably feel glad. That isn't wrong. That isn't evil, nor does it make you as bad as the person that perpetrated such a tragedy. It's natural.
Evil is action of unjustified hatred. Evil is enjoying the actions that you perform. Evil, is when you've justified your actions, and twisted the original concept of what you're supposedly fighting for to further justify your actions for equally twisted goals.
thanks...I think...
And before you go and say, "but American troops do it all the time" or "the American President doesn't it all the time" the difference is we go after the ones doing the killing and they go after innocent civilians. Big difference.
I'm saddened when our soldiers die but I take solace in the fact that they sign up with full knowledge of what could happen to them. Civilians in an office building don't go to work thinking a jerk is going to send nutjobs in planes to kill them.
If Bin Laden were truely like us or we like him we would be using the same tactics. He would have tried to assassinate the President with a minimum of collateral damage or we would have nuked Afganistan and Iraq.
Since editing does not work.
--
Also I'm not sure if you're unwilling or unable to read my posts. I did not say Osama was "just another person". I think he was a bad person and killing him was certainly for the better.
I just think it is not right to celebrate the killing of anyone. It's very disrespectful.
I agree. He needed to be found and one way or another, killed for his crimes. However, running around celebrating his death with flags and cheers is not a good thing in my opinion. I won't condemn the people who are doing it, but I find it hard to understand how celebrating his death due to his evil and violence is different from the Arab countries celebrating the death of Americans because they believe us to be evil and violent. Both viewpoints are the same, even if the Arab countries are mistaken in their belief.
We essentially have two groups of people, who feel that certain people are less then human and should be murdered, and that their deaths should be celebrated because they are evil beings. But you agree with one group that those they target are evil, so they are noble human beings, and you disagree with the other group that those they target are evil, so that group consists of disrespecful, horrible people.
I'm not seeing the difference in this aspect. Maybe it's the hypocrisy-o-vision though. Or the lense of I-decide-who-is-evil-and-who-is-not.
Oh, you're so enlightened. Forgive me oh wise one. I did not wish to offend you with my ability to make a judgement call on the matter of a mass murderer's death. I had no idea that I'm not supposed to make my mind up when a jerk decides to attack my neighbor. Of course, Bin Laden death is a sad day for all human kind.
How foolish of me to demand justice and be thankful it was finally brought to bear.
/sarcasm
What is the difference between us having a genuine belief that he is evil and violent and needs to die and them believing Americans are evil and violent and need to die? How is our celebration different from theirs?
Actually, Plu never said Osama shouldn't have died. He said he needed to and it was probably a good thing he was killed. But even if that was necessary, we shouldn't celebrate his death, because that make us no better then people who will celebrate the deaths of Westerners.
How is that so hard to undertand?
No but that is how Plu feels. He doesn't believe in violence. You can't have killing without violence. While he acknowledges the need for people like Osama to die, he still condemns those that would be willing to kill Osama.
And that's where my problem with Plu lies. It's more of past conduct, than the present thread.
What makes us better? We went after him. And not an entire people. We didn't lob nukes over there (although there were many Americans that said "nuke the sonofabitch." the day of the attacks) we don't go bandying about for the death of Innocent people whose only crime is being alive.
You're justifying your views of non violence by condeming anyone that doesn't share those views.
How on earth and I justifying my views of non violence? What the hell have you people been reading? At no point have I said that he should not have been killed. In fact at various points I stated he had it coming and it was for the better. Your entire first paragraph Micha is correct, and I agree with it.
All I'm asking is for people to stop celebrating and being happy about people dying.
Like I said; I'm glad that there won't be any chance of a second 9/11 (even though it's targeting mostly people I don't even know and I'm unlikely to be affected by it in any way, shape, or form... I'm such a heartless bastard) and that many people can safely sleep at night again, and got some form of justice from this.
But that still makes it disrespectful to celebrate someone's death.
Since editing does not work.
--
Also I'm not sure if you're unwilling or unable to read my posts. I did not say Osama was "just another person". I think he was a bad person and killing him was certainly for the better.
I just think it is not right to celebrate the killing of anyone. It's very disrespectful.
I agree. He needed to be found and one way or another, killed for his crimes. However, running around celebrating his death with flags and cheers is not a good thing in my opinion. I won't condemn the people who are doing it, but I find it hard to understand how celebrating his death due to his evil and violence is different from the Arab countries celebrating the death of Americans because they believe us to be evil and violent. Both viewpoints are the same, even if the Arab countries are mistaken in their belief.
Meh. I've been on forums long enough to know Americans are indeed evil.
Only if you are a beer. We will happily remove the heads from beer all day long and not shed a tear.
beer. God did you have to mention beer?I was feeling rather cheerful today until you mentioned that. Now I need to wash my mouth out. Preferably with vodka, or whiskey.
I have read your posts and I see no reason that I should respect someone that doesn't respect me or the ideals I stand for. The difference between me and Bin Laden is I don't mastermind the deaths of thousands of people because I don't like them. I am more than willing, however, to celebrate when such a person meets a grisly end.
The waste majority of people who celebrate the deaths of Americans didn't mastermind the killings. They are just ordinary Abduls like your an ordinary Joe. You are like brothers.
I assume you meant "vast" not "waste".
Also, people in America weren't celebrating in the streets when innocent civilians were killed in Iraq. They however, did do that on 9-11. We are not the same.
As I recall there was a lot of celebrating in Europe when Hitler died as well as the USA (yeah I know, Godwinned but a comparison between Bin Laden and Hitler is more than apt). So are all our grandparents or great grandparents "sad excuses for human beings?
Edit:
Fixed a punctuation error
But it's like the difference between the police taking your dog and putting him down because he's rabid and bit a child, and the police taking that same dog, bringing it to your house, lighting it on fire, and then throwing a party to celebrate that it is dead.
One is neccesary, and just has to be done for the safety of others. The second is just insulting and disrespectful, even if it achieves the same neccesary thing as the first one did.
I was feeling rather cheerful today until you mentioned that. Now I need to wash my mouth out. Preferably with vodka, or whiskey.
Heh. I don't drink. Not a drop. It seemed like an innocent enough joke, though. My appologies
Whether someone chooses to be evil or not doesn't matter. We still shouldn't celebrate when they die.
"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, & let not your heart be glad when he stumbles" - Proverbs 24:17
People that maybe did nothing wrong, and are now denied their ability to mourn a passing in peace.
Just because you chose to be evil doesn't mean people suddenly have the right to be disrespectful and insulting to you and those that care about you. Evil people have friends and family to. They had a youth. They have parents. They probably did good things. Just because they eventually turned into vile, repulsive people, doesn't mean that there aren't mothers that want to remember their son, and friends that want to remember their buddy, and siblings that want to remember their brother, for the things in life he did that were right.
People that maybe did nothing wrong, and are now denied their ability to mourn a passing in peace.
Anyone that can find themselves able to mourn someone like Osama, are not much better than he was. His birth family disowned him, and I doubt the women he took as wives (assuming they were even willing or legally his given the particular brand of NutsoReligion he practiced) are going to mourn him much. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if a book came out about this in the end of "what it was like to live with the 9/11 mastermind".
Osama does not deserve the respect of a human being in death, nor even an animal. Osama was a monster, which is beneath contempt.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
Well the President does in part get credit, because ultimately the secrecy of the mission depends on the man in charge of the operation. Obama in this case (unlike his predecessor) made the decision to make this an American Only operation, and to keep it as secret as physically possible. From my understanding, most of the information was acquired through various prisoners, and following sources that they labeled. Also, he is ultimately the one that gave the Kill Order. We can't just hold a president accountable for executive orders that cause huge failures. If we want to hold Bushonian politics responsible for Iraq, then we also have to hold those same policies accountable for curb stomping the Taliban in Afghanistan in 01. Same with Obama and this mission.
I watched his speech on it, and he does make a pretty good job of putting the credit to the people behind the scenes.
This will pretty much win him the Big Chair again. Which is okay I guess. My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
Meh, presidents get praise and blame for everything that happens in their administration - whether it's their fault/idea or not. So, this isn't really that different, IMO. He's at the helm, he's in at least some way responsible for it (as well as a host of other things), same as any other president.
I do agree, however, that the people who were directly involved should be honored, though. But since there are CIA operatives involved, they will likely not be publicly honored, since they still have jobs to do and value their identities. But that's standard CIA operations, so no big surprise there.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
Ok, some is certainly fine. The amount he's gonna get, though, will likely be more than some. Look at it this way: if it were you or I in office when all of this info came through, the exact same scenario would have played out. He was in the right place at the right time - which is fine. I mean, someone had to be. But to think he actually did anything is a bit much IMO.
Well the President does in part get credit, because ultimately the secrecy of the mission depends on the man in charge of the operation. Obama in this case (unlike his predecessor) made the decision to make this an American Only operation, and to keep it as secret as physically possible. From my understanding, most of the information was acquired through various prisoners, and following sources that they labeled.
I watched his speech on it, and he does make a pretty good job of putting the credit to the people behind the scenes.
Like I said, some is just fine. He won't get just some, though. Whatever. It really doesn't matter. Just something that annoys me is all.
Meh, presidents get praise and blame for everything that happens in their administration - whether it's their fault/idea or not. So, this isn't really that different, IMO. He's at the helm, he's in at least some way responsible for it (as well as a host of other things), same as any other president.
Right, it's not so much that it's Obama that's getting the credit, it's that the president - whoever that would happen to be at the time - does. And he does deserve some, yes, but overall he was in the right place at the right time. Everything happened to fall together under his watch. Coulda been anyone - and that's sorta the point. If it could have been anyone, was the one it was someone that did something or someone that got lucky?
And as stated above, it's more a minor annoyance than anything.
I do agree, however, that the people who were directly involved should be honored, though. But since there are CIA operatives involved, they will likely not be publicly honored, since they still have jobs to do and value their identities. But that's standard CIA operations, so no big surprise there.
Even if they weren't Spooks an' SEALs, they'd likely not release names in order to protect those people from suddenly gettin' a massive target tatood to their being. I'm not askin' for personal recognition, just that the recognition be directed to the proper place. It's not Washington, it's the men and women on the ground. Vague in the right direction instead of specific in the wrong, I guess. But it don't really matter.
As to Bin Laden's death... It's a good thing. Should people be happy about it? yes. Should they be out celebrating? Who knows. It should be noted that it isn't every American celebrating. So lumping every American into the group of people celebrating ist he same as saying that every Muslim was celebrating on 9/11. Where there some Muslims celebrating? Yes. Where they all celebrating? Not even close.
As for Obama getting credit. He should. Any president in office at the time should get credit unless it's their first week in office.If Presidents can take blame for the bad things that happened before them and continue to happen, they can take credit for the good things as well.
From my understanding, most of the information was acquired through various prisoners, and following sources that they labeled.
It's amazing what good information you can get when you don't resort to torturing your prisoners. Torture is just sadistic, and is proven to be unproductive.
-DS
I'm relieved they killed him, but dancing in singing in the streets about it like the munchkins in The Wizard of Oz is just crass. Reveling in a human's death - even that of a villainous enemy - debases us all. We are better than that.
It's amazing what good information you can get when you don't resort to torturing your prisoners. Torture is just sadistic, and is proven to be unproductive.
-DS
While I agree, I think this is more of a victory for those that had the sense to question the use of proven sympathizers to assist in apprehending him in the first place. (remember in 01 we HAD him dead to rights. But we decided to let the natives go for him... yeah that went real well.. natives that were known to be friendly to Osama)
He probably deserve the credit for giving the ok. Like he said he would in a debate with McCain.
He certainly does. To me, though, sayin' 'yes' to an already fully developed plan isn't a whole lot of anything. Then again, it's a hell of a lot more than sayin' 'no'.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
Well he did do a damn thing. He just happened to be the guy sitting at the desk when the info of Osama's whereabouts was tossed on the president's desk. And he likely also gave the order to kill/capture cuz he's likely the one who gave the order to sit on the info for 8 months. Other than that he really had little to do with it IMO. Just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I'm sure if just about anybody else was in his position that they would have acted on the info as well. Some sooner than others. But yeah overall i pretty much agree with you ZB.
Meh, presidents get praise and blame for everything that happens in their administration - whether it's their fault/idea or not. So, this isn't really that different, IMO. He's at the helm, he's in at least some way responsible for it (as well as a host of other things), same as any other president.
I do agree, however, that the people who were directly involved should be honored, though. But since there are CIA operatives involved, they will likely not be publicly honored, since they still have jobs to do and value their identities. But that's standard CIA operations, so no big surprise there.
Maybe they'll be honored via wikileaks. ;)
/sick humor
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
He deserves as much credit as a police officer sent to arrest someone. There's no way in hell he deserves to be re-elected based on catching this guy. Only Obama's policies should be considered by voters, but there are many people who are not bright enough to realize that and this may put him from virtually out of reach of a Republican candidate to completely out of reach of a Republican candidate.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
He deserves as much credit as a police officer sent to arrest someone. There's no way in hell he deserves to be re-elected based on catching this guy. Only Obama's policies should be considered by voters, but there are many people who are not bright enough to realize that and this may put him from virtually out of reach of a Republican candidate to completely out of reach of a Republican candidate.
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
He deserves as much credit as a police officer sent to arrest someone. There's no way in hell he deserves to be re-elected based on catching this guy. Only Obama's policies should be considered by voters, but there are many people who are not bright enough to realize that and this may put him from virtually out of reach of a Republican candidate to completely out of reach of a Republican candidate.
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
Meh. You're right. I'm posting from work and said that wrong :P
Also, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but the many in this country who will give him most or all of the credit.
My only problem with this whole deal is the fact that Obama is gonna get credit for it. He didn't do a damned thing about it. It wasn't his show. That said, if it were done when Bush was in office it would bother me that he got the credit. It wasn't one man in an office thousands of miles away, it was the men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities. And it wasn't just US men and women, either. Those are the people that need to be lauded. It's they who did it.
ZB, I have to disagree. That's like saying the War in Iraq wasn't Bush's fault but the soldiers on the ground. Obama gave the order, he deserves some credit.
He deserves as much credit as a police officer sent to arrest someone. There's no way in hell he deserves to be re-elected based on catching this guy. Only Obama's policies should be considered by voters, but there are many people who are not bright enough to realize that and this may put him from virtually out of reach of a Republican candidate to completely out of reach of a Republican candidate.
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
Meh. You're right. I'm posting from work and said that wrong :P
Also, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but the many in this country who will give him most or all of the credit.
My mistake. You quoted me and I thought you were refering to me specifically.
Sorry for the extra long quote job, I didn't sleep last night. Too busy celebrating and now I'm really really tired. LOL
But you don't contract Evil. You choose to be Evil.
You say that like its a fact, rather than an opinion.
Isnt "Evil" a kind of mental illness? (Show me an "Evil" person who is mentally-well...)
And cant "Evil" be taught, drummed into people, pushed on them - cant they be tricked into it, brought up to believe that it is actually "Good", "Right" and "Just"? Cant people be made "Evil", by family, society, surroundings, etc?
And even if someone thinks they are "choosing" to be "Evil", does that necessarily even mean that they have a choice in the matter? (Isnt the sort of person that could "choose" to be "Evil" really just hardwired to be "Evil" in the first place, since anyone who isnt wouldnt be able to "choose" to be so?)
Maybe I dont believe in free will, maybe I believe that being "Good" is in everyone's best interests, and is therefore the default setting of the mentally well. Not saying Im "Right" and you are "Wrong", just that maybe there is more to it than the assumption you proposed.
~ Tim
p.s. Im glad they got him, of course. Whether he "chose to be Evil" or had no choice, he was still broken (probably beyond repair) and him being about was doing lots of damage. First thing I did when I got up this morning was Share the good news on Facebook.
But you don't contract Evil. You choose to be Evil.
You say that like its a fact, rather than an opinion.
Isnt "Evil" a kind of mental illness? (Show me an "Evil" person who is mentally-well...)
1) Mental illness is often a cop out perpetuated by a profession that wants to get paid. What exactly constitues "mentally-well" doesn't even exist as a defined thing. Therefore, an evil person can be "mentally-well"
2) I challenge you to look through a book on mental illnesses and see if you can find "evil" as one of them.
And cant "Evil" be taught, drummed into people, pushed on them
Yes, but they have an ultimate choice to go through with it or not. There are people from those cultures can and do turn their backs on them when asked to do something "evil"
cant they be tricked into it,
No. Good and evil require the intent to do good or evil. If you are tricked, then you are not yourself intending to do evil, even if the act is wrong.
And even if someone thinks they are "choosing" to be "Evil", does that necessarily even mean that they have a choice in the matter?
Yes. A choice is a choice and intent is what matters.
(Isnt the sort of person that could "choose" to be "Evil" really just hardwired to be "Evil" in the first place, since anyone who isnt wouldnt be able to "choose" to be so?)
No. People who are good turn evil and vice versa, so there no inherent hardwiring involved.
Maybe I dont believe in free will,
That's a really sad life. If you are that way, then I really feel sorry for you
maybe I believe that being "Good" is in everyone's best interests, and is therefore the default setting of the mentally well.
What about actions that are neither good, nor evil? If I am doing those am I mentally "unwell"?
Not saying Im "Right" and you are "Wrong", just that maybe there is more to it than the assumption you proposed.
I think what you are saying is that there MIGHT be more to it.... ;)
~ Tim
p.s. Im glad they got him, of course. Whether he "chose to be Evil" or had no choice, he was still
broken (probably beyond repair) and him being about was doing lots of damage. First thing I did when I got up this morning was Share the good news on Facebook.
Yeah. I am pleased.
I want to apologize for misinterpreting what you were trying to say earlier. I still think it's okay to celebrate the death of a mad man but you are essentially right that celebrating death isn't what Americans should do. In this case, I make an exception, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
One thing, I would like to note that most of the "singing and chanting" was done by college kids that were really young when 9-11 happened. I'd chalk that up to youthful exuberance. From my understanding of the news coverage that I've been watching off and on is that the older folks in the crowds were much more somber and many cried and shared stories of those people they knew who died on 9-11 and they talked of justice. I think I fall between the two categories. Part of me is exuberant but there is also a part of me that remembers how I felt on 9-11 and is more relieved than anything.
Age is catching up with me.
Edit:
On a side note, I was in my mid 20's on 9-11. I was playing Diablo on Playstation that day after working the graveyard shift. I guess I got bored because I decided to turn the game off and decided to watch a little TV. The first plane had just hit the towers and I was watching a little later when the second plane hit.
I watched as people leapt from the buildings and I just got angry. Then I got sad. Then I got a measure of resolve. I was unfit for military service but somewhere in the news coverage I heard that our economy was going to take a massive hit.
So, I drove down the street to an Edwards Jones Investsments and took the money I had in my wallet and invested it. (Don't know why really but I felt I had to do something.)
I guess I'm still affected by it today because when I heard Osama was dead, I cheered loudly.I felt really good and I'm not proud of it but I'm not ashamed of it either.
I will always remember 9-11 and now I'll always remember May 1st. It is a good day.
Calling Bin Laden and his ilk "evil" and referring to him as a "rabid dog" is nonsense rhetoric. [...] it is that he honestly believes and rationalizes that indiscriminate acts of mass-murder are for the good.
Yeah, that sounds evil to me. In the real world, evil isn't about cartoon villainy. It's about
like this.The WH is debating whether or not to release a photo of the body. I say they should. Make it as definite as possible.
Agree completely.
Calling Bin Laden and his ilk "evil" and referring to him as a "rabid dog" is nonsense rhetoric. [...] it is that he honestly believes and rationalizes that indiscriminate acts of mass-murder are for the good.
Yeah, that sounds evil to me. In the real world, evil isn't about cartoon villainy. It's about
The problem is that it is dehumanizing, no different than terrorists referring to the US as "The Great Satan". It is not the differences that make our enemies frightening it is the sames.
2) I challenge you to look through a book on mental illnesses and see if you can find "evil" as one of them.
It doesnt need to be in a book for it to be true. There are probably even lots of true things that people try hard to keep out of books. ;)
No. Good and evil require the intent to do good or evil. If you are tricked, then you are not yourself intending to do evil, even if the act is wrong.
But what is and isnt "Evil" is decided by other people (witnesses, victims, etc). If are you are persuaded to commit "act X", and the rest of the world deems that act to be "Evil", what has just happened?
Or is no-one "Evil" as long as they think they arent being "Evil"? Terrorist sees himself as a "freedom fighter", so no matter what he does no-one can call it "Evil"? Come to think of it, if his intentions are pure, isnt he being "Good"?
(Isnt the sort of person that could "choose" to be "Evil" really just hardwired to be "Evil" in the first place, since anyone who isnt wouldnt be able to "choose" to be so?)
No. People who are good turn evil and vice versa, so there no inherent hardwiring involved.
If you are offered the option to "commit "Evil Act" X" or not, and you can choose to commit it, believing it to be "Evil", doesnt that mean you were already an "Evil Person"? Since a "Good Person" could never "choose" to commit such an act in the first place.
Maybe I dont believe in free will,
That's a really sad life. If you are that way, then I really feel sorry for you
Theres really no need to, sometimes such notions are quite comforting.
Imagine a particular person is given two options, at a particular moment in time. With all other things being equal, wouldnt their choice be the same no matter how many times you repeated history and gave them the same two options? Why would they change their mind if everything that caused them to make up their mind in the first instance was the same?
Do you turn left or right? And if you say "left", why would all the reasons that made you choose "left" ever allow you to choose "right" instead, if it wasnt a good enough option the first time round?
You might think you are choosing, but are you really? Unless you can go back in time and see if you can take the other option, how do you know there was ever a chance you could have taken it?
maybe I believe that being "Good" is in everyone's best interests, and is therefore the default setting of the mentally well.
What about actions that are neither good, nor evil? If I am doing those am I mentally "unwell"?
Sometimes "Good" could just be "doing others no harm", for example.
And its a sliding scale, both in terms of "Good" & "Evil" and "Well" & "Ill" (those might not even be the most appropriate terms, hence the quote marks).
Ive never met someone who is Perfect. Someone who is never-ever selfish, lazy, ignorant, someone who gives all their money to charity, spends all their spare time helping others, somene who is always motivated, etc etc etc. Some people are closer to the "Ideal" end of the scale to others, and some are closer to the "Broken" end. Its not just black and white, yes and no - there is plenty of room in between. Our individual position on that sliding scale is demonstrated by where our actions fall on their own sliding scale, and at any given time, given a specific set of circumstandes, those positions are set. They can change over time (they arent necessarily "locked in" for life), but there is only one way they can be at that time, given those circumstances.
Whatever you choose, whatever you do, if you could have done it better, or been a better person, you would have been - the fact you werent is because you couldnt have been - if you could have, you would have, and since you werent... well, you get the idea. That doesnt mean you cant improve yourself, or work harder, so that the next time you have a choice to make you do better, it just means that you always live up to your potential, at the time, because thats what your potential was.
You sit an exam and get a C. Afterwards you say to yourself "I could have gotten an A!", but if you could have, you would have, right? If it was possible, it would have happened. You didnt purposefully choose to do worse than your potential, and even if you think you did, that choice wasnt really there (your potential didnt include making that choice).
At least thats one way to look at it, one way it could be. Build a time machine, put me to the test, and then let me know afterwards if I kept making the same choices or different ones, and that would put it to rest, of course. ;)
~ Tim
I have worn the uniform of my nation in war.
I know that Osama needed to be brought to justice for his crimes.
I know that celebrating the death of any human being, regardless of their acts or ideals is wrong. I will not celebrate the death of this man out of respect for his mother, father, children grandchildren and so forth, just as I would hope they would not celebrate my death for the sake of those that love me.
Justice has been exacted for the families of this man's victims. He has been sent to his creator for whatever punishment is due. The case is closed, the ordeal finished. Flag waving will not help. Let the aggrieved on both sides mourn and peace prevail.
I am not a pacifist, but I am not monster either. I am a tired old man that is saddened by the idealogy on both sides has caused the shedding of too many young people's blood. I will ask my creator to turn the hearts of those who would do me harm and prepare for the possibility that it will not help. I ask you to not celebrate his death so that his people don't seek to celebrate yours or mine.
I hope that Allah is merciful and lets Osama see the error of his ways rather than punishing him for the blood he spilled in his name. I say this because it is my nature to forgive. With luck, my enemies, past, present and future, will ask their gods and mine to forgive me as I lay in my grave.
And for the record, Hitler loved dogs. That means there was humanity somewhere deep inside the evil that was the leader of the Nazi scourge. Nobody that loves dogs is totally consumed by evil.
It was a good discussion and I learned a few things as well, so definately not wasted time
Apology accepted Idolis. I can understand how emotional a day like this must've been, and how something like that makes it harder to interpret a difficult conversation like this. I hope I didn't offend you with any of my posts; as an outsider I'm a bit more clear-headed but that also makes me miss the depth of some people's feelings regarding the whole thing and I might've come off a bit harser then I should've.
It was a good discussion and I learned a few things as well, so definately not wasted time
Thanks. I'd offer a bro hug but I remember you saying something about abhoring outporings of emotion like that or something, so "Thanks" will just have to do.
Apparently they have a Bin Laden tape that he prepared incase he died. I wonder if media outlets should play it or not.
I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. It'll probably be a rambling speach about how he single handedly ruined our economy (as if the housing bubble had nothing to do with it) and how America is on it's knees and such garbage. I'd like to see it, just so I can laugh at it.
Apparently they have a Bin Laden tape that he prepared incase he died. I wonder if media outlets should play it or not.
I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. It'll probably be a rambling speach about how he single handedly ruined our economy (as if the housing bubble had nothing to do with it) and how America is on it's knees and such garbage. I'd like to see it, just so I can laugh at it.
I would like to see if he had any regrets.
It'll probably be a rambling speach about how he single handedly ruined our economy (as if the housing bubble had nothing to do with it) and how America is on it's knees and such garbage.
His plans did prompt the patriot act and the like that eroded away all but the fourth amendment in the bill of rights and was the cause of the establishment of the department of homeland security. I don't recall the TSA groping me at the airports when I was younger, either. Like it or not, we have responded to terrorism with a change in our society.
I would like to see if he had any regrets.
I'm not baiting you and I'm no mind reader but I'm sure he did. Like...sorry he wasn't able to mastermind the deaths of other innocent civilians.... or that people on Flight 93 ruined his plans for the White House or Capitol Building.... or that his tape released before the 08 election didn't have the effect he wanted or....well you get the point.
It'll probably be a rambling speach about how he single handedly ruined our economy (as if the housing bubble had nothing to do with it) and how America is on it's knees and such garbage.
His plans did prompt the patriot act and the like that eroded away all but the fourth amendment in the bill of rights and was the cause of the establishment of the department of homeland security. I don't recall the TSA groping me at the airports when I was younger, either. Like it or not, we have responded to terrorism with a change in our society.
Change=/=Destruction.
I'm not happy about all the changes but I'm willing to deal with them for the time being and the beauty of America is that any and all changes can be undone at some point.
well you get the point.
Sadly, I do. But here's the rub, it's not the one you envisioned.
well you get the point.
Sadly, I do. But here's the rub, it's not the one you envisioned.
Now how do you know what I envisioned? I am well aware of his successes.
I'm not happy about all the changes but I'm willing to deal with them for the time being and the beauty of America is that any and all changes can be undone at some point.
I lived in Gaeta, Italy at the time the barracks was bombed in Beirut. The base at Naples was locked down and every vehicle was searched coming or going, but we never considered that the fundamental freedoms that we as americans enjoyed needed to be curtailed because of the act of violence. Changes rarely get undone when they're prompted by fear.
Now how do you know what I envisioned?
The point you made was not the one you were trying to make. I saw another meaning in your words. The point I saw was the same one that caused the foolishness in the middle east to carry on for countless generations.
I'm not happy about all the changes but I'm willing to deal with them for the time being and the beauty of America is that any and all changes can be undone at some point.
I lived in Gaeta, Italy at the time the barracks was bombed in Beirut. The base at Naples was locked down and every vehicle was searched coming or going, but we never considered that the fundamental freedoms that we as americans enjoyed needed to be curtailed because of the act of violence. Changes rarely get undone when they're prompted by fear.
The repeal of Prohibition begs to differ. The prohibition laws were enacted out of some sense of fear and later fear made them go the way of dodo. Hell, you do realize that there was an upswing in gun sales after 9-11. The Patriot Act has something to do with that. Of course, everyone wants to pretend that the government is coming after their guns but as far as I can see the Second Amendment is as strong as ever.
Change=/=Destruction.
I'm not happy about all the changes but I'm willing to deal with them for the time being and the beauty of America is that any and all changes can be undone at some point.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. By enacting these changes at all the "beauty of America" is already tarnished.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
Now how do you know what I envisioned?
The point you made was not the one you were trying to make. I saw another meaning in your words. The point I saw was the same one that caused the foolishness in the middle east to carry on for countless generations.
The reason you saw another meaning is because I was purposely being ambiguous in my wording.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
Quite to the point, I think. Like quoting Moses on the mountaintop.
The government response, "We couldn't"
The People, "Well do better!"
The government, "Okay."
This wasn't some small group of people wanting the government to protect them. It was a vast majority. Basically, you all are arguing "It's better America be destroyed and it's citizens die needlessly than have the government do it's damn job!"
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
By that logic Bin Laden doesn't deserve the credit for 9/11.
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
By that logic Bin Laden doesn't deserve the credit for 9/11.
It wasn't my logic. I was responding to someone elses. Namely Maxperson who I had quoted in that post.
edit:
He was inturn responding to a post that I quoted ZB in where I admonished ZB for not giving Obama any credit at all.
When 9-11 happened the people cried out, "Why didn't you stop this?"
The government response, "We couldn't"
The People, "Well do better!"
The government, "Okay."
This wasn't some small group of people wanting the government to protect them. It was a vast majority. Basically, you all are arguing "It's better America be destroyed and it's citizens die needlessly than have the government do it's damn job!"
Except for there being not a shred of proof that the Patriot Act has been responsible for preventing another terrorist attack.
I think you meant, he deserves as much credit as a dispatcher who sends the police officer to arrest someone. In your analogy Obama is the police officer and deserves all the credit.
Also, I said some not all.
By that logic Bin Laden doesn't deserve the credit for 9/11.
It wasn't my logic. I was responding to someone elses. Namely Maxperson who I had quoted in that post.
edit:
He was inturn responding to a post that I quoted ZB in where I admonished ZB for not giving Obama any credit at all.
I know, but who really gives a
? The content matters, not who said it. There is no value whatsoever in quoting the entire damned thread when your post - the last in the line - sums up the logic that needs addressing. Whether the point was yours or not is immaterial.This wasn't some small group of people wanting the government to protect them. It was a vast majority. Basically, you all are arguing "It's better America be destroyed and it's citizens die needlessly than have the government do it's damn job!"
Freedom doesn't exist in chains. Every restriction meant to protect the sheep is a shackle. If the people of america need to be protected, then the basis of our Union is eroded.
Sorry, I was confused. I thought you were admonishing me, since it was part of the post that you quoted. An honest mistake. I'll try to do better at reading your
mind. :pIt'll probably be a rambling speach about how he single handedly ruined our economy (as if the housing bubble had nothing to do with it) and how America is on it's knees and such garbage.
His plans did prompt the patriot act and the like that eroded away all but the fourth amendment in the bill of rights and was the cause of the establishment of the department of homeland security. I don't recall the TSA groping me at the airports when I was younger, either. Like it or not, we have responded to terrorism with a change in our society.
We responded to it with more terrorism. Our country deliberately scaring the hell out of its citizens in order to strip rights away can be considered to be nothing less. Something like 4000 Americans have been killed in the last 35 years by terrorists. Last year 32000 died in car crashes in America. There is no reason to fear terror attacks or suffer the humiliation in the airports over them.
Edit: @Boraxe
Sorry, I was confused. I thought you were admonishing me, since it was part of the post that you quoted.
It wasn't an admonishment at all, simply a refutation of flawed logic. Apologies if you took offense or took it personally. Neither was intended.
An honest mistake.
The problem is people are generally expecting to be attacked online. I think we'd all be much happier if we all gave each other the benefit of the doubt a little more often.
I'll try to do better at reading your
The boards edit "brilliant"? Weird…
The boards edit "brilliant"? Weird…
Man, I must be tired. It took me a while to get the joke. When I did, I lol'd.
I am curious about the burial at sea. That seems....odd. I understand the statement about needing to bury him within 24 hours in accordance with his customs, but have we done that for every other **** we've killed? I'm going to guess not. Besides, we have enough morons with conspiracy theories about 9/11, Roswell, and I just saw a facebook post about the government causing earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, do we really need to do something suspicious like that to justify their stupidity?
I have to question, the validity of the claim from their government that they were doing everything in their power to help us and the West.
Unless you really are so incompetent that you should have your sovereignty revoked how do you Drop the ball that hard in Intelligence work to not notice?
Furthermore, is anyone else recalling some speeches and Policy that we held involving Terrorists? I seem to recall something to the effect of "if you house them, we're coming for you too". Doesn't get much more Housing and laying in bed with them, than that complex. Is anyone else expecting some kind of rebuttal, (complete with indignation that we carried out an Operation in their turf. Hell they sent Planes after our copters at first so they definitely didn't know we were there, or rather they didn't give us permission first) or apology and begging for us to not Regime Change them too?
Calling Bin Laden and his ilk "evil" and referring to him as a "rabid dog" is nonsense rhetoric. What is so terrifying is not that he is some demon with a core of pure evil, it is that he is a human man just like the rest of us. What is so terrifying is not that he is a hand-wringing fiend cackling over his diabolical plans it is that he honestly believes and rationalizes that indiscriminate acts of mass-murder are for the good. What is so terrifying is that people you see and meet every single day would be just like him with the right set of opportunities and under the right circumstances.
Calling Bin Laden and his ilk "evil" and referring to him as a "rabid dog" is nonsense rhetoric. [...] it is that he honestly believes and rationalizes that indiscriminate acts of mass-murder are for the good.
Yeah, that sounds evil to me. In the real world, evil isn't about cartoon villainy. It's about
The problem is that it is dehumanizing, no different than terrorists referring to the US as "The Great Satan". It is not the differences that make our enemies frightening it is the sames.
your posts tend to upset me a lot but in this thread you seem to be making the most sense. I would have to agree. It is the similarities that are the most frightening. If I remember correctly it is because of this that we humans tend to try and demonize our enemies. To make it easier for us to accept. It is easier to rationalize the behaviors of a demon than that of an enemy with different views.
Boraxe I give you a
This wasn't some small group of people wanting the government to protect them. It was a vast majority. Basically, you all are arguing "It's better America be destroyed and it's citizens die needlessly than have the government do it's damn job!"
Freedom doesn't exist in chains. Every restriction meant to protect the sheep is a shackle. If the people of america need to be protected, then the basis of our Union is eroded.
Well sheep survive by living within restrictions. A sheep that isn't kept with the herd and wanders off on its own gets picked off. When the sheep (or any herd animal) are kept together, they are more likely to survive.
To drop the stupid analogy, some things needed to change. That doesn't mean I agree with every single change that was made, but something had to be done. In the 60s airplane hijackings were so common that pilots routinely started carrying maps of the Cuban airport and the Swedish embassy already had the proper forms to request release of the aircraft and passengers on our behalf ready, the government and the airlines did nothing. They were worried that people wouldn't accept tighter security and airline profits would suffer. So what happened? The hijackings continued. It wasn't until security procedures changed (which didn't happen until people started getting hurt) that hijackings became less common.
Airline security is far from perfect right now, and I consider most TSA agents to be only slightly more qualified for their jobs than the guy at McDonalds who asks "would you like fries with that?". However, it is better than it was when 9/11 happened. Right now terrorists will keep attempting to attack us. Sometimes they will find a hole. But if we just keep the same holes open that they already know about, then we don't even slow them down and they can just repeating the same actions over and over. Personally, I think the Americans complaining that they no longer have any rights are completely overreacting.
Having seen photos of the complex, it's proximity to both the Captial of Pakistan and a military base.
I have to question, the validity of the claim from their government that they were doing everything in their power to help us and the West.
You refer to their government as if it was a unified entity. Their president may agree to help us, but their intelligence agency still maintains ties to the Taliban and has directly aided them at times.
Unless you really are so incompetent that you should have your sovereignty revoked how do you Drop the ball that hard in Intelligence work to not notice?
Again, Pakistani intelligence = not our friend.
Furthermore, is anyone else recalling some speeches and Policy that we held involving Terrorists? I seem to recall something to the effect of "if you house them, we're coming for you too". Doesn't get much more Housing and laying in bed with them, than that complex. Is anyone else expecting some kind of rebuttal, (complete with indignation that we carried out an Operation in their turf. Hell they sent Planes after our copters at first so they definitely didn't know we were there, or rather they didn't give us permission first) or apology and begging for us to not Regime Change them too?
Well we certainly didn't tell them about the operation, and they'll probably complain about it publicly to save face while privately supporting us, just like they do with the UAV strikes. However, we aren't going to try to implement a regime change no matter how much they bitch and moan. Pakistan's government is fractured and corrupt, but we aren't going to be able to change that. The last thing we need to destabilize it more and allow the less friendly elements to completely seize control of the government and its nukes.
In the 60s airplane hijackings were so common that pilots routinely started carrying maps of the Cuban airport and the Swedish embassy already had the proper forms to request release of the aircraft and passengers on our behalf ready, the government and the airlines did nothing. They were worried that people wouldn't accept tighter security and airline profits would suffer. So what happened? The hijackings continued. It wasn't until security procedures changed (which didn't happen until people started getting hurt) that hijackings became less common.
that was also a problem on 9-11 because hijackings had occurred before. The passengers and stewardess's believed themselves safe until the planes hit the buildings they were aimed at. It helped the hijackers keep their control until Flight 93 got the heads up that they were going to be flown into a building.
You refer to their government as if it was a unified entity. Their president may agree to help us, but their intelligence agency still maintains ties to the Taliban and has directly aided them at times.
Again, Pakistani intelligence = not our friend.
Well we certainly didn't tell them about the operation, and they'll probably complain about it publicly to save face while privately supporting us, just like they do with the UAV strikes. However, we aren't going to try to implement a regime change no matter how much they bitch and moan. Pakistan's government is fractured and corrupt, but we aren't going to be able to change that. The last thing we need to destabilize it more and allow the less friendly elements to completely seize control of the government and its nukes.
Wasn't that part of the reason we went after the Taliban? Because they directly supported Al Qaeda. Do note I am not advocating A Fourth War, (seeing as how we pretty much just got forced into managing Libya. Go Europe... you incompetent ****s.... Ugh) I'm just curious as to why this is different than Afghanistan?
It's more the rhetoric involved, if I can find the speech I'll link it but I do recall us stating that anyone found housing terrorists, were going to be gone after as if they were terrorists.
Also, is there any chance we could just have India handle it for us? I'm sure they'd jump at the chance for sanctioned military action against Pakistan...
Also, is there any chance we could just have India handle it for us? I'm sure they'd jump at the chance for sanctioned military action against Pakistan...
Oh, that would be a good idea.
In the 60s airplane hijackings were so common that pilots routinely started carrying maps of the Cuban airport and the Swedish embassy already had the proper forms to request release of the aircraft and passengers on our behalf ready, the government and the airlines did nothing. They were worried that people wouldn't accept tighter security and airline profits would suffer. So what happened? The hijackings continued. It wasn't until security procedures changed (which didn't happen until people started getting hurt) that hijackings became less common.
that was also a problem on 9-11 because hijackings had occurred before. The passengers and stewardess's believed themselves safe until the planes hit the buildings they were aimed at. It helped the hijackers keep their control until Flight 93 got the heads up that they were going to be flown into a building.
That too. Personally, I thought that was retarded when I first heard that. I've had people argue that I would've done the same because that was the mentality at the time, but even when the news first broke I wondered what was wrong with people that they wouldn't fight back against guys with box cutters. I read up on that kind of stuff, however, and the advice they used to give about cooperating with the hijackers was garbage. Hijackings started turning deadly for passengers even when they didn't resist decades ago, we just never caught up with the times.
That too. Personally, I thought that was retarded when I first heard that. I've had people argue that I would've done the same because that was the mentality at the time, but even when the news first broke I wondered what was wrong with people that they wouldn't fight back against guys with box cutters. I read up on that kind of stuff, however, and the advice they used to give about cooperating with the hijackers was garbage. Hijackings started turning deadly for passengers even when they didn't resist decades ago, we just never caught up with the times.
People are sheep. They're taught not to resist. That's why we make heroes out of the ones that stand tall and tell the world to get bent.
The funny thing, though, is that the terrorists have heroes too.
We should arm the silly buggers so that their enemies learn to play nice or play dead, their choice.
Calling Bin Laden and his ilk "evil" and referring to him as a "rabid dog" is nonsense rhetoric. [...] it is that he honestly believes and rationalizes that indiscriminate acts of mass-murder are for the good.
Yeah, that sounds evil to me. In the real world, evil isn't about cartoon villainy. It's about
The problem is that it is dehumanizing, no different than terrorists referring to the US as "The Great Satan". It is not the differences that make our enemies frightening it is the sames.
It is very different. I'm not labeling an entire culture or country as evil. Just the individuals who think that killing thousands of civilians out of the blue is a good thing. Human beings get turned into monsters all the time. More than a few of our own people have come back from the wars changed. Some can change back, most didn't even realize they were changing. The scary ones are those who choose and like the change.
I can't say I rightly blame them.
Hey Plu,
I want to apologize for misinterpreting what you were trying to say earlier. I still think it's okay to celebrate the death of a mad man but you are essentially right that celebrating death isn't what Americans should do. In this case, I make an exception, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
One thing, I would like to note that most of the "singing and chanting" was done by college kids that were really young when 9-11 happened. I'd chalk that up to youthful exuberance. From my understanding of the news coverage that I've been watching off and on is that the older folks in the crowds were much more somber and many cried and shared stories of those people they knew who died on 9-11 and they talked of justice. I think I fall between the two categories. Part of me is exuberant but there is also a part of me that remembers how I felt on 9-11 and is more relieved than anything.
Age is catching up with me.
Edit:
On a side note, I was in my mid 20's on 9-11. I was playing Diablo on Playstation that day after working the graveyard shift. I guess I got bored because I decided to turn the game off and decided to watch a little TV. The first plane had just hit the towers and I was watching a little later when the second plane hit.
I watched as people leapt from the buildings and I just got angry. Then I got sad. Then I got a measure of resolve. I was unfit for military service but somewhere in the news coverage I heard that our economy was going to take a massive hit.
So, I drove down the street to an Edwards Jones Investsments and took the money I had in my wallet and invested it. (Don't know why really but I felt I had to do something.)
I guess I'm still affected by it today because when I heard Osama was dead, I cheered loudly.I felt really good and I'm not proud of it but I'm not ashamed of it either.
I will always remember 9-11 and now I'll always remember May 1st. It is a good day.
I kind of remember where I was when the towers got hit: I was in middle school. Everyone one was freaking out and all the classes just moved from room to room while the teachers sat stareing at the TV screen. My response was along the lines of "Wow, big news... Hey, don't we have learning to do here? Rubberneck on your own time." My response to hearing that they kill Biny was "Yeah? Thats good I guess" followed by "You don't know the facts so stop making assumptions about how they should have done it diffrently. Mabey they did murder him but he really dosn't strike me as the type to go peacefully."
I don't get what all the hubub is about.
2) I challenge you to look through a book on mental illnesses and see if you can find "evil" as one of them.
It doesnt need to be in a book for it to be true. There are probably even lots of true things that people try hard to keep out of books. ;)No. Good and evil require the intent to do good or evil. If you are tricked, then you are not yourself intending to do evil, even if the act is wrong.
But what is and isnt "Evil" is decided by other people (witnesses, victims, etc). If are you are persuaded to commit "act X", and the rest of the world deems that act to be "Evil", what has just happened?
Or is no-one "Evil" as long as they think they arent being "Evil"? Terrorist sees himself as a "freedom fighter", so no matter what he does no-one can call it "Evil"? Come to think of it, if his intentions are pure, isnt he being "Good"?(Isnt the sort of person that could "choose" to be "Evil" really just hardwired to be "Evil" in the first place, since anyone who isnt wouldnt be able to "choose" to be so?)
No. People who are good turn evil and vice versa, so there no inherent hardwiring involved.
If you are offered the option to "commit "Evil Act" X" or not, and you can choose to commit it, believing it to be "Evil", doesnt that mean you were already an "Evil Person"? Since a "Good Person" could never "choose" to commit such an act in the first place.
Maybe I dont believe in free will,
That's a really sad life. If you are that way, then I really feel sorry for you
Theres really no need to, sometimes such notions are quite comforting.
Imagine a particular person is given two options, at a particular moment in time. With all other things being equal, wouldnt their choice be the same no matter how many times you repeated history and gave them the same two options? Why would they change their mind if everything that caused them to make up their mind in the first instance was the same?
Do you turn left or right? And if you say "left", why would all the reasons that made you choose "left" ever allow you to choose "right" instead, if it wasnt a good enough option the first time round?
You might think you are choosing, but are you really? Unless you can go back in time and see if you can take the other option, how do you know there was ever a chance you could have taken it?
maybe I believe that being "Good" is in everyone's best interests, and is therefore the default setting of the mentally well.
What about actions that are neither good, nor evil? If I am doing those am I mentally "unwell"?
Sometimes "Good" could just be "doing others no harm", for example.
And its a sliding scale, both in terms of "Good" & "Evil" and "Well" & "Ill" (those might not even be the most appropriate terms, hence the quote marks).
Ive never met someone who is Perfect. Someone who is never-ever selfish, lazy, ignorant, someone who gives all their money to charity, spends all their spare time helping others, somene who is always motivated, etc etc etc. Some people are closer to the "Ideal" end of the scale to others, and some are closer to the "Broken" end. Its not just black and white, yes and no - there is plenty of room in between. Our individual position on that sliding scale is demonstrated by where our actions fall on their own sliding scale, and at any given time, given a specific set of circumstandes, those positions are set. They can change over time (they arent necessarily "locked in" for life), but there is only one way they can be at that time, given those circumstances.
Whatever you choose, whatever you do, if you could have done it better, or been a better person, you would have been - the fact you werent is because you couldnt have been - if you could have, you would have, and since you werent... well, you get the idea. That doesnt mean you cant improve yourself, or work harder, so that the next time you have a choice to make you do better, it just means that you always live up to your potential, at the time, because thats what your potential was.
You sit an exam and get a C. Afterwards you say to yourself "I could have gotten an A!", but if you could have, you would have, right? If it was possible, it would have happened. You didnt purposefully choose to do worse than your potential, and even if you think you did, that choice wasnt really there (your potential didnt include making that choice).
At least thats one way to look at it, one way it could be. Build a time machine, put me to the test, and then let me know afterwards if I kept making the same choices or different ones, and that would put it to rest, of course. ;)
~ Tim
LoL! Morons debating absolute moralities always amuse me. 'You have a defenition of what evil is, I disagree and so does this guy, so your wrong!' 'I'm not wrong, that guys is just Evil!'
Give it a rest would ya? You sound silly, not profound, and some people are trying to use this thread still and not get sidetracked into your pointless debate. Don't get me wrong, I love pointless debates, but please take it to its own thread so that the mods can lock it down more easily when it ineveitably gets out of hand. It's the non-evil thing to do.
I kind of remember where I was when the towers got hit: I was in middle school. Everyone one was freaking out and all the classes just moved from room to room while the teachers sat stareing at the TV screen. My response was along the lines of "Wow, big news... Hey, don't we have learning to do here? Rubberneck on your own time." My response to hearing that they kill Biny was "Yeah? Thats good I guess" followed by "You don't know the facts so stop making assumptions about how they should have done it diffrently. Mabey they did murder him but he really dosn't strike me as the type to go peacefully."
I don't get what all the hubub is about.
Wow TA, I always imagined you as older than your twenties. I don't know why exactly, I just did.
I kind of remember where I was when the towers got hit: I was in middle school. Everyone one was freaking out and all the classes just moved from room to room while the teachers sat stareing at the TV screen. My response was along the lines of "Wow, big news... Hey, don't we have learning to do here? Rubberneck on your own time." My response to hearing that they kill Biny was "Yeah? Thats good I guess" followed by "You don't know the facts so stop making assumptions about how they should have done it diffrently. Mabey they did murder him but he really dosn't strike me as the type to go peacefully."
I don't get what all the hubub is about.
Wow TA, I always imagined you as older than your twenties. I don't know why exactly, I just did.
He does sound like an old homeless guy who talks to himself after drinking antifreeze.
Heh, so very true.
That's the kicker isn't it? They can celebrate every American death but we're supposed to say "oh gee whiz, why'd we have to kill a guy that's trying to kill us, now they'll be mad and want to kill more of us".
My point is we are celebrating the death of a guy that decided to kill over 3,000 people in the span of a few hours and they celebrate the death of innocent people working in an office building or riding a train, or riding in a jet, or walking down the street, etc, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't celebrate his death. I'm just saying you shouldn't feel like you are better than them if you do.
I'm sorry, but the simple fact is this; I AM better than them.
Or at least I'm better than the radical, bloodthirsty, ones amognst them who think it's fine to kill random/innocent people.
Btw, I feel the same about all other murderous types. It's got nothing to do with their skin color or religion.
So yes, I'll gladly celebrate every time a threat to me is eliminated. Good ridence. 1 down, way too many to go.
I'm sorry, but the simple fact is this; I AM better than them.
Or at least I'm better than the radical, bloodthirsty, ones amognst them who think it's fine to kill random/innocent people.
Btw, I feel the same about all other murderous types. It's got nothing to do with their skin color or religion.
So yes, I'll gladly celebrate every time a threat to me is eliminated. Good ridence. 1 down, way too many to go.
Well, you better get cracking then. You want something done right, do it yourself, as they say! Here, have a rifle. Nice bell tower over there *points*.
Well, you better get cracking then. You want something done right, do it yourself, as they say! Here, have a rifle. Nice bell tower over there *points*.
[link]
LoL! Morons debating absolute moralities always amuse me. 'You have a defenition of what evil is, I disagree and so does this guy, so your wrong!' 'I'm not wrong, that guys is just Evil!'
Give it a rest would ya? You sound silly, not profound, and some people are trying to use this thread still and not get sidetracked into your pointless debate. Don't get me wrong, I love pointless debates, but please take it to its own thread so that the mods can lock it down more easily when it ineveitably gets out of hand. It's the non-evil thing to do.
It takes a moron not to notice that there were three total posts on that tangent in this thread, not a debate that is side tracking anything.I'd like to point out that it is immoral to say that you are better than Osama, oryour neightbor, your next of kin, your aunte's borther's cousins, uncle's, aunts,' grandfathers, grandmother's nephew thrice removed. its immoral to say so and invites some bad karma , he's dead jim, get over it and get back to dealing with nuclear power plant in japan( or have they fixed that yet?), he now has to stand before god now and have to answer him for the 3000+ dead that he is responsible for murdering.
all said in done, he faced mortal justice and now must face the justice impending of his immortal soul.
Well according to divine justice he is now surrounded by flocks of virgin girls. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea.
They are all ugly. That's why they died virgins.
Well according to divine justice he is now surrounded by flocks of virgin girls. Maybe this wasn't such a good idea.
They are all ugly. That's why they died virgins.
I don't recall anyone saying that the virgins are female. Or human. Welcome to the Hell of the horny Dragon.
LoL! Morons debating absolute moralities always amuse me. 'You have a defenition of what evil is, I disagree and so does this guy, so your wrong!' 'I'm not wrong, that guys is just Evil!'
Give it a rest would ya? You sound silly, not profound, and some people are trying to use this thread still and not get sidetracked into your pointless debate. Don't get me wrong, I love pointless debates, but please take it to its own thread so that the mods can lock it down more easily when it ineveitably gets out of hand. It's the non-evil thing to do.
I know! It's all, like OMG an junk like I like, commented that something could be aproblem before it, like, was and stuff and asked if some bitches could, like, not do a thang and then they, like, didnt, and stuff!
I personally think that they shouldnt of offed em. All they did was make him a martyr now, knowhatimean?
Well, there may not have been a choice in the matter... Well, at least not a viable choice. If the enemy has weapons, ammo, and a stable enough position they can make it damn near impossible to capture. Sometimes the only way to resolve this is with leathal force. Sometimes you just have to throw/roll in an exploding birthday present, y'know? 'Course, for all we know he caught a bullet in the head early on and we might not have realized it until all the shooting was done.
There are so many different ways the scenario might have played out. I'm not going to second guess the judgment and combat expertise of the team sent in after Bin Laden.
LoL! Morons debating absolute moralities always amuse me. 'You have a defenition of what evil is, I disagree and so does this guy, so your wrong!' 'I'm not wrong, that guys is just Evil!'
Give it a rest would ya? You sound silly, not profound, and some people are trying to use this thread still and not get sidetracked into your pointless debate. Don't get me wrong, I love pointless debates, but please take it to its own thread so that the mods can lock it down more easily when it ineveitably gets out of hand. It's the non-evil thing to do.
I know! It's all, like OMG an junk like I like, commented that something could be aproblem before it, like, was and stuff and asked if some bitches could, like, not do a thang and then they, like, didnt, and stuff!
Yeah! You like, OMG, commented on something that had died like many HOURS before you ever got there and junk! Like, it was so lame and stuff.
Oh yeah, third - he was already dead. Died in '02, or so I hear, and was frozen and kept on ice in the US until such a time that 'killing' him would be helpful. Apparently Obama's been sufferin' a bit in the polls and decided now was the time to defrost old Binny and put a new hole in 'em. And that's why I believe every conspiracy theorist ever. I am not microwave safe.
And since my previous quote was removed (probably cos it was from a religious source) I'll cite a secular one:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one , not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It's a nice sentiment, though. Mind you, you don't have to hate a man to kill him. Contract killings kind of prove that one.
First, the mission was a 'capture or kill' and the US has a policy of not shooting unarmed folk when they throw their hands up in the air and wave 'em around like they really, really care about not bein' shot. Second, maybe, just maybe, our pal Ossie wanted to go out a martyr. He was caught, knew it because the SEAL team secured the entire compound before advancing on the room they knew he was in and also knew, cuz he's all about martyrs, that becoming a martyr would do more good for his cause than surrendering and being paraded through the world media as a defeated man. So, he commits suicide by SEAL. I mean, we could rather all day and night but it doesn't change the most likely reality of the situation. Besides, the team says he fired on them and, considering he's pretty much never been filmed without an AK47 next to him and his followers revere him as a world changin' hero of their faith and would likely defend him to their death, I'm inclined to believe 'em. It's not so bafflin' when ya think about it for, oh, twelve seconds.
He used his wife as a shield to protect him from the bullets. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to die a martyr.
Oh yeah, third - he was already dead. Died in '02, or so I hear, and was frozen and kept on ice in the US until such a time that 'killing' him would be helpful. Apparently Obama's been sufferin' a bit in the polls and decided now was the time to defrost old Binny and put a new hole in 'em. And that's why I believe every conspiracy theorist ever. I am not microwave safe.
Heh.
He used his wife as a shield to protect him from the bullets. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to die a martyr.
Hmm. I had heard that someone used some woman as a shield but nothing specific. Either way, he had to know that there were only two ways he was coming out of that room: in chains or in a bag. Once he opted to fire - shield or not - he chose death over prosecution.
Heh.
I really wish I made that all up to be funny but some conspiracy idiot is actually saying that on the radio. Amazing, innit? I mean, with all the real questions that could be asked since they dumped the corpse into the sea, this is the way the conspiracy nutjobs wanna go? Damn.
Does the US have an extradition agreement with Pakistan?
Did the US have an extradition treaty with Afghanistan?
Hmm. I had heard that someone used some woman as a shield but nothing specific. Either way, he had to know that there were only two ways he was coming out of that room: in chains or in a bag. Once he opted to fire - shield or not - he chose death over prosecution.
This mornig on the way to work I heard that she may have jumped in front to shield him. The facts change faster than Michael Jackson at a concert.
I really wish I made that all up to be funny but some conspiracy idiot is actually saying that on the radio. Amazing, innit? I mean, with all the real questions that could be asked since they dumped the corpse into the sea, this is the way the conspiracy nutjobs wanna go? Damn.
Conspiricy theorists are some of the funniest people to listen to. I look forward to all the stupid theories in the coming days.
I personally think that they shouldnt of offed em. All they did was make him a martyr now, knowhatimean? I think they should of brought him to the States to stand trial, and let him get repeatedly *** raped while in prison.
Trial would have been too complicated. Do they have actual proof that could stand in court? Witnesses that could testify? Federal or military court? Does the US have an extradition agreement with Pakistan?
I do agree that you judge criminals in a court of law and this would have been the better outcome for a society that champions the rule of law, but this was the pragmatic choice. Unfortunately.
We can't even get States to be willing to house and try the current terror suspects we have hanging around in Club Gitmo. How were we supposed to get one willing to house and try Bin Laden? Too many people and politicians irrationally fear terrorists.
This mornig on the way to work I heard that she may have jumped in front to shield him. The facts change faster than Michael Jackson at a concert.
Yeah. You'll have that with covert stuff, though. How many of the facts that come out will be real is another important question.
Conspiricy theorists are some of the funniest people to listen to. I look forward to all the stupid theories in the coming days.
Funny, yes. Also sad and kinda frightening. But yeah, still funny. I mean an Osamasicle is pretty damned hilarious.
We can't even get States to be willing to house and try the current terror suspects we have hanging around in Club Gitmo. How were we supposed to get one willing to house and try Bin Laden? Too many people and politicians irrationally fear terrorists.
Not exactly true. We've had multiple towns/cities/what-not volunteer to house the gitmo detainees. It was always their state representatives who opted to try and up the fear-quotient rather then let some jobs go home to their home state.
I wish I were kidding.
I wish I were kidding.
Franklin Roosevelt's words haven't been echoed recently, have they?
Link
Makes ya wonder what sort of resistance they offered up that earned a bullet to the wife and one in his chest and head.
Oh yeah, third - he was already dead. Died in '02, or so I hear, and was frozen and kept on ice in the US until such a time that 'killing' him would be helpful. Apparently Obama's been sufferin' a bit in the polls and decided now was the time to defrost old Binny and put a new hole in 'em. And that's why I believe every conspiracy theorist ever. I am not microwave safe.
I'm going to need to see a birth certificate and a death certificate. The official long forms. Until then...
Because of the rule of law? Because people are innocent until proven guilty? Because you want that protection and the best way to have it is to make sure everyone enjoys it? Beause America was build on certain ideals?
When you're the admitted head of a terrorist organization, it should be understandable if people pass up that whole 'innocent until' thing and jump right to 'guilty'. After all, you admitted guilt. ;)
Ja, heard about it. Looks like this was a seek and destroy mission.
We really don't know enough to say, but it certainly is beginning to look that way.
Because people are innocent until proven guilty?
No... he was guilty. Quite guilty. Admittedly guilty. Released videos taking credit kind of guilty. There really isn't any question of guilt here.
Apparently he wasn't armed and did not use his wife as a shield.
Link
Makes ya wonder what sort of resistance they offered up that earned a bullet to the wife and one in his chest and head.
I'm confused. So nobody in the white house can agree with any of the details of the raid except that osama got shot twice (once in the head and once in the chest)?
LoL! Morons debating absolute moralities always amuse me. 'You have a defenition of what evil is, I disagree and so does this guy, so your wrong!' 'I'm not wrong, that guys is just Evil!'
Give it a rest would ya? You sound silly, not profound, and some people are trying to use this thread still and not get sidetracked into your pointless debate. Don't get me wrong, I love pointless debates, but please take it to its own thread so that the mods can lock it down more easily when it ineveitably gets out of hand. It's the non-evil thing to do.
I know! It's all, like OMG an junk like I like, commented that something could be aproblem before it, like, was and stuff and asked if some bitches could, like, not do a thang and then they, like, didnt, and stuff!
Yeah! You like, OMG, commented on something that had died like many HOURS before you ever got there and junk! Like, it was so lame and stuff.
Yup, that happens on message boards. That's kind of the point of forums, actually.
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
There was from him.
EDIT: Also note that it is a congressionally-approved combat operation/invasion originally referred to as the "War on Terror" which included among its stated objectives defeating Bin Laden and destroying his organization.
He was a criminal because he planned a crime and 9/11 happened on America soil. Remember the first terror act on the Twin Towers (bombs in cars explode in underground paking)? The mastermind wasn't in the US yet he was eventually arrested and trialed. Like a criminal. This is a double standard. Mainly because it was more conviniant to execute Bin Laden then trial him.
So he is not part of a sovereign state but he can declare war? And I thought that even in war you do not shoot unarmed combatants? In his own house is a theatre of war?
This is weak rhetoric to justify the unjustifiable. I expected has much. /yawn
We weren't trying to hunt down the entire organization when that happened (although we should have) and facing an armed and organized resistance that was trying to kill us. In war it's not practical to round up every enemy combatant and put them on trial.
No, he is not part of a sovereign state. What nation was he in charge of? Can he declare war? Sure. We didn't recognize his first several declarations, but he declared it nonetheless. And why would his house be exempt even if its in a designated combat zone? Besides, the initial reports are still being revised, it's going to be difficult to learn the exact circumstances under which he died until everything gets sorted out. However, my guess is he didn't exactly come out of the house waving a white flag.
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
There was from him.
And he's not the United States Government. He doesn't declare war for nations.
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
There was from him.
And he's not the United States Government. He doesn't declare war for nations.
He declared war on us. Whether or not we wanted to accept it, he still made a declaration from his side.
As for us, like I mentioned in my edit, it was a Congressionally-approved invasion and combat operation that was often referred to as the "War on Terror". It may have lacked a formal declaration of war on our side, but so did Vietnam, are you telling me that we weren't at war there either? You can nitpick the wording all you want, but for all intents and purposes it was treated as a war and governed by the same rules as a war.
SEALs have no legal right to make arrests. Perhapes you are thinking of SWAT?
Correction, they have no legal right to make arrests within US territory (except under certain circumstances, martial law, MPs on a military base, etc). On the other hand, the military makes arrests in Iraq and Afghanistan all the time. In fact, one of the articles I read mentioned the SEALs handcuffing anyone that didn't resist them, and while it didn't say what the final disposition of them was, I wouldn't be surprised if all the living fighting age males ended up in a cell somewhere.
/USA super theme music, **** yeah!
I arrest you in the name of Jesus and the rule of law, kind of!
Yeah...that wouldn't go over well...the last dude that started talking about Jesus over there (to the locals anyway) got in trouble for it. That whole not forcing religion on people. You may have heard of that little separation of church and state thing.
Jesus is code for: "Let the heathens get it in the asssssss"!
Well I suppose that's better than Allah being the codeword for "Let the believers get it i the ass". Which is pretty weird since they are supposedly anti-homosexual but apparently they don't consider it gay so long as you still marry a woman.
Jesus is code for: "Let the heathens get it in the asssssss"!
Well I suppose that's better than Allah being the codeword for "Let the believers get it i the ass". Which is pretty weird since they are supposedly anti-homosexual but apparently they don't consider it gay so long as you still marry a woman.
Dude, you left out the goats!
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
There was from him.
And he's not the United States Government. He doesn't declare war for nations.
He declared war on us. Whether or not we wanted to accept it, he still made a declaration from his side.
As for us, like I mentioned in my edit, it was a Congressionally-approved invasion and combat operation that was often referred to as the "War on Terror". It may have lacked a formal declaration of war on our side, but so did Vietnam, are you telling me that we weren't at war there either? You can nitpick the wording all you want, but for all intents and purposes it was treated as a war and governed by the same rules as a war.
And an entity/person declaring war on the US means nothing. I could declare war on the US while sitting on the toilet and nobody would care. It holds no water unless unless the US responds by declaring war back or some form of policing action. Or first actually deciding to recognize them as an entity. Simply put Osama declaring war on US != US at war with Osama.
Congressional-approved invasion was a congressional approved policing action. President has the ability to move troops into a territory/country for about 30 days of which congress desides if they wish to declare war, fund the action or not fund. Congress has continued to fund actions in the middle east. Funding troop actions without decloration of war does not equate to war. It is only a war if congress makes a decloration of war.
Veitnam was a policing action. So is the stuff in the middle east now. People just use war for one of two reasons. Either they don't know better or it is because war is a bit shorter than policing action.
No... he was guilty. Quite guilty. Admittedly guilty. Released videos taking credit kind of guilty. There really isn't any question of guilt here.
well, he's 'admitted he was guilty', and 'assumed guilty', but how does that mean he was 'guilty' ?
Heck, for all we know1, he was just an anti-american loony wannabe-badass who said he was the one that was responsable for some stuff, but actually had nothing to do with it ... (and, acting as a 9/11 consperacy theorists, the real culprits were more then happy to blame him for their action)
And why would his house be exempt even if its in a designated combat zone
But the house is on Pakistan soil. there are no combat zone's in pakistan, as the US is not at war with Pakistan.
No, seriously, you can't just send armed units into a random country to kill a guy the gov doesn't like.2 3
__________
1: hyperboling of course, I suppose there's at least some evidence
2: luckely Pakistan doesn't make too much trouble of it (probbably because they're embarresed because they didn't know he was there)
3: otherwise terrorists would have it easy, no?
at the air port: "Weapons? Of course, I'm just here to kill your president"
No, seriously, you can't just send armed units into a random country to kill a guy the gov doesn't like.
That is an incorrect assessment.
One that is capable of delivering orders to military personnel can have said personnel sent to a random country to eliminate someone. This activity might not be permitted but it can be accomplished.
But the house is on Pakistan soil. there are no combat zone's in pakistan, as the US is not at war with Pakistan.
No, seriously, you can't just send armed units into a random country to kill a guy the gov doesn't like.2 3
1) Pakistan is a designated combat zone according to the military.
2) Apparently we can.
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
Ramming planes into the WTC and murdering over 3000 innocent people was a pretty clear declaration of war.
Link
And an entity/person declaring war on the US means nothing. I could declare war on the US while sitting on the toilet and nobody would care. It holds no water unless unless the US responds by declaring war back or some form of policing action. Or first actually deciding to recognize them as an entity. Simply put Osama declaring war on US != US at war with Osama.
Yes, but we did respond. We responded by first trying to kill him with missiles, and then invading the country he was residing in, declaring we would deny him a safe haven anywhere, and declaring our intent to capture or kill him.
Congressional-approved invasion was a congressional approved policing action. President has the ability to move troops into a territory/country for about 30 days of which congress desides if they wish to declare war, fund the action or not fund. Congress has continued to fund actions in the middle east. Funding troop actions without decloration of war does not equate to war. It is only a war if congress makes a decloration of war.
Veitnam was a policing action. So is the stuff in the middle east now. People just use war for one of two reasons. Either they don't know better or it is because war is a bit shorter than policing action.
Dude, an invasion is a not a policing action. The aftermath may be, but we entered the country with hostile intent to topple the existing government and capture or kill terrorists. It was a war in every way that mattered. Quibble over technicalities and word choices all you want, but a war by any other name is still a war. Tell me what changed by us not declaring war? What rules are different because of that fact? We still shoot at people, bomb people, etc. We still abided by the laws of war and followed the same rules of engagement. Even if we say, ok this wasn't a war, just a combat operation, what does that change? It's a meaningless distinction.
So seriously, how do you justify all the hypocricy we (the western world) are behind? Please do not talk about Islam's hypocracy, cause that doesn't justify our own.
Seriously, I am curious.
And western hypocrisy does not excuse Islamic hypocrisy. I get pissed off at our own politicians for that crap all the time; I'm not excusing them.
No, seriously, you can't just send armed units into a random country to kill a guy the gov doesn't like.2 3
2) Apparently we can.
ref 2
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Umm ... don't we also say that terrorists are not considered war combatants and therefore not protected by all the good stuff that soldiers are, though?
Thats because they do not abide by the laws of land warfare. If they took certain actions, which they refused to, they would received special POW status. And I believe that, for a while at least, Taliban did receive that status while Al-Qaeda did not. Of course, the Taliban themselves have turned into terrorists since then so I do believe this may have changed.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Your point being? It needed to be done and it wouldn't happen if we went through Pakistan's official channels to make it happen. Situations like this are the reason we have units like DEVGRU. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
He should have been labled Hitler or Super Evil Dude or better yet, Santa.
Maybe 'Muslim Badguy Number One' would have been better? Hell, why not take a page out of pop culture and just name every target 'BBEG'? Hell, that's even gender neutral.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Your point being? It needed to be done and it wouldn't happen if we went through Pakistan's official channels to make it happen. Situations like this are the reason we have units like DEVGRU. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
It's always funny when illegal actions are justified by "it had to be done". It makes the whole thing feel more wrong.
We all know what would have happened if we had made this official with Pakistan first, they'd have had him moved again just like ten years ago. Now correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impresison, that the rest of the world wanted this war to start either showing progress or just end already. So are you saying letting him escape again, to prolong the conflict and increase the chances for danger to every man woman and child on the planet even longer is acceptable?
If so, you're far more warmongering than America ever will be.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Yep, and that's why Pakistan is officially whining about it. They have to in order to appease their people who do think our operations infringe upon their national sovereignty. And we had to do it this way because we suspect some complicit parties within the Pakistani gov't and/or military and could not jeapordize the mission or its operators by letting Pakistan know, asking permission to perform the op or allow the Pakistanis to take it over. Were this a country we implicitly trusted, I suspect that they'd at the least be notified. Pakistan is not in that position currently.
Thats because they do not abide by the laws of land warfare. If they took certain actions, which they refused to, they would received special POW status. And I believe that, for a while at least, Taliban did receive that status while Al-Qaeda did not. Of course, the Taliban themselves have turned into terrorists since then so I do believe this may have changed.
With all of the discussion centering on war, I felt it needed be pointed out that half of the combatants are not seen as actual war fighters. It sort of muddies the waters a bit and is a point that should be considered in this discussion, IMO. Can you, for example, fight a war against those that are not classified as war fighters? If they are not seen as war fighters, do we need to worry about following all of the rules - like capture if surrender is offered? Valid and important questions, IMO.
I'm pretty sure it was legal. That whole, wanted by the Military for Terrorism thing.
If anybody does think it was illegal, feel free to step forward and identify yourselfs as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. I'm sure the government would like to know who you are and where you live.
Big Bad Evil Guy is gender neutral?
No, BBEG is because it can be either 'Big Bad Evil Guy' or 'Big Bad Evil Gal'. It stands for both without making distinction.
And an entity/person declaring war on the US means nothing. I could declare war on the US while sitting on the toilet and nobody would care. It holds no water unless unless the US responds by declaring war back or some form of policing action. Or first actually deciding to recognize them as an entity. Simply put Osama declaring war on US != US at war with Osama.
Never heard of the war on terror have you? Not familiar with all the policing actions we have taken on terrorist strongholds and locations since the war on terror started? Can't remember all the bombings of houses and hideouts of suspected terrorists, even outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Veitnam was a policing action. So is the stuff in the middle east now. People just use war for one of two reasons. Either they don't know better or it is because war is a bit shorter than policing action.
So is the "war" on terror. If we can arrest people in Iraq and Aghanistan, we can arrest terrorists anywhere.
Apparently the Native Americans are up in arms about our use of 'Geronimo' as Osama's code name for the op.
Link
Let them be. I don't remember Disney being upset about Mickey Mouse being used as the password for D-day. People become offended too easily these days and political correctness is the assinine reason for it. At this point, unless someone is deliberately intending something as a racist remark, I couldn't care less of someone gets offended.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Your point being? It needed to be done and it wouldn't happen if we went through Pakistan's official channels to make it happen. Situations like this are the reason we have units like DEVGRU. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
My point being is that it is not justification. - In fact its admitting it's illegal.
Let them be. I don't remember Disney being upset about Mickey Mouse being used as the password for D-day. People become offended too easily these days and political correctness is the assinine reason for it. At this point, unless someone is deliberately intending something as a racist remark, I couldn't care less of someone gets offended.
I'm of the same mind. This seems like an opportunity to grandstand was seen and taken.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Your point being? It needed to be done and it wouldn't happen if we went through Pakistan's official channels to make it happen. Situations like this are the reason we have units like DEVGRU. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
It's always funny when illegal actions are justified by "it had to be done". It makes the whole thing feel more wrong.
It was wrong, but Pakistan can rock itself to sleep tonight in the many millions of dollars it has stolen from us in the name of being our ally in this. Sometimes doing something that is "wrong" is necessary for a greater good.
I wouldn't mind the world policing if you were less selective in the policing you do. What about Syria, man? And Rwanda? And Darfour?
First, it was a joke. Second, now we police where we're called. If those that can't asked those that can to interfere in Syria, Rwanda, Darfur, etc we likely would. Look at Libya. ;) In other words, if it's such a big deal to other countries, why the hell don't they interfere?
What is your point?
That his death did change things. Notably on the international scale where we basically told the world we believe Pakistan is not trustworthy. We also demonstrated that we're capable of finding and eliminating a threat regardless of the protection that threat may be getting. On the homefront, this gave Obama the much needed appearance of a spine and the will to make tough decisions. This made quite the statement.
Apparently the Native Americans are up in arms about our use of 'Geronimo' as Osama's code name for the op.
Link
He should have been labled Hitler or Super Evil Dude or better yet, Santa.
I think "Waldo" would have been more fitting.
No, seriously, you can't just send armed units into a random country to kill a guy the gov doesn't like.2 3
2) Apparently we can.
ref 2
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
That's pretty funny. Do you think that when countries go to war, they have their military personel apply for visitor visas to the country they are going to invade?
That would definitly stop alot of wars.
By the way, what are you smoking, and who is your supplier?
Meh, we're the world police and we had probable cause.
I wouldn't mind the world policing if you were less selective in the policing you do. What about Syria, man? And Rwanda? And Darfour?
We can't afford to police everyone. If the U.N. wants to fund all of our actions...
Would you like to start paying for them?
Meh, we're the world police and we had probable cause.
I wouldn't mind the world policing if you were less selective in the policing you do. What about Syria, man? And Rwanda? And Darfour?
Iran? Mauritania? Saudi Arabia? Sudan? United Arab Emirates? Yemen? Nigeria? Somalia? (Possibly soon-to-be) Uganda?
In case that isn't clear, there's plenty of places around the world where "police actions" are needed. And yes, it's more then righteous wrath that directs us. Politics are involved. Oh goodness how much politics are involved. But just because we can't fix everything everywhere doesn't mean you shouldn't approve when some bit of good is done somewhere. Is it the most "bang for the buck"? Probably not. But if you're chiding reality for not matching up to your ideal world then you'll be blue for lack of breath before you change anything.
Unless I missed something, if the seals didn't pass customs, etc ... they were illigallyon Pakastany soil
Your point being? It needed to be done and it wouldn't happen if we went through Pakistan's official channels to make it happen. Situations like this are the reason we have units like DEVGRU. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
My point being is that it is not justification. - In fact its admitting it's illegal.
By that logic every war is illegal. Any time you go to war with someone you are violating their laws and their sovereign territory. The NATO presence in Libya is illegal, as is the rebellion going on in that country. So technically, yes it was illegal, but not all laws are right.
Apparently the Native Americans are up in arms about our use of 'Geronimo' as Osama's code name for the op.
Link
He should have been labled Hitler or Super Evil Dude or better yet, Santa.
I think "Waldo" would have been more fitting.
The operational name "Geronimo" fits. The seal team jumped the border, raced in, tried to grab, killed instead and jumped back across the border. As often as Geronimo jumped across the Mexican border, I think he would find it flattering that this operation was named after him.
I'm native american and the uproar seems silly to me. Geronimo wasn't a reference to Osama, it was the operational name.
With all of the discussion centering on war, I felt it needed be pointed out that half of the combatants are not seen as actual war fighters. It sort of muddies the waters a bit and is a point that should be considered in this discussion, IMO. Can you, for example, fight a war against those that are not classified as war fighters? If they are not seen as war fighters, do we need to worry about following all of the rules - like capture if surrender is offered? Valid and important questions, IMO.
Well its important to point out that they are still classified as enemy combatants, they just don't qualify for special POW status according to international conventions. To do so, they need a designated hierarchy or chain of command, they must wear uniforms or distinctive insignia to identify themselves, and they must abide by the laws of war.
To answer your second question, no we don't have to follow all the rules. Most international laws concerning land warfare are covered by the Hague Convention, which we have signed. The Hague Convention only applies, however, if all parties to a conflict agree to follow it. Since the Taliban and Al-Qaeda most certainly do not, then technically neither do we (note that non-signatories can formally declare their intent to abide by the convention and thus bind other parties that have already signed it). We do anyway because we're nice like that and because the international community already likes to freak out over everything we do (like claims that the US and Israel violate the chemical weapons treaties by using white phosphorus, even though that doesn't violate the convention at all and Israel never even signed it, but I digress).
The White House will not release photos of the body. Get your tinfoil ready, folks!
Well its important to point out that they are still classified as enemy combatants, they just don't qualify for special POW status according to international conventions. To do so, they need a designated hierarchy or chain of command, they must wear uniforms or distinctive insignia to identify themselves, and they must abide by the laws of war.
Unless I'm mistaken, they qualify as spies/sabotuers under the rules of the geneva convention. Since they don't wear uniforms or operate under a strict chain of command, they can be summarily executed. The Geneva conventions cover soldiers, not spies.
Actually, 'Geronimo' was the target code name. That's why the SEALs reported 'Geronimo EKIA' - Osama binLaden, Enemy, Killed In Action.
"Geronimo EKIA" is the seal team identifying themselves and reporting that the target was KIA. E was Osama, Geronimo was the identifier for the seal team on this particular operation.
Thanks for answering. Like I said, I just wanted to point it out since the conversation turned to war and activitied therein. This is one of those gray area cases - especially with the policy we have in place - and I just didn't want that getting lost in the clutter. For the record, I'm of the same mind as yourself on both of these points.
No problem. We get frequent JAG briefings to make sure everyone is familiar with all the rules, but they are usually presented in a piss-poor fashion and thrown in with a bunch of other useless classes, so by the time they get to this one people are half-asleep. The only reason I'm familiar with this stuff is I decided to research it on my own so I could try to stop people from spreading their own ridiculous interpretations. It was so bad I knew turret gunners that were afraid to pull the trigger because they didn't know what was ok and what wasn't.
And of course our own government sends mixed messages. Taliban will be POWs but not Al-Qaeda. Ok now they're all insurgents so we're treating them the same whoever they belong with. Ok, now we're supporting the Afghan/Iraqi government so we'll play by their rules. It's the Global War on Terrorism, nope now it's Overseas Contingency Operations, not a war, but no nothing is changing, oh and here is your Global War on Terrorism medal for serving in that "contingency operation". And yet despite all that stupidity that served no purpose except to confuse people, nothing fundamentally changed.
And yet despite all that stupidity that served no purpose except to confuse people, nothing fundamentally changed.
SNAFU
Well its important to point out that they are still classified as enemy combatants, they just don't qualify for special POW status according to international conventions. To do so, they need a designated hierarchy or chain of command, they must wear uniforms or distinctive insignia to identify themselves, and they must abide by the laws of war.
Unless I'm mistaken, they qualify as spies/sabotuers under the rules of the geneva convention. Since they don't wear uniforms or operate under a strict chain of command, they can be summarily executed. The Geneva conventions cover soldiers, not spies.
I do believe you are correct.
I do believe you are correct.
Until someone higher up gets flack over it and then the troops on the ground will have to give them milk and cookies first.
"Geronimo EKIA" is the seal team identifying themselves and reporting that the target was KIA. E was Osama, Geronimo was the identifier for the seal team on this particular operation.
Ah, that make sense.
No problem. We get frequent JAG briefings to make sure everyone is familiar with all the rules, but they are usually presented in a piss-poor fashion and thrown in with a bunch of other useless classes, so by the time they get to this one people are half-asleep. The only reason I'm familiar with this stuff is I decided to research it on my own so I could try to stop people from spreading their own ridiculous interpretations. It was so bad I knew turret gunners that were afraid to pull the trigger because they didn't know what was ok and what wasn't.
And of course our own government sends mixed messages. Taliban will be POWs but not Al-Qaeda. Ok now they're all insurgents so we're treating them the same whoever they belong with. Ok, now we're supporting the Afghan/Iraqi government so we'll play by their rules. It's the Global War on Terrorism, nope now it's Overseas Contingency Operations, not a war, but no nothing is changing, oh and here is your Global War on Terrorism medal for serving in that "contingency operation". And yet despite all that stupidity that served no purpose except to confuse people, nothing fundamentally changed.
Gotta love politics in war. ;)
Gotta love politics in war. ;)
War is politics. Bacon called war the last stage of diplomacy.
Gotta love politics in war. ;)
War is politics. Bacon called war the last stage of diplomacy.
Ummmm... Bacon...
**NEW NEWS**
The White House will not release photos of the body. Get your tinfoil ready, folks!
Do you know if they're still debating to release the video or pics of the burial at sea? That might be enough, maybe, but probably not.
**NEW NEWS**
The White House will not release photos of the body. Get your tinfoil ready, folks!
Do you know if they're still debating to release the video or pics of the burial at sea? That might be enough, maybe, but probably not.
Instead of leaking classified information that the public really doesn't need to know, couldn't they leak something useful, like pictures and video of OBL's head turned into bits of chunky kibbel?
War is politics. Bacon called war the last stage of diplomacy.
Yes, but I was meaning more of political interference in war. Like rules of engagement confusion due to BS policy, etc. See Vietnam.
____________________
Link
No photos. None. The funniest bit is that Obama said that he didn't feel it was needed because the people that won't believe we killed him won't believe the pictures anyway. If that's really how he looks at this stuff, his long form birth certificate release would like to have a word with him.
**NEW NEWS**
The White House will not release photos of the body. Get your tinfoil ready, folks!
Do you know if they're still debating to release the video or pics of the burial at sea? That might be enough, maybe, but probably not.
Instead of leaking classified information that the public really doesn't need to know, couldn't they leak something useful, like pictures and video of OBL's head turned into bits of chunky kibbel?
I have a similar thought. However, my wish to see the photos has more to do with my own personal closure than some morbid fascination (not that I think that's why you want to see them). For me personally, after watching folks leap from the towers I think seeing their killer dead would be fitting.
I understand that they might be worried about backlash but I think the terrorists, Al Qaeda, are more concerned that we killed their hero than they are about whatever we do to his body. There's going to be backlash anyway.
It's like the Abu Graib fiasco, the insurgents weren't killing us because of some naked photos taken in a prison. They were killing us because we invaded their damn country. The same thing here, they aren't going to try to kill us because of photos of Bin Laden's body or what we may or may not have done to it. They're going to try to kill us because we killed Bin Laden.
All my opinion of course.
Jesus is code for: "Let the heathens get it in the asssssss"!
Well I suppose that's better than Allah being the codeword for "Let the believers get it i the ass". Which is pretty weird since they are supposedly anti-homosexual but apparently they don't consider it gay so long as you still marry a woman.
So seriously, how do you justify all the hypocricy we (the western world) are behind? Please do not talk about Islam's hypocracy, cause that doesn't justify our own.
Seriously, I am curious.
...
Then please don't talk about ours, because that dosn't justify theirs, or something?
With the birth certificate... well, what's the worst that happens? You give the hardcore birthers something new to whine about. No real risk there.
________
1Well, innocent2 anyway.
2ish3.
3Look, whether they were good or innocent or what-not, they probably don't deserve to die just so we can see pictures of a dead Osama Bin Laden on the 5 o'clock news.
Eh. I can see the merit to this decission. Take that idiot burning the Koran a few weeks ago and the violence it incited. Do we really want to get more good1 people dead just so we can show off the photos of him dead? It's a real risk.
With the birth certificate... well, what's the worst that happens? You give the hardcore birthers something new to whine about. No real risk there.
________
1Well, innocent2 anyway.
2ish3.
3Look, whether they were good or innocent or what-not, they probably don't deserve to die just so we can see pictures of a dead Osama Bin Laden on the 5 o'clock news.
What risk is there? Is there something genuine that we should actually fear? The terrorists are almost entirely impotent. A random car accident is approximately 373 times more likely to be able to kill me than some rabid jihadist from the Middle East. They and the danger that they represent to us is a joke.
Just regarding the pictures, is it possible that one reason they don't want to release them is because IIRC, he took a bullet to both his head and throat? That kind of damage won't be pretty, assuming there was much of a head left on him afterwards. Not everyone is comfortable with seeing someone's 90% blown off head and maybe they understand that.
Is there some reason that we should assume that the entire populace of the United States is too stupid to make that decision for themselves?
What risk is there?
You know, I'm pretty sure Pastor Terry Jones said something similar. Got at least 11 people killed.
Just regarding the pictures, is it possible that one reason they don't want to release them is because IIRC, he took a bullet to both his head and throat? That kind of damage won't be pretty, assuming there was much of a head left on him afterwards. Not everyone is comfortable with seeing someone's 90% blown off head and maybe they understand that.
Is there some reason that we should assume that the entire populace of the United States is too stupid to make that decision for themselves?
No Max, I was just asking because who knows, maybe the pics would be given to the US news stations who would broadcast them. And honestly, I don't want to see his head like that. I don't like blood guts and gore.
What risk is there?
You know, I'm pretty sure Pastor Terry Jones said something similar. Got at least 11 people killed.
We are not responsible for the craziness of others.
And honestly, I don't want to see his head like that. I don't like blood guts and gore.
Then when the news says 'the following images are graphic and may not be suitable to all viewers' you look away?
Just regarding the pictures, is it possible that one reason they don't want to release them is because IIRC, he took a bullet to both his head and throat? That kind of damage won't be pretty, assuming there was much of a head left on him afterwards. Not everyone is comfortable with seeing someone's 90% blown off head and maybe they understand that.
Is there some reason that we should assume that the entire populace of the United States is too stupid to make that decision for themselves?
No Max, I was just asking because who knows, maybe the pics would be given to the US news stations who would broadcast them. And honestly, I don't want to see his head like that. I don't like blood guts and gore.
They generally don't show things that graphic without warning, if at all.
We are not responsible for the craziness of others.
So? You asked if there was risk. Risk is there irrespective of responsibility.
We are not responsible for the craziness of others.
So? You asked if there was risk. Risk is there irrespective of responsibility.
I'll be blunt. I don't care one bit about crazies in the Middle East. I'm only talking about the risk to people here in America.
What risk is there?
You know, I'm pretty sure Pastor Terry Jones said something similar. Got at least 11 people killed.
We are not responsible for the craziness of others.
You are if you incite them to commite violence.
Incorrect. We are not required to live as hostages to people who are insane. We live our lives the way we live them and if they get hot under their collar and kill people, that's entirely their fault.
And they are not crazy. To think it is to not understand why they do this and thus not solve the problem at all.
Sane people do not murder people over pictures. They ARE crazy.
... so what, Americans in the armed forces abroad, Americans in embassies, American contractors... they're not American enough for you? That's awfully considerate.
If we add in the number of Americans killed abroad by terrorists over the last 35 years, we drop to being only 370 or so times more likely to be killed by a car accident. Terrorists are nothing to fear.
I have a similar thought. However, my wish to see the photos has more to do with my own personal closure than some morbid fascination (not that I think that's why you want to see them). For me personally, after watching folks leap from the towers I think seeing their killer dead would be fitting.
You give me waaayyyyyy too much credit. My own morbid fascination is exactly why I want to see them.
... so what, Americans in the armed forces abroad, Americans in embassies, American contractors... they're not American enough for you? That's awfully considerate.
If we add in the number of Americans killed abroad by terrorists over the last 35 years, we drop to being only 370 or so times more likely to be killed by a car accident. Terrorists are nothing to fear.
Your statement is wrong for a number of reasons. If there was no fear of terrorism, which causes us to take precautions against it, those numbers would actually be a lot higher. Irrational fear is bad and causes people to be stupid. Reasonable fear causes people to take precautions and make themselves safer. Besides, if you are the unlucky bastard that dies due to terrorism, it doesn't really matter how unlikely you were to get killed from that attack, you're still dead. Statistics are meaningless when you are the statistic. And you don't have to die. How about you just get injured or crippled? Thousands of bombs are found in the US in a single year. Most of them don't hurt anyone because people fear them and react appropriately.
Sane people do not kill people without a fair trial.
Sure they do. Happens all the time. War, crime (it may be wrong but that doesn't make them insane), self-defense, yeah people get killed without a trial and sometimes it sucks and sometimes its ok.
I don't believe there has been any declaration of war.
Ramming planes into the WTC and murdering over 3000 innocent people was a pretty clear declaration of war.
Not a declaration of war by the US.
And an entity/person declaring war on the US means nothing. I could declare war on the US while sitting on the toilet and nobody would care. It holds no water unless unless the US responds by declaring war back or some form of policing action. Or first actually deciding to recognize them as an entity. Simply put Osama declaring war on US != US at war with Osama.
Yes, but we did respond. We responded by first trying to kill him with missiles, and then invading the country he was residing in, declaring we would deny him a safe haven anywhere, and declaring our intent to capture or kill him.
Saying (declaring) what we'll do and then trying to do it is not a declaration of war.
Congressional-approved invasion was a congressional approved policing action. President has the ability to move troops into a territory/country for about 30 days of which congress decides if they wish to declare war, fund the action or not fund. Congress has continued to fund actions in the middle east. Funding troop actions without declaration of war does not equate to war. It is only a war if congress makes a declaration of war.
Veitnam was a policing action. So is the stuff in the middle east now. People just use war for one of two reasons. Either they don't know better or it is because war is a bit shorter than policing action.
Dude, an invasion is a not a policing action. The aftermath may be, but we entered the country with hostile intent to topple the existing government and capture or kill terrorists. It was a war in every way that mattered. Quibble over technicalities and word choices all you want, but a war by any other name is still a war. Tell me what changed by us not declaring war? What rules are different because of that fact? We still shoot at people, bomb people, etc. We still abide by the laws of war and followed the same rules of engagement. Even if we say, ok this wasn't a war, just a combat operation, what does that change? It's a meaningless distinction.
Much of the difference is with how resources are allocated within the government and who has control over them. For instance with the current situation congress has a bit of control over the war on terror especially with funds going to the military. With a declaration of war the congress has given their support to the President to do as he wishes to get the job done (most especially monetarily). The president can order for people to be killed as well as generals can without any declaration from anybody. That doesn't mean that such an act is equal to war. There are tons of things that make up what is defined as say a policing action or a war.
I don't know of all the detailed differences of each and whatnot but there is a difference. Just be aware that there is a difference because many seem not to be.
(I'm not sure but i think there might be slightly different rules of engagement between a war and a military action. Mainly differences being that with a war you're fighting against military combatants of recognized sovereign nations where with a military action such might not be so.)
And an entity/person declaring war on the US means nothing. I could declare war on the US while sitting on the toilet and nobody would care. It holds no water unless unless the US responds by declaring war back or some form of policing action. Or first actually deciding to recognize them as an entity. Simply put Osama declaring war on US != US at war with Osama.
Never heard of the war on terror have you? Not familiar with all the policing actions we have taken on terrorist strongholds and locations since the war on terror started? Can't remember all the bombings of houses and hideouts of suspected terrorists, even outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?
War on terror is not a war. There was no declaration of war given by congress. Call it a war if you wish but it isn't technically a war.
Veitnam was a policing action. So is the stuff in the middle east now. People just use war for one of two reasons. Either they don't know better or it is because war is a bit shorter than policing action.
So is the "war" on terror. If we can arrest people in Iraq and Aghanistan, we can arrest terrorists anywhere.
yes as i said the stuff in the middle east is also a policing action.
If we add in the number of Americans killed abroad by terrorists over the last 35 years, we drop to being only 370 or so times more likely to be killed by a car accident. Terrorists are nothing to fear.
I'm really starting to adore these shifting goal posts and misuse of statistics.
Suffice to say that the risk is real, and for those that would be responsible for the decision the risk is real and big enough to err on the side of caution. You can find that acceptable or not on your own whims.
Call it a war if you wish but it isn't technically a war.
Call it a "policing action" if you wish, but it's still effectively a war.
Your statement is wrong for a number of reasons. If there was no fear of terrorism, which causes us to take precautions against it, those numbers would actually be a lot higher. Irrational fear is bad and causes people to be stupid. Reasonable fear causes people to take precautions and make themselves safer. Besides, if you are the unlucky bastard that dies due to terrorism, it doesn't really matter how unlikely you were to get killed from that attack, you're still dead. Statistics are meaningless when you are the statistic. And you don't have to die. How about you just get injured or crippled? Thousands of bombs are found in the US in a single year. Most of them don't hurt anyone because people fear them and react appropriately.
First, you don't need to fear them to take reasonable precautions. Current airport excesses are not reasonable.
Second, yes, if you are the extremely unlikely victim you won't be happy, but that still doesn't mean that you should fear becoming that extremely unlikely victim. Also, I don't include maimings because I don't have the statistics for car crash maimings. However, I assure you that if we include those, the number will shoot well past 370 times more likely to be maimed in a car crash.
If we add in the number of Americans killed abroad by terrorists over the last 35 years, we drop to being only 370 or so times more likely to be killed by a car accident. Terrorists are nothing to fear.
I'm really starting to adore these shifting goal posts and misuse of statistics.
Suffice to say that the risk is real, and for those that would be responsible for the decision the risk is real and big enough to err on the side of caution. You can find that acceptable or not on your own whims.
:ROFL: You really think I should fear people 370 times more incompetent at killing me than my own car? Yes, it is a real risk. A real SMALL risk.
New Drink: The Osama Bin Laden. Two shots and a splash of water.
I lol'd.
Bartender, set me up!
:ROFL: You really think I should fear people 370 times more incompetent at killing me than my own car? Yes, it is a real risk. A real SMALL risk.
No, I think you're a selfish idiot who can't or won't grasp that you're not the only one that would suffer an increased risk. Americans in the middle-east, today, are not 370 times more likely to be killed in a car accident then a terrorist. And their chance, their risk, is what will go up.
But hey, you only care about risk to people on American soil. Way to support the troops dude.
:ROFL: You really think I should fear people 370 times more incompetent at killing me than my own car? Yes, it is a real risk. A real SMALL risk.
No, I think you're a selfish idiot who can't or won't grasp that you're not the only one that would suffer an increased risk. Americans in the middle-east, today, are not 370 times more likely to be killed in a car accident then a terrorist. And their chance, their risk, is what will go up.
But hey, you only care about risk to people on American soil. Way to support the troops dude.
I support the troops completely and we should pull them out of the Middle East asap. That said, comparing military targets and chances to civilian targets and chances is comparing apples to oranges.
You also might want to step back and take a deep breath. If you're so bent out of shape that you are insulting people, you need a break from the thread.
:ROFL: You really think I should fear people 370 times more incompetent at killing me than my own car? Yes, it is a real risk. A real SMALL risk.
No, I think you're a selfish idiot who can't or won't grasp that you're not the only one that would suffer an increased risk. Americans in the middle-east, today, are not 370 times more likely to be killed in a car accident then a terrorist. And their chance, their risk, is what will go up.
But hey, you only care about risk to people on American soil. Way to support the troops dude.
I support the troops completely and we should pull them out of the Middle East asap. That said, comparing military targets and chances to civilian targets and chances is comparing apples to oranges.
You also might want to step back and take a deep breath. If you're so bent out of shape that you are insulting people, you need a break from the thread.
I think you missed the point. The risk to American lives will increase. If those lives are military or civilian doesn't matter. They are American lives.
:ROFL: You really think I should fear people 370 times more incompetent at killing me than my own car? Yes, it is a real risk. A real SMALL risk.
No, I think you're a selfish idiot who can't or won't grasp that you're not the only one that would suffer an increased risk. Americans in the middle-east, today, are not 370 times more likely to be killed in a car accident then a terrorist. And their chance, their risk, is what will go up.
But hey, you only care about risk to people on American soil. Way to support the troops dude.
I support the troops completely and we should pull them out of the Middle East asap. That said, comparing military targets and chances to civilian targets and chances is comparing apples to oranges.
You also might want to step back and take a deep breath. If you're so bent out of shape that you are insulting people, you need a break from the thread.
I think you missed the point. The risk to American lives will increase. If those lives are military or civilian doesn't matter. They are American lives.
Americans give their lives for freedom. I don't see why we should have to live as slaves to the insanity of others just to avoid some risk. If we are forced to remove freedoms from ourselves based on the actions of others......those others have won. I refuse to let them win, even if it means more risk to me. Any American who will bow his head and accept the loss of freedom and expects others to bow their heads, doesn't deserve to be called an American.
I support the troops completely and we should pull them out of the Middle East asap.
And I would like to juxtapose this with your stated not caring about people that aren't on American soil as well as your disregard for a very likely increase in risk of those soldier's lives.
You also might want to step back and take a deep breath. If you're so bent out of shape that you are insulting people, you need a break from the thread.
I don't have to be bent out of shape to call a selfish idiot out for what he is.
I don't have to be bent out of shape to call a selfish idiot out for what he is.
Since you've gone the route of a child and are hurling insults, I'll join you briefly. It takes one to know one
Grow up.You are an idiot because you can't seem to grasp how wanting to take an unnessary and unproductive action that will put the troops in greater danger is at conflict with supporting the troop.
So I wouldn't consider that I'm insulting you, I would say I am laying the facts bare.
Now lets hear it. If I'm a selfish idiot, what have I said or done to establish myself as one?
You only consider the risk to yourself to be legitimate risk. Sounds pretty much like textbook selfish to me.
You are an idiot because you can't seem to grasp how wanting to take an unnessary and unproductive action that will put the troops in greater danger is at conflict with supporting the troop.
So I wouldn't consider that I'm insulting you, I would say I am laying the facts bare.
Now lets hear it. If I'm a selfish idiot, what have I said or done to establish myself as one?
Elitist Prick is generally caries great conotation of selfishness. Also, you won't be my neighbor 'cause you don't think the area I live in is good for you. Selfish.
And to be fair I'm not convinced that Florida is good for anyone.
It is time someone says: nb4lock!
Nah. I'm done playing with the children
Now recently I realized that I said some pretty classless things in this thread. I could try to justify it with a claim of "it was just an excited utterance" but that wouldn't work when I repeatedly continued to say similar things.
I'm not saying that I'm not happy with OBL's death. I'm thrilled actually, but still, I actually cheered his death in this thread. Of course, I'm entitled to that but other people are also entitled to call it out.
In another thread, I inadvertantly called myself out on it. I kinda knew I was being classless when I cheered but didn't care. I think I should have. I made myself look pretty small. That's not the person that I want to be thought of as even if it is the person I am.
Basically, what I'm saying is Free Speech is damn good thing but we have to remember that the things we say have consequences, some far reaching and others go no further than a single message board.
I learned a valuable lesson today. I hope these athlete's have learned one to. You may have Free Speech but it's still a good idea to watch what you say if you don't want to look like an Grade A A-hole.
Yup. Many people don't seem to understand that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences of that speech." Keep saying stuff that makes you sound like a grade-A douchebag, people will start calling you a grade-A douchebag.
Not anybody particularly this thread.
Such is the risk you run when you become a celebrity and are forced to give a rat's ass about what people think about you.
You know, I wish I could be like that. Not caring what people think of me, I mean. Something, though, was drilled into my head when I was a kid. Everything I do, reflects on my parents (well mainly my Mom, but yeah parents).
Now I realize that some people become a totally different person behind the anonimity of the internet than they are IRL. I could never get the hang of that. With me, the guy you see here is pretty much the guy I am.
Whenever I do something stupid, I think of my Mom (may she rest in peace) and what she would think if she was watching me.
Anyway, I probably care too much but it's something that makes me who I am. Now if only I could stop doing things that embarass me and probably Mom too. LOL
And I think they know that and approve. (And if they didn't... well... you can probably figure it out
)I'll definately try to raise my kid the same way. Be who you want to be, not who someone else wants you to be.
I'd rather have my parents look at me, and see me, rather then seeing who the world wants me to be.
And I think they know that and approve. (And if they didn't... well... you can probably figure it out )
I'll definately try to raise my kid the same way. Be who you want to be, not who someone else wants you to be.
Pretty cool notion until your kid decides what they really wanna be is a mass murderer or the greatest criminal in the world, or worse an attorney. (I'm kidding, but I'm kinda not)
If that requires me to turn him into the police... well that would suck. But hey; that's life. I certainly hope my kid is smart enough to not turn out like that. You'd need either a really crappy youth/education or a severe mental illness to think that being a criminal or murderer is the greatest thing in the world.
I realize there are alot of ways to reach that goal. I'm not saying everything my Mom did was the best for me. Hell, compared to my brother, I turned out pretty bad. She made her mistakes with me and corrected them with him, not that she did a terrible job raising me but there was a difference.
Maybe it's the times I was raised in, I don't know. It could have been the environment she was raised in. Maybe it's a class thing. All I know, is my parents wanted me to be better than they were, which isn't a bad goal, I don't think. I think part of the problem is the bar was set kind of low in a societal kind of way. There isn't a hell of a lot I could do worse, still speaking in a societal kind of way.
And I'd feel even worse if I knew he did it for me, or because of me.
But how can you be proud if you raised a fake? Even if my kid became a wealthy stock broker with millions of dollars and a hot wife I'd feel like a failure if he spent every day regretting that he didn't travel the world like he always dreamed of doing and got that job as a travel agent instead.
And I'd feel even worse if I knew he did it for me, or because of me.
Of course, but I'm not fake (not that I think you meant to imply that I am, I just wanted to point that out). The regrets I have, are entirely my own fault, not my parents. Of course, I had some disadvantages from the start but that's not really what we're talking about, sorry about that.
I'm basically saying that my parents dream for me was for me to do whatever I wanted to but at the same time they would feel a sense of accomplishment when I reached whatever goals I set for myself. Unfortunately, my goals were kind of low. I didn't dream of traveling the world or getting world class education.
What I wanted, was a good blue collar, a wife, and kids and roof over my head. Now I know, that's kind of sad, but I figured "Hey if it's good enough my parents, then it's good enough me." I mean that in the sense that I didn't want to be extraordinary. I just wanted to be normal Joe Schmoe, the working class guy that had what he needed, some of his wants, and anything else was just icing.
Regrets are a part of life, but I feel that parents should support their kids to become what they want to be, and that other people should as well.
If someone doesn't want to set their goals high, don't make them. Ultimately, people just want to be happy.
Now, hold on, I'm not throwing myself any kind of pity party. I'm a pretty happy guy. I love my wife. I've got some pretty awesome nieces and nephews that love me and I hope that I can have some sort of influence over what kind of adults they turn into.
My life is pretty damn good. It might have been better if I had set my goals just a little bit higher but it is what it is.
It's kind of a mid-life crisis sort of thing. I look at myself compared to some of the folks on this board, college students just getting ready to reach for their dreams, Moms and Dads that seem like the sort of parents that a kid would love to have, a Canadian Revolutionary who has strong views and isn't afraid to share them, Highschool kids that have more creativity and self confidence than I ever had, etc etc, and I just wonder "Dude, what the hell is wrong with you? You could have been great and you settled for mediocrity."
)I did it a few years ago. It feels great to participate. And it's also awesome to have a book on your shelves with your name on it. (A friend of mine actually printed the story and then made it into a real book, awesome birthday gift
)It's been really nice talking with you without me jumping off the handle or us calling each other idiots.
See ya later.
So apparently we're playing around with a new copter or new variant.
It would make sense, given how long it took Paksitan to Respond to us sending in the troops. Of course, you could also assume that Pakistan took a look in the direction the copters were coming from decided they had to be American, and Intercepting the 'copters would probably be a royally Bad Idea.
I read somewhere that we used some sort of something to avoid or defeat the Pakistani radar in order to get in without having to kill Pakistanis on the way out. This chopper may have been part of it. The disappointing thing to me is that it's obviously not the Comanche. That project was officially scrapped but I had hoped they'd make a few.
Also it appears Pakistan and China have ripped off the F-16
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder
But how can you be proud if you raised a fake? Even if my kid became a wealthy stock broker with millions of dollars and a hot wife I'd feel like a failure if he spent every day regretting that he didn't travel the world like he always dreamed of doing and got that job as a travel agent instead.
And I'd feel even worse if I knew he did it for me, or because of me.
Of course, but I'm not fake (not that I think you meant to imply that I am, I just wanted to point that out). The regrets I have, are entirely my own fault, not my parents. Of course, I had some disadvantages from the start but that's not really what we're talking about, sorry about that.
I'm basically saying that my parents dream for me was for me to do whatever I wanted to but at the same time they would feel a sense of accomplishment when I reached whatever goals I set for myself. Unfortunately, my goals were kind of low. I didn't dream of traveling the world or getting world class education.
What I wanted, was a good blue collar, a wife, and kids and roof over my head. Now I know, that's kind of sad, but I figured "Hey if it's good enough my parents, then it's good enough me." I mean that in the sense that I didn't want to be extraordinary. I just wanted to be normal Joe Schmoe, the working class guy that had what he needed, some of his wants, and anything else was just icing.
I'm with Pluisjen on this one. I want my daughter to be happy doing whatever it is with her life that she wants to do. As a parent, it is my responsibility to to teach her what she needs to succeed in life, but not to send her down a path that I choose for her. I just need to give her the tools to be able to do whatever it is that she wants. If she decides to become a doctor and she's happy doing that, I will be thrilled. If she decides to be a checker at a local grocery store and she's happy doing that, i will be thrilled.
I at least hope you can understand their rejoice when they kill one of yours, considering you rejoice when you kill one of them.
It is entirely legitimate to rejoice in the death of an evil murderer, even if it is perhaps in poor taste.
Rejoicing in the death of innocent people, like the people who died in 9/11, on the other hand, is sick and perverted.
So there is nothing to understand.
We are not at war with Islam. We have nothing against people for eating Halal meats, for making the pilgrimage to Mecca, for attending services at the mosque on Friday mornings.
But people who are bigoted against non-Muslims - they are people who have chosen to be at war with us.
The problem is not with jihad, as such. Of course Muslims may fight, like anyone else, to defend themselves against persecution.
But when Muslims persecute other people, for example, by denying them equal recourse to the law when they are the victims of violence by professing Muslims, by restricting their ability to practice their faith and so on, and those other people they persecute decide that enough is enough - then raising their hands in violence against those people is not self-defence against persecution.
Look at Hamas' statement about Osama's death - how it deplored the shedding of "Muslim blood". So what matters isn't the shedding of the innocent blood of thousands of people on 9/11, versus the death of a mass-murderer who resisted being brought to justice? All that matters is that he was a Muslim?
Of course, before 9/11, although there were reports of mob violence against Christians in Indonesia or Nigeria by Muslims, or inequality suffered by Christians in Egypt, the world might have expressed regret, but even after the end of the Cold War, it was not expected that any Third World country with a human rights violation would be invaded and placed under colonial rule as a consequence. This is for a number of reasons.
Alleged human rights violations have been used as a pretext for acts of aggression - Hitler and the Sudeten Germans... or Medvedev and South Ossetia.
The United States gradually overcame slavery and segregation. The general American consensus is that it would have been ineffective or inappropriate to have kept the South under strict martial law until such time as black people there enjoyed 100% equality (as in, by 1895, the proportion, per capita, of black people who were doctors and lawyers would be within 0.1% of the proportion, per capita, of white people who were doctors and lawyers or we would know the reason why - hey, that's 30 years later, enough for a new generation to go through college - so we could only count the younger age bracket within these professions).
But now that 9/11 has happened, since it does seem to me that the root cause of terorism - and the conflict with Israel as well - is that Islamists are bigoted against non-Muslims and thus are unwilling to deal with them on the basis of equality and reciprocity, then it seems difficult to me to see how we can tolerate the continued widespread presence of the root psychology that is the basis of terrorism.
Even though I also can't see anything acceptable that we can do about it.
www.nanowrimo.org/
I did it a few years ago. It feels great to participate. And it's also awesome to have a book on your shelves with your name on it. (A friend of mine actually printed the story and then made it into a real book, awesome birthday gift )
Wow! That's awesome!
You can see a pic of part of the chopper in that Reuters photo article thing. Just don't click to see too many more if you're not comfortable with gore an' stuff.
I read somewhere that we used some sort of something to avoid or defeat the Pakistani radar in order to get in without having to kill Pakistanis on the way out. This chopper may have been part of it. The disappointing thing to me is that it's obviously not the Comanche. That project was officially scrapped but I had hoped they'd make a few.
Ooh! I saw this on X-Files. We made them with stolen alien technology. Well, not really, but we were due for another conspiricy theory.
The photos really aren't that good, and they do hang White Phosphorus inside of every entrance, just for this very practice of destroying downed equipment (to prevent the enemy from using it later) couple that with charges that seals carry as it is, and I'm pretty sure we'd get alot of heat distortion.
The pics on Reuters aren't that bad quality wise. It's obviously a section of chopper and the section itself isn't terribly damaged. Surface contours are readily visible as is the tail rotor configuration. Seriously check it out. It's pretty cool. Just remember not to look at too many pics if ya don't wanna see dead guys. Luckily the chopper pics are the first two.
Ooh! I saw this on X-Files. We made them with stolen alien technology. Well, not really, but we were due for another conspiricy theory.
How ... how did you hear about that? Umm ... you should probably expect a knock at your door in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...
Rejoicing in the death of innocent people, like the people who died in 9/11, on the other hand, is sick and perverted.
So there is nothing to understand.
Apparently not for you, so I'll try to explain it. Rejoicing in the death of another is a sick and twisted act, no matter what that person is done. That act is VERY different from understanding that a person deserved to die, that he needed die, and even being happy or relieved that he was finally killed. When you rejoice in the death of another, you lose part of what it is about you that is "human"
But people who are bigoted against non-Muslims - they are people who have chosen to be at war with us.
Actually, the vast majority of those "biggots" are not at war with us. Biggotry does not make someone a muslim extremist.
But when Muslims persecute other people, for example, by denying them equal recourse to the law when they are the victims of violence by professing Muslims, by restricting their ability to practice their faith and so on, and those other people they persecute decide that enough is enough - then raising their hands in violence against those people is not self-defence against persecution.
Nobody has said that we should not fight back against those trying to kill us. Fighting back and killing them is far, far, FAR different from rejoicing in the death of another.
Look at Hamas' statement about Osama's death - how it deplored the shedding of "Muslim blood". So what matters isn't the shedding of the innocent blood of thousands of people on 9/11, versus the death of a mass-murderer who resisted being brought to justice? All that matters is that he was a Muslim?
So what. We know that terror groups don't care about us and want us dead. What should we do about it. Fight back and kill them before they kill us is what we should do. That however does not make it right to rejoice in their deaths. When we do that, we become no better than those that rejoiced in the deaths of Americans. Lowering ourselves to the level of others is not what America is about. Even though we sometimes fail, we are supposed set the example.
Done on a bun.
Did you happen to look at the other pics? Just wondering if thought the same (execution maybe) if ya happened to check those out, too. If ya didn't, don't worry about it. It's cool.
Executions tend to be between the eyes, or on the forehead as well, from a fairly fixed distance, so you wouldn't have quite the variation in entry wounds.
Unless of course the guy doing the shooting was a very very bad shot. (happened before they got into the rooms perhaps?)
I don't think it was an execution. Some of them looked low entry high exit wounds, others looked like straight in and outs. There's a little too much variation for me to think it was a full on execution. Given the close proximity of close corridor fighting like the inside of a complex it's entirely possible that they were simply head shot.
Executions tend to be between the eyes, or on the forehead as well, from a fairly fixed distance, so you wouldn't have quite the variation in entry wounds.
Unless of course the guy doing the shooting was a very very bad shot. (happened before they got into the rooms perhaps?)
Looked like back of the head stuff to me, but I dunno. I mean, it looks suspect but we also have the SEALs simply cuffing other folk and leaving them to the Pakistani authorities so it doesn't make sense in that light. Meh, we won't find out in our lifetimes, that's for sure.
]
I think it'll come out in our life times pretty easy, look how much we've learned about ww2 and it's been within a human life time
Thousands of bombs?
Yep. Thousands. That's not new, either, a report in 1971 mentioned that bomb squads had responded to 5200 legit devices (and in the range 50,000-75,000 suspect devices that turned out to be nothing), and the numbers were steadily increasing. Now for bombs, let me be clear that I was using the more common, looser definition of pretty much any explosive device, not the military definition of a type of air-dropped ordnance.
War on terror is not a war. There was no declaration of war given by congress. Call it a war if you wish but it isn't technically a war.
You're still just nitpicking terminology. Nothing changes whether you call it a war or a contingency operation or a military action (yes I caught what you mentioned about funding and congressional influence, but again, that doesn't mean anything to the troops on the ground). It was a military action in a designated combat zone. Call it what you will, but operations were conducted the same way is if war had been declared, rules of engagement didn't change, granted technically we didn't have to abide by the rules of land warfare (we still did of course), but even had we declared war we still wouldn't have to since our enemy was not abiding by the convention. I don't get why you're so hung up over using the term "war" to describe this the current overseas operations.
I think the shots were from the front. Even a 5.62 makes a 'big ole hole' coming out of a skull.
]
I think it'll come out in our life times pretty easy, look how much we've learned about ww2 and it's been within a human life time
I'm thinkin' more suppressed 9mm truth be told. But yeah, theres plenty of stuff sayin' it didn't go down that way. I wonder if we will ever know, though. I mean, I understand some things are declassified and disseminated but it doesn't all come out at once if at all. I'm fairly certain some WWI stuff was only recently released, for example. So there's a fair chance we won't ever hear what actually went down.
Thousands of bombs?
Yep. Thousands. That's not new, either, a report in 1971 mentioned that bomb squads had responded to 5200 legit devices (and in the range 50,000-75,000 suspect devices that turned out to be nothing), and the numbers were steadily increasing. Now for bombs, let me be clear that I was using the more common, looser definition of pretty much any explosive device, not the military definition of a type of air-dropped ordnance.
And I'm sure that the vast majority of them are cherry bombs and pipe bombs used by gang members, not terrorists plotting to blow things up.
Thousands of bombs?
Yep. Thousands. That's not new, either, a report in 1971 mentioned that bomb squads had responded to 5200 legit devices (and in the range 50,000-75,000 suspect devices that turned out to be nothing), and the numbers were steadily increasing. Now for bombs, let me be clear that I was using the more common, looser definition of pretty much any explosive device, not the military definition of a type of air-dropped ordnance.
And I'm sure that the vast majority of them are cherry bombs and pipe bombs used by gang members, not terrorists plotting to blow things up.
So pipe bombs aren't dangerous? And gang members can't commit acts of terrorism? Call me crazy, but generally if you plant a bomb, you are plotting to blow things up. What world are you living in?
I'm thinking they won't really have to explain it. American journalists are pretty complaisant with this news and so is the American public.
I mean the journalists talks about advance interogation technics instead of torture.
Where do you think I'm getting this news from? American news, that's where. And they're getting the clarified info from Washington. I mean, they are explaining stuff.
The 'advanced interrogation' was actually proper reporting. That came from quotations from the man in charge at the time the torture was carried out. As that's the way he said it, that's the way it should be reported. If you read the stuff, you'll see people from one side calling it advanced interrogation and people from the other side calling it torture. It's reported, as is proper, the way the parties each say it.
No matter how you spin it, it is torture. And CNN is calling advante interogation technics and so are other news networks. The yare complaisant with torture because it is their government who is doing it.
They are asking questions, but this won't go very far. This story will be buried fast.
Like I said, they're reporting it as it was said - which is the proper way to do it. If the guy you're talking about calls it 'advanced interrogation' and you call it 'torture' because that's what it is, you're putting your spin on someone else's words and that is what's wrong. The news talks about it because this one loudmouth won't shut up about how back when he was in charge they tortured these guys and got some info - even though the administration has (no doubt properly) come out and said that any information they got then would have played a small role considering how much more information they've gotten since then. Is waterboarding torture? Yes. Did they waterboard one of these men? Yes. Is 'torture' the word the man they've been talking to uses? Nope. So they shouldn't call it torture even if it was because the man who's words they're using doesn't use that word.
Talking about it as an individual and calling it torture is just fine. Using the word 'torture' to talk about what someone else said when they never said that is not fine. The news, in this case, is acting properly.
By the way, the official way it's referred to is 'advanced interrogation' so, if they refer to it in an official capacity, that's also the proper way to do it. You don't get to change words to add something to the story. You have to use what words are used in order to be accurate.
Basically, it's the difference between what's news and what's opinion. The news is we used enhanced interrogation. The opinion is enhanced interrogation is torture and vice versa.
Edit:
My opinion is yes, enhanced interogation is torture.
Now that that is out of the way, I take exception with the opinion that the American public is too stupid to realize that enhanced interogation is torture. I'm pretty sure the people that agree with enhanced interogation aren't in agreement with it because of the wording.
Now I don't know the reasons why people would agree with it. I'm sure that they realize, since has been widely reported since it came to light, that it doesn't work.
What I think is we are an angry lot. 3000 of our citizens were killed on 9-11. A lot of us agree that whatever happens to those responsible is well deserved.
Our opinions don't change. When a rapist or **** is caught and jailed, a lot of us secretly or openly wish that that person is subjected to the same horrors that they inflicted on others.
Anyway, the notion that America is some shining example to the rest of the world is bumpkis. The reality is, our citizens are just as scared or petty as anyone else in the world yet we try to be better than that because it is what is expected by the rest of the world.
It's funny. The rest of the world says, "You know, those Americans are a backwards lot," but when something goes wrong the go "Don't worry, America will fix it."
I think he means planting a bomb is not necessarely an act of terror and certainly not automatically a political act.
Depends on your definition of terrorism. As far as I know, pretty much anyone planting an IED can be charged with terrorism, even in cases when politics is not a factor. Unfortunately, there is no one standard definition, not from our own government, and not from the UN Counterterrorism Committee (there was concern that any definition might offend certain member nations of the UN), so if the FBI classifies them all as acts of terrorism, it's hard to say otherwise.
Torture is the correct term. By using advance interrogation technics, they are misleading the viewers.If the government created a new taxe and called it revenue adjustement, you'd be mad if news outlet didn't call it a taxe. This is the same thing, except you accept torture.
Incorrect. The correct term is the term that's used. Accepting that also in no way means that those that accept that as the correct term also accept torture. You're reaching. Again.
____________________
For those interested, an official Pakistani account of the event in question.
The point Mark is trying to make is that "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for "torture", created by the government to make the whole thing more palatable to the American public. The fact many here do not object to it illustrates how well it worked.
Not arguing against that Boraxe, but they tried to do the same with "waterboarding" and "simulated drowning". Also the term came about because there are disagreements between what constitutes torture and what doesn't. Everyone almost universally agrees that waterboarding is torture. Whether sleep deprivation and uncomfortable positioning (sorry don't know the technical wording for that one but it is most definately more than "uncomfortable") is a little greyer.
I will agree though the wording does sound better than torture.
The point Mark is trying to make is that "enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for "torture", created by the government to make the whole thing more palatable to the American public. The fact many here do not object to it illustrates how well it worked.
Right, it's a euphemism. That in no way shape or form means those that accept the term 'enhanced interrogation' also accept the action of torture.
I really can't understand why the difference between accepting the use of a term and accepting the action the term implies is so hard for some here to comprehend.
Unless you are wearing a tin foil hat, you'd be surprised.
So you understand what's going on in my mind better that I do, eh? Considering you're not even properly understanding what I'm saying right now, you'll forgive me if I laugh at that notion.
There's more to this than just a euphemism as well. 'Enhanced interrogation' is a term that encompasses more actions than waterboarding. Do you feel sleep deprivation is torture? If not, you don't object to a form of 'enhanced interrogation'. That's an incredibly important distinction in this conversation because while both sources interrogated were subjected to 'enhanced interrogation', only one was waterboarded. But hey, it's easier to dismiss an argument by makin' stuff up so we can just ignore this and go right back to the 'you think torture is ok!' BS if ya'all would like.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]
As posters now are arguing what is/n't torture, who here knows the legal definition? It an important part of the argument for both sides and is frequently ignored.
Well much like other things, there isn't always a clear definition. The Geneva Convention lists some specific acts that POWs cannot be subjected to, to include the following:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.
That would make any "enhanced interrogation" illegal. However, these rules apply to lawful combatants. As insurgents are considered unlawful combatants, they don't get the special POW protections and can be tried and punished according to the laws of the country they are being held by. They must still receive a trial before being punished or executed and cannot be tortured, but torture itself isn't clearly defined within that convention.
EDIT: Nevermind, Plu found it in a different convention.
As posters now are arguing what is/n't torture, who here knows the legal definition? It an important part of the argument for both sides and is frequently ignored.
Well much like other things, there isn't always a clear definition.
Yes, that is a problem, but in arguments like this both sides tend to skip over the necessary step of defining it and each side yells what the feel is torture. So it ends up a "Not" "To" type of argument.
So the question based on the UN defintion morphs to, does enhanced integration cause "severe pain or suffering"?
That requires the answering of the question of what amounts to severe pain/suffering?
On a related note, did anyone notice the similarity between Al Qaeda and Cobra from the 80's revival of the GI Joe franchise by Hasbro? A terrorist organization that spans the globe, but isn't part of one particular country? Sound familiar? Just a thought...
Torture is torture, no matter what sterile term they use to describe it. "Terminate with extreme prejudice" means "shoot him 'til he stops twitching and then once more to make sure". It's all sugarcoating.
But it's only torture if it meets the definition of torture. And without a solid definition of what constitutes torture, then how do you decide if it is actually torture or interrogation?
On a related note, did anyone notice the similarity between Al Qaeda and Cobra from the 80's revival of the GI Joe franchise by Hasbro? A terrorist organization that spans the globe, but isn't part of one particular country? Sound familiar? Just a thought...
Yeah, I recently watched some old GI Joe episodes and noticed that. I never really payed attention to that part as a kid. I always assumed they were some generic army that was supposed to represent the Soviets. One has to wonder how a terrorist organization without a country manages to have ships, fighter jets, and lasers guns.
Torture is torture, no matter what sterile term they use to describe it. "Terminate with extreme prejudice" means "shoot him 'til he stops twitching and then once more to make sure". It's all sugarcoating.
That's a Tautological and as thus not really useful, short of pointing out that someone is using a Distinction Without A Difference.
Anyway, heres something on torture and US law.
Link
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
However, as time went on and I watched it when I got older, I realized it's more like a horrifying gestalt of Soviets with Terrorist Organizations.
It is time someone says: nb4lock!
Nah. I'm done playing with the children
Aww! You'll make us sad! Children need attention!
Rejoicing in the death of innocent people, like the people who died in 9/11, on the other hand, is sick and perverted.
So there is nothing to understand.
Apparently not for you, so I'll try to explain it. Rejoicing in the death of another is a sick and twisted act, no matter what that person is done. That act is VERY different from understanding that a person deserved to die, that he needed die, and even being happy or relieved that he was finally killed. When you rejoice in the death of another, you lose part of what it is about you that is "human"
See, now, it is things like this that really make me doubt my humanity. Have I ever rejoiced in the death of another human? No. Because, well, I just don't care. So what? One more dead person? Whatever, there are plenty more where that ****ing came from. Mass murder? Well, now I care even less. If I cannot be bothered to care when someone innocent dies, why should I care about the brutal death of someone who blatantly deserved it. I see no intrinsic value in human life. You are all over rated, and I am drunk.
Being drunk does bad things to your humanity.
Or mabey it just does good things to my honesty. :P
So pipe bombs aren't dangerous? And gang members can't commit acts of terrorism? Call me crazy, but generally if you plant a bomb, you are plotting to blow things up. What world are you living in?
I suppose gang members can commit acts of terrorism, but simply using a bomb does not make an act an act of terrorism. If the goal is to kill someone, not inspire terror, then it wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm sick of this county calling crimes something that they are not in order to gain favor with voters. Too often someone is accused of "terrorism" when the goal of the crime is NOT to commit terror.
It's like the whole "hate crimes" BS. If I dismember you, cut off your private parts and shove them in your mouth and then **** your corpse because you have brown hair, it's somehow less heinous than if I did it because you were black or gay. Both crimes are equally heinous. In all cases, I did the horrible act because of some part of you that I didn't like.
I think he means planting a bomb is not necessarely an act of terror and certainly not automatically a political act.
Depends on your definition of terrorism. As far as I know, pretty much anyone planting an IED can be charged with terrorism, even in cases when politics is not a factor. Unfortunately, there is no one standard definition, not from our own government, and not from the UN Counterterrorism Committee (there was concern that any definition might offend certain member nations of the UN), so if the FBI classifies them all as acts of terrorism, it's hard to say otherwise.
Not really. It's really rather easy to see from examining the life of the individual known to be responsible and the type of target chosen, whether the act was intended to terrrorize the people or just intented to kill someone. Simply being charged with a terror act does not make that act an act of terrorism.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (an advisory measure of the UN General Assembly) is:
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. --UN Convention Against Torture[1]
So pipe bombs aren't dangerous? And gang members can't commit acts of terrorism? Call me crazy, but generally if you plant a bomb, you are plotting to blow things up. What world are you living in?
I suppose gang members can commit acts of terrorism, but simply using a bomb does not make an act an act of terrorism. If the goal is to kill someone, not inspire terror, then it wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm sick of this county calling crimes something that they are not in order to gain favor with voters. Too often someone is accused of "terrorism" when the goal of the crime is NOT to commit terror.
It's like the whole "hate crimes" BS. If I dismember you, cut off your private parts and shove them in your mouth and then **** your corpse because you have brown hair, it's somehow less heinous than if I did it because you were black or gay. Both crimes are equally heinous. In all cases, I did the horrible act because of some part of you that I didn't like.
So what you are saying is that you hate men's genitals and because of that hate you commited this horrific crime? Isn't that a hate crime against men? You sexist jerk.
So pipe bombs aren't dangerous? And gang members can't commit acts of terrorism? Call me crazy, but generally if you plant a bomb, you are plotting to blow things up. What world are you living in?
I suppose gang members can commit acts of terrorism, but simply using a bomb does not make an act an act of terrorism. If the goal is to kill someone, not inspire terror, then it wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm sick of this county calling crimes something that they are not in order to gain favor with voters. Too often someone is accused of "terrorism" when the goal of the crime is NOT to commit terror.
It's like the whole "hate crimes" BS. If I dismember you, cut off your private parts and shove them in your mouth and then **** your corpse because you have brown hair, it's somehow less heinous than if I did it because you were black or gay. Both crimes are equally heinous. In all cases, I did the horrible act because of some part of you that I didn't like.
So what you are saying is that you hate men's genitals and because of that hate you commited this horrific crime? Isn't that a hate crime against men? You sexist jerk.
Heh. A crime is a crime and why you kill someone is ultimately irrelevant. The punishment should be the same, regardless of motive.
Well no. Accidents happen, so does self-defense, and there is a difference between planning and just going nuts. Punishment must fit the act.
I ... I agree.
:-p
Well no. Accidents happen, so does self-defense, and there is a difference between planning and just going nuts. Punishment must fit the act.
An accident is not a motive and self-defense is not a crime. ;)
Going nuts is a different crime (2nd degree murder) from one of going out and planning (1st degree murder), so it does not apply to what I said. There is no difference in planning to murder someone because they are a specific race and because they have a specific hair color. Planned murder is planned murder.
Heh. A crime is a crime and why you kill someone is ultimately irrelevant. The punishment should be the same, regardless of motive.
So a soldier who kills a member of an opposing army, a police officer who kills a suspect who is shooting at him/her, a home owner who killed an intruder, a gang member who killed a convinience store clerk to get street cred, a member of the KKK who killed a 7 year old black kid, an escaped convict who killed a guard escaping, and a person who killed someone just to watch them die are all the same? In the end, another person is dead. Are you suggesting that their motivation for killing a person is irrelevant and that they are basically all the same?
So a soldier who kills a member of an opposing army, a police officer who kills a suspect who is shooting at him/her, a home owner who killed an intruder,
Not crimes.
a gang member who killed a convinience store clerk to get street cred, a member of the KKK who killed a 7 year old black kid, an escaped convict who killed a guard escaping, and a person who killed someone just to watch them die are all the same?
Yep. Intentional murder is intentional murder. All of those people should be put behind bars for life or executed.
How about a drunk person who gets into a fight, pulls a gun, and kills someone? Where would that fall?
The results are still the same... someone is dead.
How about a drunk person who gets into a fight, pulls a gun, and kills someone? Where would that fall?
2nd degree murder is where it should fall unless plea bargained down. No different than if the person lost control of himself in another way and shot someone. We as a society have gone overboard in separating these crimes. If lawmakers didn't do it, they wouldn't be doing anything and could not justify their positions. They fear that we might start to think that they were useless (as if we didn't already think that) and get rid of them.
The results are still the same... someone is dead.
How about a drunk person who gets into a fight, pulls a gun, and kills someone? Where would that fall?
2nd degree murder is where it should fall unless plea bargained down. No different than if the person lost control of himself in another way and shot someone. We as a society have gone overboard in separating these crimes. If lawmakers didn't do it, they wouldn't be doing anything and could not justify their positions. They fear that we might start to think that they were useless (as if we didn't already think that) and get rid of them.
What if the drunk guy pulled the gun and intetionally killed someone?
The results are still the same... someone is dead.
How about a drunk person who gets into a fight, pulls a gun, and kills someone? Where would that fall?
2nd degree murder is where it should fall unless plea bargained down. No different than if the person lost control of himself in another way and shot someone. We as a society have gone overboard in separating these crimes. If lawmakers didn't do it, they wouldn't be doing anything and could not justify their positions. They fear that we might start to think that they were useless (as if we didn't already think that) and get rid of them.
What if the drunk guy pulled the gun and intetionally killed someone?
If he was drunk, then he was not in total conrol of himself. Seriously, why are you asking the obvious like that?
If he was drunk, then he was not in total conrol of himself. Seriously, why are you asking the obvious like that?
There are different levels of drunk. You might get drunk and not be able to walk a straight line or aim a gun properly. You might also get drunk enough that you don't remember what you did the night before. two different things. I would guess that in an incident where a person who is "drunk" and kills another person, they would probably get a breathalizer test to see just how drunk they were.
So... care to answer the question?
If he was drunk, then he was not in total conrol of himself. Seriously, why are you asking the obvious like that?
There are different levels of drunk. You might get drunk and not be able to walk a straight line or aim a gun properly. You might also get drunk enough that you don't remember what you did the night before. two different things. I would guess that in an incident where a person who is "drunk" and kills another person, they would probably get a breathalizer test to see just how drunk they were.
So... care to answer the question?
Asked and already answered. ANY amount of drunk is enough to impair you mentally and physically. Impaired = not in total control of yourself. This is why I asked you why you are asking the obvious.
If he was drunk, then he was not in total conrol of himself. Seriously, why are you asking the obvious like that?
There are different levels of drunk. You might get drunk and not be able to walk a straight line or aim a gun properly. You might also get drunk enough that you don't remember what you did the night before. two different things. I would guess that in an incident where a person who is "drunk" and kills another person, they would probably get a breathalizer test to see just how drunk they were.
So... care to answer the question?
Asked and already answered. ANY amount of drunk is enough to impair you mentally and physically. Impaired = not in total control of yourself. This is why I aske you why you are asking the obvious.
So what you are saying is that because the guy couldn't aim properly, he can kill someone and it would not be as bad as if he could aim? Depending on the person and the type of alcohol, one drink can impair your motor skills. Is that all that would be required to avoid first degree murder charges?
So what you are saying is that because the guy couldn't aim properly, he can kill someone and it would not be as bad as if he could aim? Depending on the person and the type of alcohol, one drink can impair your motor skills. Is that all that would be required to avoid first degree murder charges?
His ability to aim is irrelevant. His ability to know what he is doing and form the appropriate level of intent is what matters. Now, you can argue that a person knows prior to drinking that he could lose control of himself and therefore is fully responsible for any crime that he commits while drunk, but that is a determination to be made at trial or through another law.
So what you are saying is that because the guy couldn't aim properly, he can kill someone and it would not be as bad as if he could aim? Depending on the person and the type of alcohol, one drink can impair your motor skills. Is that all that would be required to avoid first degree murder charges?
His ability to aim is irrelevant. His ability to know what he is doing and form the appropriate level of intent is what matters. Now, you can argue that a person knows prior to drinking that he could lose control of himself and therefore is fully responsible for any crime that he commits while drunk, but that is a determination to be made at trial or through another law.
I'd rather argue that having a few drinks doesn't automatically turn you into a walking anmesiac. You don't lose all ability to think rationally1.
___________________________________________________________________________________
1 Yes, drink enough and you might get to that point, but as I said before... there are different levels of drunkeness.
So what you are saying is that because the guy couldn't aim properly, he can kill someone and it would not be as bad as if he could aim? Depending on the person and the type of alcohol, one drink can impair your motor skills. Is that all that would be required to avoid first degree murder charges?
His ability to aim is irrelevant. His ability to know what he is doing and form the appropriate level of intent is what matters. Now, you can argue that a person knows prior to drinking that he could lose control of himself and therefore is fully responsible for any crime that he commits while drunk, but that is a determination to be made at trial or through another law.
I'd rather argue that having a few drinks doesn't automatically turn you into a walking anmesiac. You don't lose all ability to think rationally1.
___________________________________________________________________________________
1 Yes, drink enough and you might get to that point, but as I said before... there are different levels of drunkeness.
You said "drunk", not having a few drinks. Drunk is an impaired state that you hit after you have had too many drinks ;)
You said "drunk", not having a few drinks. Drunk is an impaired state that you hit after you have had too many drinks ;)
Yes, but in what manner a person is impaired is important.
Even when mentally impaired, there is a difference between being able to do a few math problems because you are drunk, and killing a person because you are drunk.
I suppose gang members can commit acts of terrorism, but simply using a bomb does not make an act an act of terrorism. If the goal is to kill someone, not inspire terror, then it wasn't an act of terrorism. I'm sick of this county calling crimes something that they are not in order to gain favor with voters. Too often someone is accused of "terrorism" when the goal of the crime is NOT to commit terror.
On a personal level I agree with you. But again, this all depends on the definition of terrorism that you are using. If a gang or the mob uses a bomb to kill a witness or a rival, that could still be terrorism if the intent is not just to kill them but to scare others in the same boat (now of course that could also be done with a bullet, but bombs are flashy and tend to scare people a lot). It's even been used in domestic disputes where a husband plants a bomb or threatens to plant a bomb to kill his wife. Its certainly arguable that it's not intended to affect a wider audience, but the umbrella of terrorism still gets stretched to cover it.
However, it is also important to note that this doesn't change that IEDs are a reality in the US. It also doesn't change the fact that healthy respect and even a little fear of these helps keep people safer (in contrast to the middle east where people gather in large crowds around a bomb instead or Africa where children play in clearly marked minefields and then wonder why they have so many casualties from mines). It's also important to understand that motivations aside, a bomb is a bomb, so measures that detect or protect from terrorist bombings will also help when the bombing is "only" a murder attempt.
It's like the whole "hate crimes" BS. If I dismember you, cut off your private parts and shove them in your mouth and then **** your corpse because you have brown hair, it's somehow less heinous than if I did it because you were black or gay. Both crimes are equally heinous. In all cases, I did the horrible act because of some part of you that I didn't like.
I agree to a point. I often see the hate crime card pulled any time the victim is different color or sexual orientation, even if the motivation was clearly something different. At the same time, we do make distinctions based on intent all the time.
Drunks who commit a felony should be punished more not less.
I think that they should be punished the same as if they had done it sober. Not more, not less.
However, it is also important to note that this doesn't change that IEDs are a reality in the US. It also doesn't change the fact that healthy respect and even a little fear of these helps keep people safer (in contrast to the middle east where people gather in large crowds around a bomb instead or Africa where children play in clearly marked minefields and then wonder why they have so many casualties from mines). It's also important to understand that motivations aside, a bomb is a bomb, so measures that detect or protect from terrorist bombings will also help when the bombing is "only" a murder attempt.
I think we're just into semantics at this point. I agree with you that a healthy concern or respect is a good thing, but that is different in my mind from fear. A healthy respect gives you a rational perspective on what should or should not be done. Fear causes you to become irrational and you end up with absurd violations like the strip searches and genital fondling at airports. It's a matter of degree and terrorists and terror acts are nothing to fear.
I agree to a point. I often see the hate crime card pulled any time the victim is different color or sexual orientation, even if the motivation was clearly something different. At the same time, we do make distinctions based on intent all the time.
Yeah, I know. We've just gone waaaaay too far to one side and I'm sick of it
Heh. A crime is a crime and why you kill someone is ultimately irrelevant. The punishment should be the same, regardless of motive.
So a soldier who kills a member of an opposing army
Not Murder
a police officer who kills a suspect who is shooting at him/her
Not Murder
a home owner who killed an intruder
Not Murder
a gang member who killed a convinience store clerk to get street cred
Murder, 1st degree
a member of the KKK who killed a 7 year old black kid
Murder, 1st degree (mabey, assuming your arguing in good faith to atleast some extent. You could always come out with "Mabey he just hit 'em with his car on accident!" in which case, clearly, Not Murder)
an escaped convict who killed a guard escaping
Murder (1st/2nd degree?)
and a person who killed someone just to watch them die
Murder, 1st degree
are all the same? In the end, another person is dead. Are you suggesting that their motivation for killing a person is irrelevant and that they are basically all the same?
I'm fairly sure that is not what he is saying, and that you know that. **** man, atleast put some effort into your arguing.
Even when mentally impaired, there is a difference between being able to do a few math problems because you are drunk, and killing a person because you are drunk.
Having a gun in a bar is a felony in some states and thus killing someone with it when you're drunk is a more serious crime. If you're dumb enough to get drunk with a gun on your hip, you deserve the short drop and sudden stop, just to skim the gene pool a bit.
I'm fairly sure that is not what he is saying, and that you know that. **** man, atleast put some effort into your arguing.
He was talking about diferrentiating murder1 and muders classified as hate crimes. I don't see a problem with differentiating them. You have demonstrated how we already classify murder into various catagories that get different levels of punishment.
______________________________________________________________________________________
1 Murder is a legal term. A soldier shooting a member of an opposing army has killed someone. So has the gang member. The difference is the legality of that killing.
I'm fairly sure that is not what he is saying, and that you know that. **** man, atleast put some effort into your arguing.
He was talking about diferrentiating murder1 and muders classified as hate crimes. I don't see a problem with differentiating them. You have demonstrated how we already classify murder into various catagories that get different levels of punishment.
______________________________________________________________________________________
1 Murder is a legal term. A soldier shooting a member of an opposing army has killed someone. So has the gang member. The difference is the legality of that killing.
Murder differentiated by level of intent is very different from differentiating it based on political correctness.
Murder differentiated by level of intent is very different from differentiating it based on political correctness.
Very true, but you are trivializing the hate and persecution that people who are targeted because of being gay, black, white, or what have you have gone through. Not every crime commited against a person who happens to be gay is a hate crime, but killing someone because they are gay is.
Murder differentiated by level of intent is very different from differentiating it based on political correctness.
Very true, but you are trivializing the hate and persecution that people who are targeted because of being gay, black, white, or what have you have gone through. Not every crime commited against a person who happens to be gay is a hate crime, but killing someone because they are gay is.
And whats the crime? Killing someone, or hateing gays?
And whats the crime? Killing someone, or hateing gays?
You actually need that explained? Or are you being purposefully dense?
Judge: Why?
Defendant A: I saw him kick a dog!
Sentence: 10 years
Defendant B: Yeah I shot that guy!
Judge: Why?
Defendant B: I saw him kiss a man!
Sentence: 20 years
A: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates people who hurt dogs: 0 years
B: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates men who kiss men: 10 years
And whats the crime? Killing someone, or hateing gays?
Commiting a crime in such a way as to create a hostile/fearful enviornment for people of a particular group.
Seriously, the thing people need to remember about hate crime legislation is that, in America, it never creates a new crime, it increases punishment of existing crimes if it can be determined that it was motivated partly out of animus or if it was targetting a particular group.
Murder differentiated by level of intent is very different from differentiating it based on political correctness.
Very true, but you are trivializing the hate and persecution that people who are targeted because of being gay, black, white, or what have you have gone through.
Not at all. I'm not trivializing it. I just don't believe that it should be something that makes a crime into something worse. If someone is a murderer. Punish him for murder. Prove the level of intent necessary for manslaughter, murder 2 or murder 1 and be done with it.
Not every crime commited against a person who happens to be gay is a hate crime, but killing someone because they are gay is.
So is killing someone because you hate him for having black hair. Hate is hate. We punish race extra due to it being politically benificial for politicians for us to do so. They hope to get the minority vote by making their brand of hate somehow worse than other brands of hate.
And whats the crime? Killing someone, or hateing gays?
Commiting a crime in such a way as to create a hostile/fearful enviornment for people of a particular group.
I guarantee you that if I became a serial killer who went around murdering people for having cats, I would be creating a hostile/fearful environment for cat owners, yet I would not get extra time for doing so. Therefore, creating a hostile/fearful environment is not the reason. Politics is the reason.
(2) ... there's a world of difference between one serial killer and, every week (sometimes every day of the week) hearing and reading about another poor boy or girl that got killed because they were gay/black/whatever. The fear is not comparable.
(1) Politics is the method, not the reason.
(2) ... there's a world of difference between one serial killer and, every week (sometimes every day of the week) hearing and reading about another poor boy or girl that got killed because they were gay/black/whatever. The fear is not comparable.
I hear all the time that some woman was murdered. FAR more often than any gay or ethnic killer. On the order of at a minimum 10 times more often, yet killing a woman doesn't rank up there with killing gays or ethnic minorities. What's more, ethnic minorities kills lots of white people, but I've not ONCE heard of one being charged with a hate crime. It's politically correct hypocricy from politicians pandering for votes.
Defendant A: Yeah I shot that guy!
Judge: Why?
Defendant A: I saw him kick a dog!
Sentence: 10 years
Defendant B: Yeah I shot that guy!
Judge: Why?
Defendant B: I saw him kiss a man!
Sentence: 20 years
A: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates people who hurt dogs: 0 years
B: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates men who kiss men: 10 years
Having the motive that you hate someone for being gay considered an aggravating factor, rather than a crime itself.
Defendant A: Yeah I shot that guy!
Judge: Why?
Defendant A: I saw him kick a dog!
Sentence: 10 years
Defendant B: Yeah I shot that guy!
Judge: Why?
Defendant B: I saw him kiss a man!
Sentence: 20 years
A: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates people who hurt dogs: 0 years
B: Murdered guy: 10 years, Hates men who kiss men: 10 years
Having the motive that you hate someone for being gay considered an aggravating factor, rather than a crime itself.
but isn't hating someone who kicks dogs also discrimination?
Well, as far as US law is considered, no.
Dogs can't vote.
Well, as far as US law is considered, no.
Now your talking in circles. "The law is right because the law agrees with itself."
Well, as far as US law is considered, no.
Now your talking in circles. "The law is right because the law agrees with itself."
I didn't say it was right, just want it stated. The law basically only applies to protected classes.
The weak willed open at their own peril.
The best news since Japan surrendered.
Heh, was begining to think you died in revalrey
No, I didn't.
But SEAL Team 6 made sure Bin Laden did.
Thanks guys!
Why did they show one guys' face? Do they not like him or something?
LOL!
I dunno...
It's just a google image I pulled off the internet.
Hmmm.... maybe a disclaimer...
NO! THE PIC IS NOT THE SEAL TEAM 6 THAT SENT BIN LADEN ON HIS WAY!
(However, I do believe this may be a pic of SEAL Team 6 from the past...)
NO! THE PIC IS NOT THE SEAL TEAM 6 THAT SENT BIN LADEN ON HIS WAY!
(However, I do believe this may be a pic of SEAL Team 6 from the past...)
Seal team six was active when I was in during Desert Storm. I can't say how long ago it was created, but that's twenty years ago now.
And that's without throwing in that whole they Saved Him From Us Last Time angle.'
But Fear Not, I have a solution for this that doesn't involve us getting into a Fourth War.
Tell India, "we don't care what you do with them anymore".
I say just glass the entire middle east and then drill for oil afteward...
Radiation is bad. Africa, Europe, and Asia would probably dissaprove. And can you imagine the OSHA headaches? "I sense a disturbance in the force, like thosands of pencil pushing burecrats cried out in sadistic glee..."
I never imagined thoes as big glass producers.
I say just glass the entire middle east and then drill for oil afteward...
That could poison the oil.
That could be very, very diverting. Zap 'em and wait 'til the radiation dies down enough and then: 'we haven't heard from Person We Want Dead X in quite some time, we best go in to investigate'. And then ya just don't leave.
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
I say just glass the entire middle east and then drill for oil afteward...
That could poison the oil.
Oh, come on we have a cloud of radiation from Japan covering half the United States and you're worried about getting a little radiation on some oil? nice...
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
You know, the most absurd part of that conspiracy theory is that it requires President Bush giving President Obama a "boost my ratings" card. I mean really... why the hell would he do that? If he had the ace up his sleeve he would have used in during the 2008 campaign to win the election for McCain or at least to deny Obama the ability to use it later.
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
Yeah! And you do that close to the election so it remains in the public eye when you need it the most! Wait, that's not how it went down at all.
Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm honestly curious - but do you believe every conspiracy you read or hear about or is this just you stirrin' the pot for funsies? I'm down with either, to be honest.
Oh, come on we have a cloud of radiation from Japan covering half the United States and you're worried about getting a little radiation on some oil? nice...
You bought potassium iodide tablets, didn't you?
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
You know, the most absurd part of that conspiracy theory is that it requires President Bush giving President Obama a "boost my ratings" card. I mean really... why the hell would he do that? If he had the ace up his sleeve he would have used in during the 2008 campaign to win the election for McCain or at least to deny Obama the ability to use it later.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
... so that means he absolutely had to be dead within that time frame. Umm ... ok.
Which still leaves the Bush administration holding onto a corpse so that a Democratic president could cash in on the ratings boost. Does. Not. Add. Up.
What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist are you? Obama is just a puppet of an organization bigger than the Reps and the Dems combined. They simply figured out there was nothing to get out of Reps now, so They used a Dem. I mean, it's so obvious!
What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist are you?
There's a multi-million dollar industry in this country devoted to keeping me a second class citizen, agents of which travel the world to other countries and instigate laws and propaganda to make sure that goes double so for elsewhere to the point where they push for legislation to kill me in at least one country. I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist, the conspiracies against me are public.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
Which still leaves the Bush administration holding onto a corpse so that a Democratic president could cash in on the ratings boost. Does. Not. Add. Up.
Simpler answer: They didnt find him.
They wanted something in Pakistan, they went in and took it, and then said it was Osama so that Pakistan wouldn't bitch to much and the people would be too busy celebrating that we finnaly caught some old man to care that we performed an unsanctioned military opperation in the territory of a soverign country that we are supposedly on friendly terms with.
In this scenario, Bush didn't hang on to the corpse, because he never had it. Noone has it. It is burried in an unknown grave somewhere, or sipping tequila down in mexico.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the dialysis thing is straight out of a news story in 2002. This was before he was known to have perpetrated 9/11
So either lied then or lied now take your pick...
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the dialysis thing is straight out of a news story in 2002. This was before he was known to have perpetrated 9/11
So either lied then or lied now take your pick...
It was a story based on unsubstaintiated rumor that he had bought a dialysis machine and had gone to a hospital for kidney problems. Did he buy one? Was it really for him? Who knows? Was his kidney issue that serious? Did he lie about his kidneys to mask the real reason he went to the hospital? This and much much more will be answered on the next episode of Soap.
www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp
I say just glass the entire middle east and then drill for oil afteward...
That could poison the oil.
That could be very, very diverting. Zap 'em and wait 'til the radiation dies down enough and then: 'we haven't heard from Person We Want Dead X in quite some time, we best go in to investigate'. And then ya just don't leave.
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
I say just glass the entire middle east and then drill for oil afteward...
That could poison the oil.
Oh, come on we have a cloud of radiation from Japan covering half the United States and you're worried about getting a little radiation on some oil? nice...
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
You know, the most absurd part of that conspiracy theory is that it requires President Bush giving President Obama a "boost my ratings" card. I mean really... why the hell would he do that? If he had the ace up his sleeve he would have used in during the 2008 campaign to win the election for McCain or at least to deny Obama the ability to use it later.
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
Yeah! And you do that close to the election so it remains in the public eye when you need it the most! Wait, that's not how it went down at all.
Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm honestly curious - but do you believe every conspiracy you read or hear about or is this just you stirrin' the pot for funsies? I'm down with either, to be honest.
Oh, come on we have a cloud of radiation from Japan covering half the United States and you're worried about getting a little radiation on some oil? nice...
You bought potassium iodide tablets, didn't you?
Yeah and then you pretend they are still alive and then years later during an election year you 'corner' them in a building in another country throw their bodies in the ocean and refuse to release photos all the while rakinig in the political currency for your re-election campaign...oh wait that sounds familiar...
You know, the most absurd part of that conspiracy theory is that it requires President Bush giving President Obama a "boost my ratings" card. I mean really... why the hell would he do that? If he had the ace up his sleeve he would have used in during the 2008 campaign to win the election for McCain or at least to deny Obama the ability to use it later.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
... so that means he absolutely had to be dead within that time frame. Umm ... ok.
Which still leaves the Bush administration holding onto a corpse so that a Democratic president could cash in on the ratings boost. Does. Not. Add. Up.
What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist are you? Obama is just a puppet of an organization bigger than the Reps and the Dems combined. They simply figured out there was nothing to get out of Reps now, so They used a Dem. I mean, it's so obvious!
What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist are you?
There's a multi-million dollar industry in this country devoted to keeping me a second class citizen, agents of which travel the world to other countries and instigate laws and propaganda to make sure that goes double so for elsewhere to the point where they push for legislation to kill me in at least one country. I don't need to be a conspiracy theorist, the conspiracies against me are public.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
Which still leaves the Bush administration holding onto a corpse so that a Democratic president could cash in on the ratings boost. Does. Not. Add. Up.
Simpler answer: They didnt find him.
They wanted something in Pakistan, they went in and took it, and then said it was Osama so that Pakistan wouldn't bitch to much and the people would be too busy celebrating that we finnaly caught some old man to care that we performed an unsanctioned military opperation in the territory of a soverign country that we are supposedly on friendly terms with.
In this scenario, Bush didn't hang on to the corpse, because he never had it. Noone has it. It is burried in an unknown grave somewhere, or sipping tequila down in mexico.
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the dialysis thing is straight out of a news story in 2002. This was before he was known to have perpetrated 9/11
So either lied then or lied now take your pick...
No the absurd part is that Osama had an incurable disease in 2002 that was going to kill him in 2 years and he was doing dialysis before that. Its not very likely that he lived more than 2-6 years after that, even with cutting edge technology...
Considering I personally know people with uncurable diseases that were supposed to be dead 20 years ago, that doesn't mean much.
How bout dialysis? From what I've heard you can't live more than 6 years on dialysis...
You do know that no American doctor actually examined Bin Laden right? That all the things we thought MIGHT be wrong with him was GUESSWORK?
No the dialysis thing is straight out of a news story in 2002. This was before he was known to have perpetrated 9/11
So either lied then or lied now take your pick...
It was a story based on unsubstaintiated rumor that he had bought a dialysis machine and had gone to a hospital for kidney problems. Did he buy one? Was it really for him? Who knows? Was his kidney issue that serious? Did he lie about his kidneys to mask the real reason he went to the hospital? This and much much more will be answered on the next episode of Soap.
www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp