Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on May 01, 2011, 09:42:31 pm
-
Some guy on Twitter said so. Let's stay tuned and see if this pans out, or if it's some kind of crazy panic. (I think the Daily Mail report from a few days ago is unrelated... :nervous:)
ed: obviously bin Laden is declared dead every other week so let's just assume this is a prank for now
-
President's making a mysterious late night statement soon.
-
WE GOT HIM
-
CNN is saying it's true.
-
NBC, CNN, and NYT have all picked up on this.
-
WE GOT HIM
-
WE GOT HIM
You didn't do anything you communist islamic Englander
-
WE GOT HIM
I remember the last time we said that.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Dawn)
-
To be honest, it was all but a foregone conclusion that we would eventually get him, if his own people didn't for bringing down upon them the organized wrath of the world at large.
-
Cab pileup in NYC, six drivers dead including bin Laden
(props /b/)
-
WE GOT HIM
I remember the last time we said that.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Dawn)
I WAS BEING IRONIC
-
Shame nothing will change.
Except for the fact that he's a martyr now.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/JxXJr.png)
-
Obviously nothing will change, he is totally irrelevant (mostly) to anything imaginable. But it's a loose end tied up and it represents a significant reduction in the number of stupid conspiracy theories we'll all have to listen to*
*ahahaha who am I kidding
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2n&tag=watchnow
im lollin at laura logan's sexual innuendo
"This proves that the US can reach out and touch any member of Osama's inner circle."
-
HEADSHOT!
[/unrealannouncervoice]
-
Hide and seek champ 9/11/2001 - 5/1/2011
-
it's kinda funny watching all the reporters stutter about as they don't know what the hell to say/don't have prepared bits. i'm not about to stay up and watch the speech though. i'll read about it later.
-
I'm not totally convinced this will change nothing. The power of symbols counts for a lot in this sort of thing, where one side makes no recourse to rational or legal authority. Men with the skills and personal discipline needed simply to last as long as he did are not common either. The loss of operational knowledge (either literally or by proxy) and personal connections is probably significant.
-
This has been a great year for resolving the fate of notorious enemies of the state who triggered major wars and then vanished without any clear resolution to their plot or character arcs
-
More death. How...cyclical.
-
In b4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M&feature=related
-
In b4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M&feature=related
4chan playing this all over
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2n&tag=watchnow
im lollin at laura logan's sexual innuendo
"This proves that the US can reach out and touch any member of Osama's inner circle."
"If the heart of Al Qaeda can be...penetrated, then all of you can be reached!"
-
It's sad, really. She's reaching out to the middle aged male demographic.
Fourchan is down for me, anyone having any luck?
-
It's sad, really. She's reaching out to the middle aged male demographic.
Fourchan is down for me, anyone having any luck?
Considering how many of the comments on that video linked were saying the same thing, probably not.
-
Guys I just heard that Obama played 9 holes of golf instead of 18! It's on CBS! This is serious ****!
-
Goddamn, the amount of guesswork flying around about how this went down is mind boggling.
-
Open pool on exactly what got him. I hear it's boots on the ground, I'm gonna say drones and US special forces, no local assistance. (http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-911.gif)
scratch that actually, I think he was probably carrying an iPhone (http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-v.gif)
-
He was shot in the head, they have the body.
HEY GUYS OBAMA http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2n&tag=watchnow
-
The speech's not bad, so far.
-
Killed at a mansion outside Islamabad, Pakistan. There's a ****ing surprise /sarcasm. Probably pissed off the ISI and they decided to earn some American goodwill before they **** NATO over, again.
-
Def, looks prepared.
They wouldn't admit to killing him before they had a well prepared speech. Although they had to give the news stations a little time to drone of for a bit.
-
Killed at a mansion outside Islamabad, Pakistan. There's a ****ing surprise /sarcasm. Probably pissed off the ISI and they decided to earn some American goodwill before they **** NATO over, again.
I can't wait for the CS map.
-
<@battuta> possible lead last august
<Vertigo7> lol
<@battuta> compound in pakistan
<@battuta> DEEP in pakistan
<@battuta> holy ****
<@battuta> he gave the order last week!
<@battuta> DEEP IN PAKISTAN
<@battuta> pornographically deep
<@Nuclear1> eeeeeeeeeee
<@battuta> abadibad
<@battuta> american special forces
<@battuta> no US casualties, no civilians
<@battuta> and then
<@redsniper> so... we just go wherever we feel like?
<@battuta> there was a FIREFIIIIIIIIIIIGHT
-
Claims that Pakistan was critical. Yeah, the ISI gave him up.
-
Didn't the French say he had cancer or some **** a few years ago?
-
This just in, Donald Trump requests death certificate.
lololol
-
Yeah, the big question's gonna be the degree of Pakistani involvement, because it sure ****ing sounds like their intelligence (of course) had him holed up somewhere.
-
NBC just compared today to VJ day.
-
I would think the big question would be whether it really even matters...
I vote no.
-
NBC just compared today to VJ day.
It begins.
I would think the big question would be whether it really even matters...
Only sort-of.
-
NBC just compared today to VJ day.
Ahahahaha, news.
-
It's just another death in a long line of deaths.
One year from now, the media will have moved on to the next crisis, and the world will keep chugging along. This day will become nothing more than a point in history when some person of some significance to some large event at some time died because someone killed him.
-
I would think the big question would be whether it really even matters...
I vote no.
It's a symbolic victory and probably a huge morale boost.
But from a strategic standpoint, not really a big deal.
-
Its a symbolic victory and thats all it is. That said, its a pretty big victory
-
NBC just compared today to VJ day.
ololololololololo
-
Its a symbolic victory and thats all it is. That said, its a pretty big victory
Again, it's going to have operational effects, if for no other reason then the fact that we managed to find him will result in a lot of effort to clean house and tighten up secrecy and the resulting mistakes.
-
I wonder what kind of commendations the soldier/squad that shot him will get.
-
We may never know, as that squad probably 'doesn't exist'. They are almost certainly a tier 1 group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_Tier_System).
-
I wonder what kind of commendations the soldier/squad that shot him will get.
unlimited access to whores?
-
We may never know, as that squad probably 'doesn't exist'. They are almost certainly a tier 1 group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_Tier_System).
Not likely, given the fact that we know that something necessarily killed him, and given that the US has gone so far to announce that they killed him on several different channels on several different media...
Unless the way in which he was killed was "politically untoward" then there's no reason to even lie about how he was killed.
EDIT: Rather, it's possible that a tier I unit killed him, but I don't think there's a reason to think that the gov't would deny that a tier I unit killed him if such a unit were responsible.
-
I wonder what kind of commendations the soldier/squad that shot him will get.
Silver Star in the classified jacket. (Quite possibly less, as the operation itself doesn't appear to have been difficult.) They probably don't want to expose them to reprisal, so I doubt we'll learn their names for another fifteen years.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)
-
So the long dirty beard guy is dead?
Nice! and it only costed 130000000519816598198$$ + some average Joe's lives :yes:
-
Slippery ***** managed to run for 10 years, but obviously it's true - You can run, but you can't hide :) Kudos to your army and intelligence.
-
What I want to know is if we managed to snag his portable dialysis setup... seems good.
-
No Americans were harmed - Obama ordered the attack.
So Obama ordered an attack against a high value target and the forces under his command sustained no casualties. That is pretty impressive.
-
So we can repeal the Patriot Act and disband the TSA now, right? Nope, now we get to raise the threat level even higher in anticipation of reprisals. :banghead:
Also, this thread from reddit sums up my feelings nicely:
http://sl.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/h1ryi/osama_bin_laden_is_dead/c1ryqt7?context=1
In other words, I'm having a hard time being excited or cheered by the news.
-
I wonder if he was tortured before they killed him.
-
I wonder if he was tortured before they killed him.
How many times in this thread are you going to say something utterly inane?
-
Yeah, they didn't torture him. They freed the **** out of him, and he couldn't stand the freedom fries, so he croaked!
-
Yeah, they didn't torture him. They freed the **** out of him, and he couldn't stand the freedom fries, so he croaked!
Actually, reports say that his head got in the way of a bullet.
/me is too tired to be a smartass.
-
Lead poisoning. If I were to venture a guess, of the 9x19mm Parabellum kind. Just hope it doesn't lead to reprisals.
-
Some Guantanamo prisoners claimed a nuclear attack in the event of Osama's death, didn't they?
Oh, and the Osama announcement supposedly cut into Trump's reality show before some end of season decision was made or something. Delicious Trump tears.
-
It's going to be an interesting few months ahead, human phsychology suggests that extremists will want to do something pretty dramatic, both to show the are unbowed and to divert public attention back in their own direction, it will be a precarious situation for a while, I think. I don't think we need worry too much about 'big' things like Nuclear-based attacks, if they had the means for that then they would not have been holding them back as a special-case scenario, but I do think we may see an increase in small, home-grown acts, not the big over-arching bond villain type reprisals.
-
Which will, of course, necessitate making the already pretty ridiculous security theater that is in place now even more so. Expect travel to the US to become even more cavity-search-ridden.
-
Wonder how long before Michael Bay makes the Bin Laden assassination into a movie involving 2 hours footage's worth of explosions.
-
I give it three weeks, tops. But they'll be good explosions, garnished with hot female 'actresses' and easily ignored dialogue. Basically, exactly what you're looking for when you're too drunk for anything that requires the activation of you brain, and yet want to be entertained :p
On topic, congrats on finally getting the bastard. Took long enough, but it did get done.
-
Uwe Boll should make the movie.
-
Goldstein is dead? We'll probably see some other 'terrorist leader' being pushed forward again in time. I'm rather cynical about this news, but i'll spare you my own ideas and rant about this. Just wish the USA and NATO would now finally pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq now they finally have their PR victory they were waiting for for like 5 years before they wanted to leave.
EDIT: Also, just in time for election season.
-
Apparently there has already been some CGI work on this:
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6568249-we-think-that-bin-laden-death-photo-is-a-fake
While I generally approach any conspiracy theory with a bucket load of skepticism, my knowledge of Photoshop makes me lean towards agreeing with the article. The image does look like it was cobbled together using pictures of different resolutions. This combined with the dumb, dumb decision to dump the body into the sea is going to give the conspiracy theorists something to talk about for years to come. Of course, this isn't an official photo.
-
Honestly, I'm not sure if I find it that good, that he was assassinated by americans. Due to the fact, that he didn't showed his face in all these years, and just strange voice videos appeared, I sincerly hoped that he was badly hurt in a bombing run in Afghanistan and was laying on a bed in some dirty cave as a drooling rag, imprisoned in his own damaged body. But now, that he was killed by his biggesst enemy, haven't the americans finally created a martyr out of him which made it all worse ?
Don't get me wrong, he get what he deserved, but the consequenses will going to show. Let's just hope, that his network has no more access to his money after his death, but I doubt that.
-
American soldiers have invaded his headquarters. They have killed the 6 foot four inch notorious terrorist who has lead an organization whose worst acts are killing a multitude of innocent people. The 6'4 previously rich Arab is another obstacle to the growing expanse of the US in Pakistan, so he was shot dead. Another. terrorist. shot. dead.
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
-
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
Maybe because that would have made the other terrorist gone mad and would grow terrorism by 4000% to set him free again ?
-
I agree he should have been captured alive, interrogated and put on trial at the international court.
Not only would that have been actual justice, we would also have learned is real involvement in 9/11 (not the Porsche).
Now, just another source of information has been permanently silenced.
-
American soldiers have invaded his headquarters. They have killed the 6 foot four inch notorious terrorist who has lead an organization whose worst acts are killing a multitude of innocent people. The 6'4 previously rich Arab is another obstacle to the growing expanse of the US in Pakistan, so he was shot dead. Another. terrorist. shot. dead.
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
He resisted arrest. Along with his son, and some other people which were the link between him and the interrogations of Guantanomo bay prisoners.
Apperently, Osama lived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in a house with high security without telephone or internet connection.
-
I highly doubt Osama would have allowed himself to be captured alive. It would have been an even bigger blow against his movement and a direct violation of his own teachings.
-
The problem is that if they'd put him at trial, a lot of things would come out that would at least shame many. Furthermore, killing him was probably also a bad idea, since now he managed to became a martyr in the end. I guess I sorta like this a little more than the whole Saddam court case thing, high horsing while keeping more than half of the discussed content a secret.
-
Obvious bad guy = dead.
Bad guy but in the hiding = impeachment, but not easy.
Bin Laden = Obvious Bad Guy = Shot in the Head = Killed = Masses rejoice
-
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
They probably would have liked to, honestly. We don't know who shot him or why.
-
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
They probably would have liked to, honestly. We don't know who shot him or why.
I hear it was in a firefight, so they didn't know they'd be able to capture him alive, and as such probably shot him from a decent distance.
Special Forces are not cops.
-
HELL YEAH, GO FOR IT CAPTAIN AMERICAAHH!
-
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
They probably would have liked to, honestly. We don't know who shot him or why.
I hear it was in a firefight, so they didn't know they'd be able to capture him alive, and as such probably shot him from a decent distance.
Special Forces are not cops.
Apparently they walked right into a room and came face to face with him. When they asked him to surrender, he refused and they shot him in the head. They were navy SEALs if i recall it properly
-
Apparently they walked right into a room and came face to face with him. When they asked him to surrender, he refused and they shot him in the head. They were navy SEALs if i recall it properly
Shame.
-
We may never know, as that squad probably 'doesn't exist'. They are almost certainly a tier 1 group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Forces_Tier_System).
Just some more information:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110502/pl_yblog_exclusive/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden
DevGru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Special_Warfare_Development_Group)
-
...so why didn't they arrest him instead?
Martyrdom. If they arrested him he would have to go on trial, get executed etc. it would galvanise terrorists more than simply shooting him and getting him out of the way.
New Yorkers are understandibly happy, I wonder if we can have our own pissup celebration over this side of the pond...remember Glasgow Airport! :)
-
remember Glasgow Airport! :)
xD
-
Watching the New Yorkers was awesome. Finally.
-
I read the news today, oh boy. The American army had just won the war...
-
I wonder if he was tortured before they killed him.
i sure as hell hope so.
-
I read the news today, oh boy. The American army had just won the war...
Probably very short sighted, but if the war has been won (Which has been claimed) then they should start talking, and starting to, pull the troops out of there and head back home. It's been the justification of the whole war(s). Besides, if terrorists are gonna strike back, you'll need your troops at home..
-
I read the news today, oh boy. The American army had just won the war...
If only. The insurgency in Afghan isn't just the Taliban any more (who don't get on well with Al Qaeda anyway), there's fighting against merc groups and resistance from local tribes completely seperate from Taliban activity. History has shown again and again that Afghanistan cannot be conquered. Except by the Soviets but we ****ed that up for them by giving the mujas stinger missiles but I jest...
It's good to know we're starting to use the right tactics however: a couple of weeks back (give or take) two British soldiers lost limbs trying to enter a compound. The village was so densely mined with IEDs they simply couldn't enter to flush the enemy out. Their solution was to give our dear friends the USAF a ring and ask if they'd kindly level the area, which they promptly did. It's just too bad you can't bomb a guy in a cave or take and hold territory with airplanes, we wouldn't need infantry otherwise.
-
I read the news today, oh boy. The American army had just won the war...
I thought it was about a lucky man who made the grave.
And though the news was rather sad, well, I just had to laugh.
-
It's just too bad you can't bomb a guy in a cave
I beg to differ... http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-08/pentagon-wants-deploy-largest-non-nuclear-bomb-next-year
-
earlier people said it would have been better to arrest him. i disagree. This was more quick, quiet and over with. The publicity that would have come from him being tried and eventually executed would have have made him a martyr of epic proportions. and his burial at sea tried to honor islamic traditions while not setting up an extremist shrine.
-
It would have been better to arrest him if if we also arrested every other person we suspected of doing a great misdeed.
After all, in a fair justice system, you are innocent unless proven guilty. We would also have to bring cases against high ranking officials all across the globe.
These days, and the idea that the US can just burst down a door and kill everyone inside the room, smacks of a justice system that thinks you are innocent until proven guilty.
-
Rest in pieces Osama :nervous:
-
But that's not how the justice system works. The prosecution has to make its case for why someone's guilty, and to which degree they're culpable, and the defense has to make a case for why they're not guilty, or to which degree they're culpable. They're wouldn't even be a trial if someone hadn't suspected you of being culpable for a crime.
If Seal Team Six had the opportunity to arrest bin Laden rather than kill him, I bet they would have--but like any law enforcement or military raid, the lives of the police or soldiers takes precedence; if they can't safely apprehend someone, or if they believe a suspect has or will draw a weapon and it's likely someone will be killed, they'll shoot first to defend themselves.
-
But that's not how the justice system works.
Then that sounds like a problem, at least in my opinion. :)
-
But that's not how the justice system works.
Then that sounds like a problem, at least in my opinion. :)
So in your opinion, if a man is firing a gun at your friend, you should allow him to kill your friend in order to have a better chance of apprehending him?
Because by all accounts so far that's what happened. bin Laden was apparently asked to surrender. He refused, and he resisted violently.
-
What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?
-
Well, I'm confused then.
Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X. They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y. They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y. Once they amass enough evidence to arrest X for Y (which is a pretty damn heavy burden of proof, given the numerous rights of the accused), they take X into custody. They hand all of the evidence to the prosecutor's office.
Once the trial starts, X is assumed to be not guilty before the court and the jury. The prosecution's entire job here is to convince the jury and the judge that X is indeed guilty of Y. The defense's job is to prove the prosecution's statement wrong--either X is not guilty of Y, or he's not culpable in the way the prosecution says he is.
So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt, because that's the whole purpose of them being in court in the first place. I agree this isn't fair, if it was only that one side. But that's the whole point of the rights of the accused, and having a defense side to a trial.
What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?
What?
It's a military operation. bin Laden probably fought back for reasons other than not getting a fair trial.
-
Well, I'm confused then.
Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X. They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y. They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y.
That seems to be the problem to me. Before he's brought in, people assume that others have had good cause to suspect that he's guilty.
Therefore, when he's brought into the court room, people are looking to find out if he's guilty - not to find out if he's innocent.
Think back to when our justice system was first laid out, and see if what I'm saying makes a bit more sense?
So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt
This goes against "innocent until proven guilty".
-
What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?
By the way, are you following me from thread to thread because you're interested in what I have to say or because you like the sight of my rear?
He knew there was most likely a mountain of evidence against him, and that his cause would be better served by him dying than being captured and standing fair trial. At least, that's my take on it. :)
-
What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?
What does it tell you about a person that he'd kill 3000 people? Maybe it suggests he's willing to shoot at Americans too?
Seems a little more likely.
By the way, are you following me from thread to thread because you're interested in what I have to say or because you like the sight of my rear?
You sound so scared. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-allears.gif) Unfortunately this is almost as silly as the last thing you said - notice who started this thread?
I'm active in every thread on GenDisc and have been for years. Nobody's safe.
-
It's a military operation. bin Laden probably fought back for reasons other than not getting a fair trial.
"Surrender, Osama bin Laden!"
"Never! I wouldn't get a fair trial from you heretics!"
"Yes we will give you a fair trial, Sir! Hundreds of years of--"
*bin Laden picks up a shotgun*
I mean, seriously, if there really was a firefight after decline of surrender, I would find it rather pointless to discuss the US justice system :nervous:
-
Two words: voir dire.
Ultimately, it's not the prosecution's or the defense's, or even the judge's call whether someone is guilty or not guilty. That's the jury.
Before he's brought in, people assume that others have had good cause to suspect that he's guilty.
The only people that need cause to assume guilt are the police and prosecution. Judges are involved at nearly every step, from getting search warrants to drawing up grand juries.
Therefore, when he's brought into the court room, people are looking to find out if he's guilty - not to find out if he's innocent.
Again, voir dire. The people who make the decision, the jury, are heavily vetted by both the prosecution and defense to weed out people who A) have been following the case in the media, B) have any personal biases relating to the case, or C) can't judge the case dispassionately.
Think back to when our justice system was first laid out, and see if what I'm saying makes a bit more sense?
The government actually has a much harder time now then 200 years ago convicting someone simply because we have 200 years of case law relating to the rights of the accused.
-
Unknown has clearly never heard of Miranda v. Arizona.
(That must really cut down on his understanding of cop shows.)
-
i thinik i would have perfered taking bin ladin and family to gitmo and torture them until they give up the rest of their organization. and im not talking lame american torture techniques, im talking the vlad treatment here. except we would have modern medicine keeping him alive for as long as possible.
-
Well, I'm confused then.
Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X. They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y. They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y. Once they amass enough evidence to arrest X for Y (which is a pretty damn heavy burden of proof, given the numerous rights of the accused), they take X into custody. They hand all of the evidence to the prosecutor's office.
Once the trial starts, X is assumed to be not guilty before the court and the jury. The prosecution's entire job here is to convince the jury and the judge that X is indeed guilty of Y. The defense's job is to prove the prosecution's statement wrong--either X is not guilty of Y, or he's not culpable in the way the prosecution says he is.
So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt, because that's the whole purpose of them being in court in the first place. I agree this isn't fair, if it was only that one side. But that's the whole point of the rights of the accused, and having a defense side to a trial.
In common usage, presumption of innocence refers to how the accused has a right to trial and will not be convicted unless the prosecution proves they committed the crime. The defense need not prove innocence, they just need to prevent the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt (there's always a possibility space aliens performed the crime but all reasonable doubts must be addressed). The implication is that if guilt was presumed the burden of proof would be on the defendant instead. The prosecution or police can assume whatever they want though, they aren't the judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
-
What UT is missing is that prosecution is bound by the law to assume that the defendant is guilty. That's why they're the prosecution. They are NOT the judge, jury, or defense.
-
In common usage, presumption of innocence refers to how the accused has a right to trial and will not be convicted unless the prosecution proves they committed the crime. The defense need not prove innocence, they just need to prevent the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt (there's always a possibility space aliens performed the crime but all reasonable doubts must be addressed). The implication is that if guilt was presumed the burden of proof would be on the defendant instead. The prosecution or police can assume whatever they want though, they aren't the judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
Yeah, exactly. The burden of proof in a trial is on the prosecution, and all the defense needs to do is introduce some reasonable doubt into the prosecution's theory.
-
Seriously? :banghead:
-
gendisc
-
Unless you're suggesting he's a Cylon...?
-
Shouldnt this be moved to the off topic forum? Not sure what this has to do with diaspora unless your considering making a giant Osama head shaped basestar.
-
What UT is missing is that prosecution is bound by the law to assume that the defendant is guilty. That's why they're the prosecution. They are NOT the judge, jury, or defense.
And that's the exact reason why prosecutors won't pursue charges that have significant doubt attached to them. A DA's office has to be confident that the person they're prosecuting actually committed the crime in question, otherwise there's no point in wasting the time and effort.
-
It would have been better to arrest him if if we also arrested every other person we suspected of doing a great misdeed.
After all, in a fair justice system, you are innocent unless proven guilty. We would also have to bring cases against high ranking officials all across the globe.
These days, and the idea that the US can just burst down a door and kill everyone inside the room, smacks of a justice system that thinks you are innocent until proven guilty.
Would you arrest someone when he was trying to fill you with 7.62 bullets?
-
Speaking only for myself, conspiracy theorists should be transported to the moon without spacesuits. While wearing JFK masks.
-
Uh, I do.
Got a reason to doubt?
-
I'm pretty sure it was legit.
Let's get serious, if it was a fake, Obama would have timed it way closer to the election
-
If they had faked it, don't you think it would look pretty bad when Osama posted a new video?
Either he's actually in a top secret hole, or he's dead.
-
Even the "Top Secret Hole" route would be stupid. The only value bin Laden has is as a figurehead, I sort of doubt that he has much access to al qaeda's operations.
-
Either way they're certain he's not coming back. Saying they killed the world's most wanted terrorist who has eluded capture for 10 years, and then he resurfaces after that - now that'd be really bad pr. The kind that loses you the elections.
The photo that initially surfaced on the net and was released by several news media was a fake, but it wasn't one officially released by the US media and I very much doubt Bin Laden is still alive. The only thing that might, and I stress might be the case is that he actually died of natural causes and they wanted to get the credit for his death, so they faked a story. But I highly doubt even that. It was probably just a news media f***up since they failed to spot an obvious fake. Would have been nice for the sea burial to have been skipped so the conspiracy theorists stay quiet on that one.
-
I want his longform death certificate
NOW
-
If Seal Team Six had the opportunity to arrest bin Laden rather than kill him, I bet they would have--but like any law enforcement or military raid, the lives of the police or soldiers takes precedence; if they can't safely apprehend someone, or if they believe a suspect has or will draw a weapon and it's likely someone will be killed, they'll shoot first to defend themselves.
Considering that Seal Team Six isn't no police with a legal warrant or anything like that, that's basically no different than you breaking into anyone else's home and then shooting the occupants because they tried to or might have tried to defend themselves from you, therefore putting your life at risk.
Now, out of political correctness I'm not really arguing Osama's case here, just against the silly notion that it's ok to give precedence for the lives of police or soldiers when they're the aggressor. If I pull a gun on you first then of course the fact that you pull or might pull a gun back on me doesn't allow me to claim self-defense if I shoot you to "defend myself".
-
You're right, military isn't law enforcement, and I made that distinction.
This was no different than raiding an enemy commander's bunker to capture him and his lieutenants. It's an armed conflict, and the soldiers put their lives first. Likewise, when the police execute a legal search warrant and are met with someone with a weapon, the police are allowed to use force to stop them.
-
If Seal Team Six had the opportunity to arrest bin Laden rather than kill him, I bet they would have--but like any law enforcement or military raid, the lives of the police or soldiers takes precedence; if they can't safely apprehend someone, or if they believe a suspect has or will draw a weapon and it's likely someone will be killed, they'll shoot first to defend themselves.
Considering that Seal Team Six isn't no police with a legal warrant or anything like that, that's basically no different than you breaking into anyone else's home and then shooting the occupants because they tried to or might have tried to defend themselves from you, therefore putting your life at risk.
Now, out of political correctness I'm not really arguing Osama's case here, just against the silly notion that it's ok to give precedence for the lives of police or soldiers when they're the aggressor. If I pull a gun on you first then of course the fact that you pull or might pull a gun back on me doesn't allow me to claim self-defense if I shoot you to "defend myself".
The problem here is a figure like Osama blurs the line between military commander and international criminal. He isn't the head of a country's armed forces, but does control something close to a war-fighting force (or used to). If we could legally say Osama is an officer in the armed forces of enemy nation X then we could shoot him dead without repurcussions. Unfortunately Al Qaeda isn't an official army, it's barely even an organisation, more like an ideal such as Communism or Nazism. You can't destroy something like that by killing one guy, which is why Osama's death is largely symbolic, but powerfully so.
I want his longform death certificate
NOW
LOL! :lol:
Obama has the patience of a saint, if I were him I'd have asked Trump for his certificate, greedy corporate c*nt.
Ninja'ed: on the same page as nuclear anyway.
-
Flash bang grenades?
If Osama was captured, would it be worth the effort, or it's really not much better than killing him?
-
If everyone had their heads screwed on properly (though that is far from guaranteed) when the order was drafted and signed then it will have been a capture order, the political consequences would and will be severe as all those who support the jihad against the West now have a very public rallying cry, especially as, from their perspective, it is easy to spin these events as America sending black-ops assassins.
Now as Nuclear1 said when instigating operations against armed opponents it is impossible to account for all the variables, all osama's bodyguards had to do was wear gas masks and stab vests to bring about a situation where only flash-bangs are going to be effective as an incapacitation device. Also should the entry team not identify Osama amongst said bodyguards during a shoot out with them and you could easily end up killing him without realizing. There is a lot that can go wrong during these sorts of ops and training + equipment can only improve an op's chance of success not guarantee it
As for the morality of military raids like this one which is the greater evil, allowing Osama to carry on being a figurehead for the jihad or breaching a nations sovereignty for a few hours in an attempt to capture Osama for trial?
neither option is faultless but personally i prefer the latter
Flash bang grenades?
If Osama was captured, would it be worth the effort, or it's really not much better than killing him?
FB's are not perfect, also you have to get the grenade behind any cover the bad guys are using and throwing accurately is not easy with bursts of weapons fire flying at you. you have to throw either from behind you cover so cant see where you are throwing it and visual memory is not perfect in itself, or to see the target as you throw it requires exposing yourself and your vital and only lightly protected head to said weapons fire which if the body guards have any reasonable level of training will be fairly accurate
-
i thinik i would have perfered taking bin ladin and family to gitmo and torture them until they give up the rest of their organization. and im not talking lame american torture techniques, im talking the vlad treatment here. except we would have modern medicine keeping him alive for as long as possible.
too bad he was shot in the head and dumped out at sea, rather than whisked away to some dark place we will never hear about to experience what you describe.
-
You're right, military isn't law enforcement, and I made that distinction.
This was no different than raiding an enemy commander's bunker to capture him and his lieutenants. It's an armed conflict, and the soldiers put their lives first. Likewise, when the police execute a legal search warrant and are met with someone with a weapon, the police are allowed to use force to stop them.
Yes, and none of that contradicts what I'm saying, which is that the life of the aggressor should not take precedence. It's not an unfair requirement, because no one's forced to be an aggressor: if you think you won't be able to give the other guy's life precedence over yours when you're the aggressor, then... just don't be the aggressor.
-
What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?
Perhaps the criminals value their freedom and drug money over the lives of the good guys.
As for Osama- isn't it an honor to die in battle against the infidels, and a dishonor to be taken prisoner?
-
It's amazing what you can accomplish when the Playstation network goes down ;7
Already mentioned elsewhere in topic = my view.
Figurehead target taken out, strategic planning elements of Al'Quaeda (sp?asificare) are still in place. This has kicked a hornets nest, but we're in anyway so ........... Enjoy the beardy one death.
Prince got married, Bad guy dies? Proper Disney weekend right?
-
Only did it so the UK didn't get all the attention. :P
-
As I've said elsewhere they also found the black box from that Air France flight that crashed in 2009 on the same day. Looks like May 2nd was a good day for finding things you'd been looking for. :p
-
"The President announced that Osama was killed in combat. Oh really? Isn't dead already? Let's say he was alive: quite ****ed up game of the U.S. government. For years, you pretend that you find him, while he had been in sight all the time.
He wasn't found because he had been a justification for the "war on terror". Now that the election results in the basement, the U.S. government can pull it off the road - just now. Why not earlier? The second and third reason the wedding in the UK on Friday and the day of work on Sunday ... and many of the American people are cheering.
Disgusting."
Well my personal opinion isn't that harsh, but... :nervous:
-
more egg on ISI's face regarding this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517
-
more egg on ISI's face regarding this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517
Given ISI's documented history with supporting terrorism and militancy it makes you wonder if those "failures" were deliberate.
-
more egg on ISI's face regarding this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517
What? Bin Laden was living in the suburbs by the military academy?!
lol pakistani intel #hrrrdrrr
-
Heh. Two people from Brabant in the Netherlands went to the police to accuse the US of murder. They have been redericted to the International Court.
-
I say we drop them off in Afghanistan and tell them to find the new Al-Quada boss themselves then. :p
-
Even the "Top Secret Hole" route would be stupid. The only value bin Laden has is as a figurehead, I sort of doubt that he has much access to al qaeda's operations.
i could imagine a situation where we captured him and just told everyone he was dead, while we cut him up some and milked him for info on his little organization. if we were torturing him right now, we certainly wouldnt want to tell the world about it. i was told we had a body and i was told he was buried at sea, but ive yet to see proof of either event. so excuse me if i take "hes dead, we fed his corpse to sharks" with a grain of salt. theres not a doubt in my mind that hes out of the picture, its just the details of this are too sketchy to believe at the moment.
-
Sure looks like Osama being found in Pakistan is a good way to blame Pakistan of supporting terrorists though - What with the drone attacks in Pakistan the past years. Good way to retroactively talk bombing civilians acceptable - "We've been trying to hit Osama!". Anyhow, new wars are always hyped up in the news by any means neccesary. Still, this is dangerous. If the USA/Nato attacks Pakistan, you can imagine that Iran and Saudi Arabia (which feels they're being double-crossed by the West) and everything else... I'm curious what we'll see, what event, true or false-flag, will trigger a large war between NATO/USA and the Middle East. Combine that with the warnings of terrorists counter-striking the USA or Europe...
But that's my own opinion, and probably crazy idea. Just a thought to remember if such a crazy event(s) would occur.
-
Get your hopes down, there will never be a war between NATO and pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear power.
-
Sure hope you're right (You probably are), Luis. I wouldn't like the consequences of that. Anyhow, let's hope things calm down for a change.
-
oooh goodie! potential nuclear war! yay!
-
LOL Pakistan.
It's true - having nukes gives you a great deterrant, but the ultimate truth is NATO has a vastly greater arsenal under its belt than Pakistan. If they opted to use WMDs, the overwhelming probability exists that within hours of doing so, that nation would exist as a crater. Well, what would be left of it, anyway.
-
LOL Pakistan.
It's true - having nukes gives you a great deterrant, but the ultimate truth is NATO has a vastly greater arsenal under its belt than Pakistan. If they opted to use WMDs, the overwhelming probability exists that within hours of doing so, that nation would exist as a crater. Well, what would be left of it, anyway.
That's why it's called mutual deterrence, brosephine.
-
mad only works when everyone has enough nukes to act as a doomsday device. nuclear arsenals are only useful against countries with less nukes than you. so making any kind of aggressive advance on us or any other nuclear machine would be very hazardous to your health.
problem is what if terrorists have nukes, and they manage to hit you with one? then who do you counter-nuke?
-
That's why it's called mutual deterrence, brosephine.
Mutual deterrence really only works if one side is incapable of a preemptive knockout. This is not the case for Pakistan vs. an entity like NATO.
Regardless, Pakistan is too conveniently located to invade.
-
That's why it's called mutual deterrence, brosephine.
Mutual deterrence really only works if one side is incapable of a preemptive knockout. This is not the case for Pakistan vs. an entity like NATO.
Regardless, Pakistan is too conveniently located to invade.
I should probably have said MAInjury. Pakistan is capable of a spasm that would deal geopolitically unacceptable damage, which is good enough for the modern world climate.
-
That's why it's called mutual deterrence, brosephine.
Mutual deterrence really only works if one side is incapable of a preemptive knockout. This is not the case for Pakistan vs. an entity like NATO.
Regardless, Pakistan is too conveniently located to invade.
Ferry a few troops into Afghanistan and you have a nice launch pad for a ground/air war, and i'm sure if you let the Indians in on the plan they will keep the Pakistani armed forces busy in the east, especially if you let them have some of the border territories when it is all finished
edit
on a lighter note http://beta.uk.news.yahoo.com/man-shaves-for-the-first-time-since-9-11.html
-
Nonetheless it's not about who would win such a war - Though I'm more, concerned about 'terrorists with nukes' - But basically a world war 3. Pakistan is rather conveniently located as said above, and with the earlier invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Georgia situation.. I'm curious if such could spawn at least another cold war, but not just between the USA and Russia.
Sure hope no insane idiot decides a nuke would be a good idea to strike back/start a war. We got enough nuclear radiation for the coming thousands of years.
Above's chances are very low nonetheless, but if the warnings about terrorists striking back would be true, it becomes something in the cards.
-
Bin Laden chills in mansion for six years, evades world intelligence community. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_bin_laden_s_neighborhood)
ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan – When a woman involved in a polio vaccine drive turned up at Osama bin Laden's hideaway, she remarked to the men behind the high walls about the expensive SUVs parked inside. The men took the vaccine, apparently to administer to the 23 children at the compound, and told her to go away.
Bin Laden found it safe enough to stay for up to six years, according to U.S. officials, a stunning length of time to remain in one place right under the noses of a U.S.-funded army which had ostensibly been trying to track him down. Most intelligence assessments believed him to be along the Afghan-Pakistan border, perhaps in a cave.
Construction of the three-story house began about seven years ago. Aside from its size, the house doesn't stand out from the others in the neighborhood, where residents tend to be very religious and jealous of their privacy. The walls are mold-stained, there are trees in the garden and the windows are hidden.
Those who live nearby said the people in bin Laden's compound rarely strayed outside. Most were unaware that foreigners — bin Laden and his family are Arabs — were living there.
Khurshid Bibi, in her 70s, said one man living in the compound had given her a lift to the market in the rain. She said her grandchildren played with the kids in the house and that the adults there gave them rabbits as a gift.
:wakka:
-
Apparently they knew multiple times where Bin Laden was, but let him go. Or it could've been a false positive in the chase for a guy that's been like a phantom, but it's still strange. Would have to research for specifics though - Mostly pointing out that there may be more provable to it all. Planting a seed and all.
-
its sad that all the information about the operation has come from the pakistan government and not from our own.
-
its sad that all the information about the operation has come from the pakistan government and not from our own.
You haven't been watching the news very well. But then, you wouldn't. :P
-
My $0.02 it doesn't add up with the way it was handled so far.
But overall the issue is a clu$+3r4uk of politics to manage regardless.
Pakistan really doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of harboring the most wanted terrorist in the world.
They pretty much can't deny knowledge of his presence. The place is too small and the location too obvious.
The people knew he was there if this is true at all no one with a brain cell can deny the obvious futility of them even bothering to protest.
Burial at sea as a political move is an intelligent one.
But the management of this affair is letting conspiracy theorists have 10x the leg room necessary so far.
Osama is gonna be the Elvis of the middle east.
-
its sad that all the information about the operation has come from the pakistan government and not from our own.
You haven't been watching the news very well. But then, you wouldn't. :P
i havent been watching the news but ive been reading articles. ones sourced from pakistani sources just seem to have more detailed information that ones sourced from the white house.
-
Apparently they knew multiple times where Bin Laden was, but let him go. Or it could've been a false positive in the chase for a guy that's been like a phantom, but it's still strange. Would have to research for specifics though - Mostly pointing out that there may be more provable to it all. Planting a seed and all.
Damn it! Command let Bosch Bin Laden escape!
What are you talking about?
They pulled the blockade, they gave us the wrong coordinates there's no other explanation.
Why would they let him go?
You tell me pilot, I'm informed on a need to know basis.
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/6rhgn8.png)
-
Seriously? :banghead:
I just wanted to note I meant this as satire. It's like watching the conspiracy theorists surrounding the Julian Assange arrest =)
-
That's why it's called mutual deterrence, brosephine.
Mutual deterrence really only works if one side is incapable of a preemptive knockout. This is not the case for Pakistan vs. an entity like NATO.
Regardless, Pakistan is too conveniently located to invade.
I should probably have said MAInjury. Pakistan is capable of a spasm that would deal geopolitically unacceptable damage, which is good enough for the modern world climate.
Exactly, I think this should be obvious to everyone. I don't understand the conversation about how NATO could crater 170 million people before they nuke every western city, therefore they would do it.
-
Exactly, I think this should be obvious to everyone. I don't understand the conversation about how NATO could crater 170 million people before they nuke every western city, therefore they would do it.
Congratulations, you've missed the point. NATO has the ability to preemptively and conventionally destroy all of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, thereby taking the nuclear option off the table. (And instead we get other WMDs maybe.)
However, as I said, Pakistan is too conveniently located to invade.
-
HELO WRECKAGE STUDIED FROM OSAMA RAID; MEN IN BLACK SUSPECTED (http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/black-helo-down/)
(http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/mh-x3.jpg?w=460&h=286)
-
I wonder what that model is called. Blacker Hawk?
-
does look like the child of a #H-60 and a Raptor
-
http://translate.google.nl/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ad.nl%2Fad%2Fnl%2F3802%2FOsama-bin-Laden-gedood-in-Pakistan%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F582260%2F2011%2F05%2F05%2FVS-gebruikten-geheime-heli-bij-aanval.dhtml
-
Looks like a utility version of the Comanche.
-
http://translate.google.nl/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ad.nl%2Fad%2Fnl%2F3802%2FOsama-bin-Laden-gedood-in-Pakistan%2Farticle%2Fdetail%2F582260%2F2011%2F05%2F05%2FVS-gebruikten-geheime-heli-bij-aanval.dhtml
sounds a lot more plausible than suggestions that a made for purpose craft was used
Joshua's article basically states that the helo was probably a typical #H-60 modified with lower observability rotors, noise deflectors and perhaps a few panels to smoothen the outline to reduce radar returns. Basically designed to reduce the enemy's time to react by a few minutes rather than in and out undetected, though a competent EW officer and radar tracking equipment on board would go a long way to preventing the Pakistani radar net finding them.
-
Looks like a utility version of the Comanche.
Secret prototype maybe? If so then what was it doing there?
-
Secret, yes.
Prototype, No. As others have said, what this probably is is an incremental upgrade to the standard Black Hawk.
-
I wonder what that model is called. Blacker Hawk?
Knowing the naming scheme, it's a Pave (something).
The design actually seems to share a lot with the Speedhawk experimental compound helicopter...
-
Knowing the naming scheme, it's a Pave (something).
When it's related to USAF helicopters, PAVE is just a reference to certain electronic systems onboard the helicopter. (Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment)
-
Black Hawk 2: Blacker Hawk?
-
When it's related to USAF helicopters, PAVE is just a reference to certain electronic systems onboard the helicopter. (Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment)
Yes, but they'll tack it on there like they do everything else they give to the special people. Unless it has something better.
-
Knowing the naming scheme, it's a Pave (something).
When it's related to USAF helicopters, PAVE is just a reference to certain electronic systems onboard the helicopter. (Precision Avionics Vectoring Equipment)
So THAT'S where it comes from!
-
Call it Airwolf and bring back the Eighties! ;)
-
Call it Airwolf and bring back the Eighties! ;)
:yes: ;)
-
I know there is an element of necrothreading here but i thought this (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/editors-corner/every-action-reaction-100432582.html) is an appropriate article, which sums up my feeling on the initial topic of the thread
-
Yeah, I don't approve of being happy. People have asked me what I think about it cause I'm in the military (heck, it's just the reserves and I haven't deployed so IDK what that has to do with much but I digress...) I just say "well, it's one less person that needs killing..." in other words, he got what was coming, but it's not really that big of a deal. There are worse people around who just haven't had the opportunity / resources / determination that Bin Laden has had.
I try not to hate; instead it's more of a "well, you have crossed the line and will have to be eliminated" type of thing. People who go around killing others without any justified reason (yes that can be debated I know) need to be removed from the picture before they continue what they have been doing.
This is all my personal opinion and feelings, before someone jumps down my throat and asks me to prove something or another. If you disagree, well state your own opinion and if you really want, state your reasoning as well. :P
-
Yeah I pretty much agree. Killing someone is always bad, but if it prevents a greater evil, the calculus works out.
-
The idiocy on that article is plainly visible in the comments, where they take americans rejoicing over Osama's death in an equal footing to other people's rejoicing the terrorist attacks success.
Albeit there's obviously a comparison to be made and we should ponder about it, since these feelings are almost perfectly honest, in the sense that they seem to have been quite universal in both sides, the "equality" in it is astonishingly barbaric and stupid itself. There is no comparison between rejoicing the murder of a mass murderer who kept threatening "westerners", and rejoicing the death of thousands of people whose only crime was to live in a country deemed by Osama to be the big Satan.
Not that I enjoyed the rejoicing. I didn't rejoice, and I found those acclamations silly.
Destroy an important tower for the powers of theocracy inside Theran and let's see if americans rejoice too.
-
The same here. I never reveled in or celebrated the death itself, nor did I cheer or party when the announcement was made, but I did feel a certain sense of, well, relief I suppose, that this man that had committed the atrocities against my home was now out of the picture. I will admit however, that at the national level, I did give into the feeling of revenge. I'm not one for personal vengeance, but when it comes to nations it is impossible to turn the other cheek in the face of attack. I wont spout bull**** about "brought to Justice," but knowing that he payed for it did give me a small bit of satisfaction.
-
Bloodlust, vengeance, and taking joy in death are the same, no matter who's doing it. I had a debate not too long ago about this same topic:
It's everyone's theory that the terrorists are evil and want to destroy our way of life and our beliefs, but it seems everyone here who wants to see a man's corpse desecrated is doing that themselves.
Osama was an evil man, I'm not arguing that. But he didn't have very far to fall to become evil. We, however, as the beacon of human rights and civilization we make ourselves out to be, have a hell of a long way to fall. Terrorists can't make us do that by knocking down buildings and killing innocent people. We can.
People who succumb to bloodlust and vengeance under the guise of some 'justice' are accomplishing these extremists' goals for them. I'm sure as hell not going to sit back and watch my former brothers in arms and fellow citizens who have died over the years to fight this evil have their memories soiled and dishonored by this savagery.
Destroy an important tower for the powers of theocracy inside Theran and let's see if americans rejoice too
I bet you there'll be a small group of Americans who do. And they'll be the ones who make the news. Just like the minority of people in the Middle East who cheered 9/11 made the news.
You have to realize that the people who were rejoicing over 9/11 and other extremist acts did so because they believe America to be the enemy, and when their enemy was hurt, they took joy in that. They believe America to be responsible for countless atrocities across the Middle East.
We view Osama as evil and responsible for horrific acts all around the world. He died, and we rejoiced in it. How exactly is that different?
-
The validity of the article is in its criticism of celebrating death. Also disagree that the magnitude is different. the World Trade Center attack was a tragedy to the western world due to the monumental loss of life through a single act. The killing of Bin Laden is monumental to the Islamic world in particular to supporters of the Jihad because Bin Laden is somewhere in the region of the Pope to roman catholics in symbolic power and his death at the hands of American Special Forces is comparable to sending assassins after the Pope or the President of the United States to them
-
reports of the people in front of the white house who celebrated bin laden's death somewhat reminded me of all the news reports of mid eastern celebrations of terrorist attacks. no level of technology, understanding, or civility will be able to defeat human nature. we will see their whackjobs on the news and judge them as a whole based on it, and they will do the same to us. this is something that should be expected.
-
I bet you there'll be a small group of Americans who do. And they'll be the ones who make the news. Just like the minority of people in the Middle East who cheered 9/11 made the news.
Yeah, I realise that this is pretty possible. But I hope that you understand that there is a difference between the potential and the actual. And that the events that happened are *not* the same.
You have to realize that the people who were rejoicing over 9/11 and other extremist acts did so because they believe America to be the enemy, and when their enemy was hurt, they took joy in that. They believe America to be responsible for countless atrocities across the Middle East.
Of course I realise this. The problem is that in 911, no one who was actually "responsible" for any particular atrocity against the "muslim world" did in fact die. Well, perhaps except some person or another in the pentagon.
We view Osama as evil and responsible for horrific acts all around the world. He died, and we rejoiced in it. How exactly is that different?
Why do you say "we"? Did you rejoice? You know I didn't, so what are you talking about?
If you can't see the difference of killing the most wanted terrorist (warning for the on lookers, I did not say the most "influent") in the earth, with an astonishing criminal record and killing thousands of innocent civilians, then what else could I ever say to you?
IOW, you are the one with all the work still ahead of you, if you want to persuade me that there is no difference at all.
-
Again, it's a matter of perspective. They (the people who cheered 9/11) did think most Americans were responsible for the atrocities across the Middle East, the way a lot of Americans think all Muslims are terrorists.
No need to get personal on this. I'm not insulting you. I used "we" to mean as a whole.
-
Again, it's a matter of perspective. They (the people who cheered 9/11) did think most Americans were responsible for the atrocities across the Middle East, the way a lot of Americans think all Muslims are terrorists.
No need to get personal on this. I'm not insulting you. I used "we" to mean as a whole.
It's totally different. If someone in the Middle East wants to celebrate killing a coalition soldier, or one of our leaders; then that would be equivalent to celebrating Osama's death.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. Not compared to celebrating the deaths of thousands of civillians.
-
Again, it's a matter of perspective. They (the people who cheered 9/11) did think most Americans were responsible for the atrocities across the Middle East, the way a lot of Americans think all Muslims are terrorists.
No need to get personal on this. I'm not insulting you. I used "we" to mean as a whole.
It's totally different. If someone in the Middle East wants to celebrate killing a coalition soldier, or one of our leaders; then that would be equivalent to celebrating Osama's death.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. Not compared to celebrating the deaths of thousands of civillians.
then again the civilians that dies in the attacks were cogs in the machinery of capitalism which is an aspect of Western society they really don't like and would be the equivalent of us bombing a tank factory. Part of the problem here is the difference in culture mixed with propaganda on both sides, the world trade center attack was has and imho correctly as a crime against humanity for the loss of life involved. to the Jihadists as i say it was like bombing one of the main war factories for the western powers, yes the loss of life was tragic but in their own way the people in the towers were contributing to the assault the West is making on their culture. it is a difficult concept at times to get your head round but it is an understanding that is needed to understand the how the War on Terror and the Jihadist movement against the West is panning out.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd
-
It's bollocks to claim that the bunch of palestinians who apparently celebrated 9/11 were rejoicing the death of thousands of civilians while the bunch of americans who celebrated Osama's death were merely rejoicing that he can't do bad things anymore. Isn't it pretty obvious that the palestinians were rejoicing that the USA got slapped in the face just like the americans were rejoicing that the terrorists got slapped in the face? The USA and the terrorists are both seen as adversaries which do evil on a massive scale, cannot be defeated and which the average person can't do anything about, hence the celebration on both sides being primarily about the abstract notion of bad guys getting put in their place by good guys, not about the specifics of what happened and to whom.
That's not to say it isn't entirely correct to say that the celebrating people are actually celebrating the specifics, but I'm merely arguing against the double standard here.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
From the view of Arabs who believe they're suffering the oppression of the capitalist West, yeah, seeing their enemy hurt would be about the same as us seeing our terrorist enemy hurt.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
From the view of Arabs who believe they're suffering the oppression of the capitalist West, yeah, seeing their enemy hurt would be about the same as us seeing our terrorist enemy hurt.
Like I said, if they killed the president or something, and celebrated, it would be equivalent.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
From the view of Arabs who believe they're suffering the oppression of the capitalist West, yeah, seeing their enemy hurt would be about the same as us seeing our terrorist enemy hurt.
Like I said, if they killed the president or something, and celebrated, it would be equivalent.
Yes, exactly. I'd probably be outraged at that sort of celebration myself, but I'd at least recognize that they have a leg to stand on. Killing a governmental or military leader, someone directly invested in national policy, is a purposeful act of war. Killing innocent civilians is pure evil.
-
Alright, let me explain.
We've spent ten years trying to get the guy who planned and executed 9/11. When we finally, after a lot of death and time, killed him, we celebrated.
The Arabs who hate the West believe they've waited years to get at the people who they believe have hurt them. So, 9/11 happens, they cheer.
Yes, exactly. I'd probably be outraged at that sort of celebration myself, but I'd at least recognize that they have a leg to stand on. Killing a governmental or military leader, someone directly invested in national policy, is a purposeful act of war. Killing innocent civilians is pure evil.
No different than Americans who want to kill all Muslims. There's plenty of those.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
From the view of Arabs who believe they're suffering the oppression of the capitalist West, yeah, seeing their enemy hurt would be about the same as us seeing our terrorist enemy hurt.
Like I said, if they killed the president or something, and celebrated, it would be equivalent.
Yes, exactly. I'd probably be outraged at that sort of celebration myself, but I'd at least recognize that they have a leg to stand on. Killing a governmental or military leader, someone directly invested in national policy, is a purposeful act of war. Killing innocent civilians is pure evil.
Then we're not really on much higher ground than Osama bin Laden, are we? (Not saying you think we are, but it's a point worth making).
After all, we elect our leaders.
-
Yes; we've killed civilians to, but its not something we generally celebrate. No we're not doing much better than Osama in that sense, but that's another discussion.
What we were discussing here is the morality of celebrating Osama's death vs. celebrating 9/11.
Celebrating 9/11 would be like us celebrating the time Blackwater opened fire on all those civilians. I KNEW someone who did, and I thought he was a despicable person.
-
No, it's bollocks to claim that the two are even remotely morally equivalent. That Times article is dead on.
From the view of Arabs who believe they're suffering the oppression of the capitalist West, yeah, seeing their enemy hurt would be about the same as us seeing our terrorist enemy hurt.
Precisely. The dummies on both sides see that "enemy hurt", figure that "enemy bad, so enemy hurt good" and then go celebrate.
Anyway, now that you brought up the Times article... it was stupid. Glorifying revenge and calling it "justice", "civilized and morally sound" is about as backwards as you can possibly get. Revenge isn't civilized. It's not justice. It's not morally sound. It's exactly the opposite almost by definition, for goodness' sake. :nono:
-
Yes; we've killed civilians to, but its not something we generally celebrate. No we're not doing much better than Osama in that sense, but that's another discussion.
What we were discussing here is the morality of celebrating Osama's death vs. celebrating 9/11.
Celebrating 9/11 would be like us celebrating the time Blackwater opened fire on all those civilians. I KNEW someone who did, and I thought he was a despicable person.
It's not a matter of debating terrorist versus civilian, because that means we're just considering it from our point of view.
To the Arabs who celebrated 9/11, every single one of those 2,996 people killed were just as culpable in the atrocities they allege we perpetrate across the Middle East, as we believe Osama was in 9/11.
Let me be clear: the people who celebrated thought the victims were terrorists. We see Osama as a terrorist. From both sides: terrorist dead, celebrate.
-
Yes; we've killed civilians to, but its not something we generally celebrate. No we're not doing much better than Osama in that sense, but that's another discussion.
What we were discussing here is the morality of celebrating Osama's death vs. celebrating 9/11.
Celebrating 9/11 would be like us celebrating the time Blackwater opened fire on all those civilians. I KNEW someone who did, and I thought he was a despicable person.
It's not a matter of debating terrorist versus civilian, because that means we're just considering it from our point of view.
To the Arabs who celebrated 9/11, every single one of those 2,996 people killed were just as culpable in the atrocities they allege we perpetrate across the Middle East, as we believe Osama was in 9/11.
Let me be clear: the people who celebrated thought the victims were terrorists. We see Osama as a terrorist. From both sides: terrorist dead, celebrate.
Thinking someone is guilty =/= them being guilty.
We know that Osama plotted those attacks.
The terrorists assumed that all of those people were guilty. They were only guilty of living their lives the way that they were allowed to.
-
I smell a circle-jerk in this topic. Progress is obviously being made.
-
And what if evidence turned up that said Osama wasn't responsible for 9/11? We would have celebrated and cheered over the wrong person.
We believe what we believe because the evidence we have says that we should hold certain people responsible. The other side, in the same way, has their own evidence (no matter how wrong) that all Americans should be held responsible.
Again, you're looking at this purely from our perspective.
I smell a circle-jerk in this topic.
I see two specific opposing sides. Hardly a circlejerk.
-
I smell a circle-jerk in this topic. Progress is obviously being made.
What is this I don't even, there are people arguing. A circlejerk occurs when everyone agrees.
-
And what if evidence turned up that said Osama wasn't responsible for 9/11? We would have celebrated and cheered over the wrong person.
We believe what we believe because the evidence we have says that we should hold certain people responsible. The other side, in the same way, has their own evidence (no matter how wrong) that all Americans should be held responsible.
Again, you're looking at this purely from our perspective.
We have Osama Bin Laden, on tape, declaring himself responsible for 9/11. Unless you got a video of each and every one of the people killed in 9/11 claiming responsibility for the state of the Arab world, the situations are not comparable.
I'm NOT seeing it from their perspective, because they honestly don't have the ground to stand on. What actual evidence could they have of nearly 3,000 people's capability?
-
Well, we did elect the people who are (in their perception) responsible for the injustices visited upon them.
I don't really agree with them but I can see how they can be led to believe the US and all its citizens are an enemy.
-
We have Osama Bin Laden, on tape, declaring himself responsible for 9/11. Unless you got a video of each and every one of the people killed in 9/11 claiming responsibility for the state of the Arab world, the situations are not comparable.
Again, that's the evidence we're presented. The Arabs who cheered 9/11 have their own evidence to believe that all Americans are responsible for 9/11 (again, no matter how wrong it is): oil companies drilling in Saudi Arabia, Americans cheering for Israel, military personnel on sacred soil, rednecks hating Muslims...
For the same reason Timothy McVeigh could look at the FBI and ATF raid on Waco and then bomb a government facility in Oklahoma City, a building with people who likely had nothing to do with Waco, simply because it belonged to the agency that carried out what he believed to be a horrible act, the Arabs who cheered 9/11 see any American dead as justice for what they believe other Americans did.
They didn't distinguish between the people who actually committed those atrocities and the rest of the people who happened to share the nationality. Either way, it's still bloodlust and a drive for vengeance, and each side sees themselves as justified.
-
We have Osama Bin Laden, on tape, declaring himself responsible for 9/11. Unless you got a video of each and every one of the people killed in 9/11 claiming responsibility for the state of the Arab world, the situations are not comparable.
Again, that's the evidence we're presented. The Arabs who cheered 9/11 have their own evidence to believe that all Americans are responsible for 9/11 (again, no matter how wrong it is): oil companies drilling in Saudi Arabia, Americans cheering for Israel, military personnel on sacred soil, rednecks hating Muslims...
For the same reason Timothy McVeigh could look at the FBI and ATF raid on Waco and then bomb a government facility in Oklahoma City, a building with people who likely had nothing to do with Waco, simply because it belonged to the agency that carried out what he believed to be a horrible act, the Arabs who cheered 9/11 see any American dead as justice for what they believe other Americans did.
They didn't distinguish between the people who actually committed those atrocities and the rest of the people who happened to share the nationality. Either way, it's still bloodlust and a drive for vengeance, and each side sees themselves as justified.
Belief =/= actual justification.
-
Not really that much of a stretch. If a few believe a certain way, what's to say everyone else (or a very large majority) in that group don't believe the same?
Which is why McVeigh bombed OKC, why al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11 and some Arabs cheered, and why a lot of people in this country hate all Muslims.
-
The Arabs who hate the West believe they've waited years to get at the people who they believe have hurt them. So, 9/11 happens, they cheer.
Osama bin Laden is not only an admitted figure in 9/11, but an admitted figure in terrorism in general, who claims to have played a major leadership role in an organization responsible for a great majority of "Islamic" terrorism against the US.
The majority people who died on 9/11 were, at worst, greedy, relatively few of them had any sort of leadership role, none of those killed in the major effort had raised a direct hand against the Middle East or directed others to do so.
If, and only if, we were discussing the attack on the Pentagon, would you have an actual equivalency. But encompassing the entire 9/11 attacks, it falls apart. Those who cheered it were willfully ignorant at best, and you may not excuse them on those grounds.
And your effort to use McVeigh as an equivalency is equally inept. You demand he make an eye for an eye, while at the same time claiming that a soldier for a soldier is justified in 9/11. Your argument is internally incoherent on this subject and at the least needs to be heavily refined.
-
You're missing the fact that he's discussing what the set of people who cheered for 9/11 believed, not making a moral argument.
-
I believe it makes you less human if you cheer the death of another human being, as a matter of principle.
Fight your enemies? Of course. Be relived when you prevail? Sure. Be glad when a conflict is solved? Certainly,... I would say solving a conflict IS a cause for celebration -
but this conflict is far from solved, the organisation responsible for the conflict is still intact and if anything, then Osama's death + the cheering of the idiot masses act as a huge proverbial stinky finger, but little else. Couldn't think of a better way to motivate the bad guys into hurting more people frankly... :/
-
Bin Laden was a bad dude. I'm glad he's dead and the world is a better place without him. However, like a lot of others have said in here, it doesn't seem right to be joyful over a man's death. We should strive to make a world where we don't need to kill anyone in the first place.
-
And your effort to use McVeigh as an equivalency is equally inept. You demand he make an eye for an eye, while at the same time claiming that a soldier for a soldier is justified in 9/11. Your argument is internally incoherent on this subject and at the least needs to be heavily refined.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
-
You're missing the fact that he's discussing what the set of people who cheered for 9/11 believed, not making a moral argument.
You're missing the fact that their believing it is in itself a moral argument in the day of smartphones and the internet. We have ample proof at hand that the day of simply buying whatever bull**** the government put out is (and has been for a long time) over in the Arab world, that these are technically savvy people capable of informing themselves about the shape of the world even in the dusty back-streets of Islamabad or Riyadh. If they truly believe what is claimed, they are doing so because that is what they wish to believe and they have rejected all evidence to the contrary despite having a great deal of it at their fingertips. It renders them morally and socially reprehensible by default.
For that matter, he is directly equating knowledge and ignorance as being morally equivalent. He himself has said so; "Either way, it's still bloodlust and a drive for vengeance, and each side sees themselves as justified."
I care not whether they see themselves as justified, and neither should anyone else. Seeing one's self as being justified says nothing about actual justification.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Quite simply: you criticize McVeigh for not attacking the people directly responsible. But McVeigh managed to at least attacking the correct mechanisms that make such things as he was upset about possible. The same cannot be said of 9/11. It is at least a red herring in your argument.
-
You're missing the fact that their believing it is in itself a moral argument in the day of smartphones and the internet. We have ample proof at hand that the day of simply buying whatever bull**** the government put out is (and has been for a long time) over in the Arab world, that these are technically savvy people capable of informing themselves about the shape of the world even in the dusty back-streets of Islamabad or Riyadh. If they truly believe what is claimed, they are doing so because that is what they wish to believe and they have rejected all evidence to the contrary despite having a great deal of it at their fingertips. It renders them morally and socially reprehensible by default.
Arguing that because people have access to all the same information you do then they must reach the same conclusions you do is, psychologically, about the dumbest thing ever. Especially when your argument pertains to a tiny minority of the population in question.
Arguments that the truth is ours and the lies are theirs are all basically worth dismissing offhand.
I care not whether they see themselves as justified, and neither should anyone else. Seeing one's self as being justified says nothing about actual justification.
Well, it's just about the only justification any of us have access to. I don't think anyone can speak to 'actual justification', whatever that might be. Personally I feel our justification is a lot better than their justification, but I suspect we all do, no matter who we are.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Quite simply: you criticize McVeigh for not attacking the people directly responsible. But McVeigh managed to at least attacking the correct mechanisms that make such things as he was upset about possible. The same cannot be said of 9/11. It is at least a red herring in your argument.
As a terror attack 9/11 seems to have struck the mechanisms of power pretty thoroughly. We all live in more fear than we did beforehand, and I think it's hard to deny the attack carried out its objectives - the subsequent ten years panned out in a manner that could hardly have been more ideal for bin Laden.
-
If they truly believe what is claimed, they are doing so because that is what they wish to believe and they have rejected all evidence to the contrary despite having a great deal of it at their fingertips. It renders them morally and socially reprehensible by default.
Scenario fulfillment. Everybody cherrypicks their information to suit their worldview. Some Palestinian Arabs are taught from birth to hate Israel and America, so they'll look for all the evidence available that lets them hate America. Tea Partiers here do it to oppose healthcare. Liberals do it here to support gun control. Extreme right wingers do it to hate Muslims.
Not everyone is as reasonable as most people here.
For that matter, he is directly equating knowledge and ignorance as being morally equivalent. He himself has said so; "Either way, it's still bloodlust and a drive for vengeance, and each side sees themselves as justified."
Because it is. Palestinians want revenge for their homes being bulldozed, we want vengeance for what somebody did on 9/11.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Quite simply: you criticize McVeigh for not attacking the people directly responsible. But McVeigh managed to at least attacking the correct mechanisms that make such things as he was upset about possible. The same cannot be said of 9/11. It is at least a red herring in your argument.
And you don't think bin Laden didn't see capitalism and the average person living in a country that elects the leaders that sent troops to Saudi Arabia as being responsible for his perceived injustices?
-
Arguments that the truth is ours and the lies are theirs are all basically worth dismissing offhand.
Except that in this particular case, that's exactly what's going on. We know Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We know he was responsible for the attack on the Cole and the African embassy bombings. We know he was responsible for any number of other terrorist acts. These are basic, irrefutable truths. The fact that none of those ordinary civilians in the World Trade Center were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for what has been going on in the Middle East for centuries is also a basic truth. So if the citizens of certain countries want to spin it that they were, they're being self-delusional. As NGTM-1R noted, they're culpable just by being willfully ignorant. We don't even need to get into discussions about external vs. internal justifications...we're dealing with factual events, and the arrow points squarely in one direction.
I don't really give a **** about what a bunch of ass-backwards types halfway around the world happen to believe is justified. Bin Laden was a mass murderer. He's dead now. You can bet your ass I'm going to be happy, and you can bet your ass I see no moral issue with being happy.
(Also, it occurs to me that if I'd attacked this argument here the same way I did in a back-and-forth on Facebook, I'd probably wind up calling someone a pussy. :p)
-
The fact that none of those ordinary civilians in the World Trade Center were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for what has been going on in the Middle East for centuries is also a basic truth.
Ugh. Did you just completely ignore my post?
So if the citizens of certain countries want to spin it that they were, they're being self-delusional.
Look, information and news not filtered or spun by governments in the Middle East are much more of luxuries than they are in the West. Your average Middle Easterner in Palestine, Syria, or Saudi Arabia doesn't necessarily have the ability to access opposing viewpoints, mostly because those viewpoints are filtered out by their respective governments. In fact, anyone who accesses that information or talks about usually ends up on the respective security service's watch list.
As NGTM-1R noted, they're culpable just by being willfully ignorant. We don't even need to get into discussions about external vs. internal justifications...we're dealing with factual events, and the arrow points squarely in one direction.
Again, you can say that because you have the luxury of a relatively free press and a relatively comfortable position to analyze all this from. Again, a lot of the people who cheered on 9/11 were likely the people who didn't have the ability to pop open Wikipedia and browse through the history of US involvement in the Middle East. They had A) their respective demagogue, B) their families and friends, and C) their situation and the evidence they could gather from it.
So again: Palestinian homes are demolished by Israel, average Palestinian looks at Israel with hatred. All it takes is one close family or one religious leader to point out footage of Americans cheering on Israel for that Palestinian to hate America as well. So when America gets attacked, they cheer it on, because the people they believed were cheering on the demolition of their homes got punished.
They believe that because they believe the information is correct, just as we do: we have evidence that bin Laden carried out the attacks, including his own admittance. They have evidence that the US financially supports Israel, that average Americans cheer on Israel, and that average Americans elect the politicians who provide financial support to Israel. Therefore, in their view, average Americans are partly responsible for the demolition of their homes.
I don't really give a **** about what a bunch of ass-backwards types halfway around the world. happen to believe is justified.
Yeah, I'd rephrase that. If someone else read like I did the first time, they would think you were referring to Arabs as ass-backwards types.
Bin Laden was a mass murderer. He's dead now. You can bet your ass I'm going to be happy, and you can bet your ass I see no moral issue with being happy.
You can be happy that justice was done. The same way you can be happy when a murderer gets sent to prison, but you don't need to say "good, I hope he gets ****ing raped in there." That's the difference: happy over seeing justice done, and just happy over someone's death.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvWSihtmrw
(Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCJBOZC7XdQ)
-
The fact that none of those ordinary civilians in the World Trade Center were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for what has been going on in the Middle East for centuries is also a basic truth.
Ugh. Did you just completely ignore my post?
No, but I didn't see much relevance in it, just as I don't in most of what you wrote there. I'm not denying that people living in certain parts of the Middle East may find it harder to access factual information, and thus may be more easily swayed by misinformation and rumors, but that doesn't change the fact that this isn't true for us. Those people cheering in lower Manhattan and outside the White House knew exactly who Bin Laden was and what he had done, and this informed their reaction. Whether or not the people in the Middle East likewise cheering on 9/11 were aware of the shakiness of their own beliefs is, quite frankly, irrelevant...they were still operating on falsehoods, and thus I don't see how any direct moral equivalence can be drawn.
I don't really give a **** about what a bunch of ass-backwards types halfway around the world. happen to believe is justified.
Yeah, I'd rephrase that. If someone else read like I did the first time, they would think you were referring to Arabs as ass-backwards types.
I'm referring to anyone who operates based on ignorance and nothing more as "ass-backwards," whether it be crowds of flag-burning Arabs on 9/11 or rednecks who want to "shoot all dem Muslim turrists."
-
Whether or not the people in the Middle East likewise cheering on 9/11 were aware of the shakiness of their own beliefs is, quite frankly, irrelevant...they were still operating on falsehoods, and thus I don't see how any direct moral equivalence can be drawn.
What you're doing is comparing what we know about bin Laden with what we know about the people in the WTC and their lack of involvement in atrocities across the Middle East. Of course we know that the people in the towers weren't responsible for Palestinian homes being demolished.
They don't though. It's not that most of them are willfully ignorant, it's just that they don't know any different. For all they know, their information is correct, and they're right in their assumptions.
Since there wasn't anyone in the US saying that they wanted Palestinian homes bulldozed, they had a much harder time coming to their conclusions, but given the other evidence, they reached it. We just had an easier time because bin Laden admitted doing it, but even at that, there's a lot of these guys around. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIHOP)
So what I'm doing is is comparing how we understand bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 and how they understand American involvement in Middle East affairs. We believe justice was done, they believe justice was done.
Now, let me preface this next part with this: I broke down into ****ing tears of joy watching the Times Square and White House celebrations. Hell, I would have probably had the same reaction if he had been captured, put on trial, and found guilty. But as soon as I saw people on Facebook saying things to the effect of "bin Laden's burning in Hell" or "hope you suffer for an eternity you bastard", I got sick. Justice isn't about revenge, and justice isn't about bloodlust. It's about ****ing justice. Savages want revenge, savages want to know bad people are being raped in prison or burning in Hell for eternity. Civilized people don't. Part of our civilization is being humane even to the guilty.
I'm referring to anyone who operates based on ignorance and nothing more as "ass-backwards," whether it be crowds of flag-burning Arabs on 9/11 or rednecks who want to "shoot all dem Muslim turrists."
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I kinda knew you better, but just wanted to make sure. :)
-
Now, let me preface this next part with this: I broke down into ****ing tears of joy watching the Times Square and White House celebrations. Hell, I would have probably had the same reaction if he had been captured, put on trial, and found guilty. But as soon as I saw people on Facebook saying things to the effect of "bin Laden's burning in Hell" or "hope you suffer for an eternity you bastard", I got sick. Justice isn't about revenge, and justice isn't about bloodlust. It's about ****ing justice. Savages want revenge, savages want to know bad people are being raped in prison or burning in Hell for eternity. Civilized people don't. Part of our civilization is being humane even to the guilty.
This clears up where you're coming from a lot, and I honestly pretty much agree with the way you feel about this part of it. I was legitimately happy (at least to some extent...part of me didn't really know how to feel) when I heard the news, because I knew that we finally resolved at least one unfinished thread from ten years ago. It might not have a massive practical effect, but we finally got him. I didn't have any qualms whatsoever about the act of his death, but at the same time, I wasn't exactly ready to start dragging his corpse through the streets. I wouldn't say I was flat-out disturbed by the sentiments like those you saw on Facebook, but I sure did roll my eyes at them. I'm glad we treated his corpse with respect and disposed of it in that fashion, since we've all seen pictures of what happens when the mob gets its way as an alternative. What's really prompted my backlash over some of this have been the statements that even those people who did gather in front of the White House were somehow "glorifying death" or acting in "bloodlust." I couldn't disagree more with that, and I don't think I could ever see things from that viewpoint.
As for the other half of the discussion...I'm too tired to think through a proper response tonight. :p
-
Arguments that the truth is ours and the lies are theirs are all basically worth dismissing offhand.
Except that in this particular case, that's exactly what's going on. We know Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We know he was responsible for the attack on the Cole and the African embassy bombings. We know he was responsible for any number of other terrorist acts. These are basic, irrefutable truths. The fact that none of those ordinary civilians in the World Trade Center were responsible, either directly or indirectly, for what has been going on in the Middle East for centuries is also a basic truth.
No it's not. First off, centuries? If you want to talk about basic truth you might want to pick up on your historical truths. :nervous:
So if the citizens of certain countries want to spin it that they were, they're being self-delusional. As NGTM-1R noted, they're culpable just by being willfully ignorant. We don't even need to get into discussions about external vs. internal justifications...we're dealing with factual events, and the arrow points squarely in one direction.
You think that the people who celebrated 9/11 in Palestine and the rednecks who celebrate when Arabs get massacred are willfully ignorant? You think people get their opinions by rationally weighing all the available information and reaching a conclusion? Hell, do you think you can do that? (You can't; nobody can.)
Constructing a world in which people who examine the same information you have and then proceed to disagree with you are morally wrong is going to take you some ugly places.
You're surrounded by Americans who believe the government ordered 9/11 and that the moon landing was fake, and they came up with those ideas in the context of our relatively transparent society. Imagine what it's like living under Hamas.
The assumptions said Palestinians grow up with, the things they learn from their environment, are fundamentally different from what we receive. Not only did they believe that 9/11 was justice done, they had every bit as much reason to believe it as we did to celebrate the death of bin Laden (and believe me, I was glad when bin Laden died) - namely, the reason provided by the combination of available information and the worldview created by their environment.
Hell, I can see where they're coming from. We live in a democratic government; our citizens are surely responsible for the actions of our leaders, right? And no, that's not the same as agreeing with them - counterargument is pointless unless you can argue why a Palestinian wouldn't believe this.
I don't think they were right, but they think they were right. The argument here isn't even that we have equal claim to be right - it's that our respective celebrations of these respective events proceeded from very similar beliefs.
I don't really give a **** about what a bunch of ass-backwards types halfway around the world happen to believe is justified. Bin Laden was a mass murderer. He's dead now. You can bet your ass I'm going to be happy, and you can bet your ass I see no moral issue with being happy.
Ignoring what a bunch of ass-backwards types halfway around the world happen to believe is justified is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
Killing a man is never worthy of celebration. Sometimes, however, it is necessary; and that necessity should be met, perhaps, with satisfaction at a job well done, or relief at the (possible) prevention of future disaster, or knowledge that the punishment of a crime will, if all goes well, deter future crime. Celebration, though? That's a lot. In fact, that's glorifying bin Laden - making him into more than he was. He was a criminal, and in the end he died a criminal's death.
The biggest blow we can deliver to terrorism is to render it insignificant and go on with our lives. bin Laden rose to prominence because of his reputation for courage on the battlefield fighting an invading enemy. He wanted to be a leader of men and an implacable foe to occupiers. Celebrating his death at the hands of a foreign army is exactly what he'd want; nodding and moving on is exactly what he'd fear. Terrorism feeds on a cycle of violence and outrage, after all.
So, as for my own reaction? I was satisfied. It was a kind of closure. Do I think dancing in the streets in celebration of bin Laden's death was morally equivalent to dancing in the streets in celebration of 9/11? Not really; I see a big difference between celebrating the punishment of a criminal and celebrating a blow to a foreign occupier which involved enormous amounts of collateral damage (and no, that's not MY view of 9/11, but it's probably what those street dancers thought). But I feel that no matter how much better reason we might have to dance and celebrate, there's too much in common for me to be comfortable with it.
-
That's a fine comment, Tutta.
-
I suppose my main concern is variables. Whilst we knew where he was and what he was doing, he was a known variable, now we are back to a load of unknown ones. Whilst there might be a certain phsychological boost to killing him, I don't think he ever expected to survive, to be honest, he was probably surprised that he survived as long as he did.
Politically, it might have been a good idea, strategically, I'm not so certain.
-
Known unknowns and unknown unknowns?
-
alive he was a variable, dead he is a constant.
-
I suppose my main concern is variables. Whilst we knew where he was and what he was doing, he was a known variable, now we are back to a load of unknown ones. Whilst there might be a certain phsychological boost to killing him, I don't think he ever expected to survive, to be honest, he was probably surprised that he survived as long as he did.
Politically, it might have been a good idea, strategically, I'm not so certain.
Strategically it should be a practical blow to Al-Qaeda since it's been alluded to, though unconfirmed, that old binny was an active commander. Having said that the most recent muslim extremist attacks (Mumbai 2008) were completely independent of Al-Qaeda. Osama has succeeded in permeating violent anti-West sentiments beyond the scope of his own organisation.
We should be commiting more resources to stamping out the Taliban more than anything else. It's turned into a viscious cycle where ISAF wins an engagement, doesn't have the troop numbers to hold ground and pulls out again, letting the Taliban re-enter the area and happily plant IEDs on everything. Half measures can't work against a numberless and unseen enemy, there's only so many times the same battles can be fought before money and ammo are gone. I've heard this same story dozens of times from ncos over many different regiments.
-
Strategically it should be a practical blow to Al-Qaeda since it's been alluded to, though unconfirmed, that old binny was an active commander. Having said that the most recent muslim extremist attacks (Mumbai 2008) were completely independent of Al-Qaeda. Osama has succeeded in permeating violent anti-West sentiments beyond the scope of his own organisation.
I wouldn't exactly consider the Mumbai raid to be something aimed at the west. To the contrary it was the inevitable result of pakistan's deliberate support for terrorism and extremism as a means to strike against india.
-
Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. It seems to fit this nicely.
-
alive he was a variable, dead he is a constant.
Bin Laden is not Al Quaeda. We went from a known figure that the US claim to have still been organising terror, where we knew where he was and what he was doing to an unknown figure replacing him.
-
CORUSCANT — Obi-Wan Kenobi, the mastermind of some of the most devastating attacks on the Galactic Empire and the most hunted man in the galaxy, was killed in a firefight with Imperial forces near Alderaan, Darth Vader announced on Sunday.
In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades. Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader's own lightsaber. He was later dumped out of an airlock.
Continues in http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html
It's hilarious
-
CORUSCANT — Obi-Wan Kenobi, the mastermind of some of the most devastating attacks on the Galactic Empire and the most hunted man in the galaxy, was killed in a firefight with Imperial forces near Alderaan, Darth Vader announced on Sunday.
In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades. Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader's own lightsaber. He was later dumped out of an airlock.
Continues in http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html
It's hilarious
The comments section is 100% win :lol:
-
Strategically it should be a practical blow to Al-Qaeda since it's been alluded to, though unconfirmed, that old binny was an active commander. Having said that the most recent muslim extremist attacks (Mumbai 2008) were completely independent of Al-Qaeda. Osama has succeeded in permeating violent anti-West sentiments beyond the scope of his own organisation.
I wouldn't exactly consider the Mumbai raid to be something aimed at the west. To the contrary it was the inevitable result of pakistan's deliberate support for terrorism and extremism as a means to strike against india.
Aye that's my point, they were the most recent major terrorist attacks in the whole world, never mind the west and they were totally independent of Al Qaeda.
-
and so the fallout begins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13385597
I posted it here due to The Pakistani Taliban said they carried out the attack to avenge the death of Osama Bin Laden earlier this month.
from what the article says the attack was simple but well planned. RIP to the victims who died in the attack
-
CORUSCANT — Obi-Wan Kenobi, the mastermind of some of the most devastating attacks on the Galactic Empire and the most hunted man in the galaxy, was killed in a firefight with Imperial forces near Alderaan, Darth Vader announced on Sunday.
In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades. Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader's own lightsaber. He was later dumped out of an airlock.
Continues in http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html
It's hilarious
The comments section is 100% win :lol:
Look at Vader; taking all the credit. Oh well, back to my post.
Favorite.
-
Apparently it was really the Maquis (http://trekmovie.com/2011/05/06/geman-tv-fail-star-treks-maquis-not-involved-in-bin-laden-mission/) that pulled it off.
-
Here Fishy Fishy Fishy =P
[attachment deleted by ninja]