Mod The Sims - Bin Laden is Dead.

Mistermook

2nd May 2011, 07:55 PM

Osama bin Laden was more than just a leader for a group of terrorists, he was an icon for the failure of the USA to bring him to justice. Years after he successfully pulled off a devastating attack on US soil he was still out there, serving as a representation of the full extent, or lack thereof, of American power. This quite literally puts a bullet in that and puts the US into the category of unrelenting. It may take a very long time, but eventually we'll find you and kill you if you choose to wage war upon us. That's a good thing, not just us but also for Western civilization really. While philosophical reactionaries like bin Laden will always exist, they exist inside the US and even inside its government, there's a line between dialog and violence that simply must be punished when it's overstepped. Why? Because civilization is all about having conversations with people you have disagreements with instead of killing them.

Now honestly that's a little bit why it gives me pause when we go out of our way to kill someone like this, but on the other hand I think given his history bin Laden pretty much said everything he wanted to say in the way of murdering innocent people to the point where "If we missed something by putting a bullet in his head, I'm fine with that."

I don't think bin Laden is as easily replaced as some of you do. As a symbol he was a poster for recruiting and the chinks in US invulnerability. As the man himself he was the architect, along with a few other guys that are also dead or imprisoned already, for multiple attacks on the West. There will be others, but despite what employees often like to think, good management is really, really hard to find. Things won't stop, there's too many people invested in this now, but I think they'll find it even harder to coordinate between themselves than before and they'll have to deal with the ongoing affliction on their brain-trust... I don't know how many terrorists are out there that are going to get the experience from failure any longer that bin Laden got, because quite simply failure means death or imprisonment now.

Robodl95

2nd May 2011, 09:28 PM

I wish that America would stop navel-gazing and being so self-centred.

"This is a great day for America."

*coughs*

Um, how about THE WORLD? I flipped from CNN to my local 24/7 news coverage and they actually talked about other countries' involvement. Just goes to show how much America pays attention to everyone else who helped them mark this occasion.
Because Bin Laden's biggest attack was against the US? Because US troops are the ones who killed him? (no other country had any part in killing the man, I've heard rumors that Pakistan knew but I'm not sure.....) Because Americans are the ones who started the war? Yes it's a great day for the world but it's also a great day for each individual country and there's nothing wrong to say so. I love how quick you're able to generalize an entire country of over 300 million people by one persons words (with no source might I add).....

kikiyoshi

2nd May 2011, 10:07 PM

I am glad that they finally killed him, but it's sad that this did not happen sooner, but better late than never i suppose. Let's hope that things get better from here on out...

Nabila_Ici

2nd May 2011, 10:25 PM

Tell that to the thousands of people in the Middle East who cheared for the American deaths on 9/11. In this case, I'd say the sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

Really now? Because I remember when 9/11 happened, no-one in the Middle East 'cheared' for American deaths. Maybe a few did, but thousands? Highly unlikely. Believe it or not, we're not all supportive of anti-American suicide bombers and terrorists.

kattenijin

2nd May 2011, 10:55 PM

Really now? Because I remember when 9/11 happened, no-one in the Middle East 'cheared' for American deaths. Maybe a few did, but thousands? Highly unlikely. Believe it or not, we're not all supportive of anti-American suicide bombers and terrorists.

I never said all, nor implied it. There are 19 countries considered to be "the Middle East"; if you only had 15 people in each of the top 10 population centers of each of those countries chearing, you get thousands. Considering that international TV (not just US) showed groups larger than 15 in multiple cities, and multiple countries chearing at that time, unfortunately for you it isn't "highly unlikely" there were thousands chearing.

Honeywell

2nd May 2011, 10:58 PM

Really now? Because I remember when 9/11 happened, no-one in the Middle East 'cheared' for American deaths. Maybe a few did, but thousands? Highly unlikely. Believe it or not, we're not all supportive of anti-American suicide bombers and terrorists.Yes, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOJCQr1Now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WptpG_yVUI

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp

Mistermook

2nd May 2011, 11:26 PM

Really now? Because I remember when 9/11 happened, no-one in the Middle East 'cheared' for American deaths. Maybe a few did, but thousands? Highly unlikely. Believe it or not, we're not all supportive of anti-American suicide bombers and terrorists.
And you obviously weren't in the whole of the Middle East, being just one person, especially since those celebrations happened.

In any case, it's one thing to celebrate the unprovoked murder of thousands and another to celebrate the death of the person responsible for those murders. Muslims should be happy about bin Laden's death too, because the man's twisted version of Islam was all about killing Muslims as much as Americans and anyone else who disagreed with his narrow version of the religion. His version of Islam was marked by violent outbursts of Muslim on Muslim violence even more than it was in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. His ideology was the antithesis of the recent popular movements erupting in the Middle East - everyday Muslims were as much his enemy as anyone in Washington DC.

I understand that the progressive elements of Western culture are not always comfortable in parts of the Middle East, and I understand there are reprehensible religious elements in the West that truly do seek to make these clashes of culture into a religious conflict as much as religious fundamentalists in Islam seek to frame the disagreement as such to solidify their support among their faithful. This should not be one of those issues. Who stands with Osama bin Laden, murderer of Muslims and Westerners alike? Standing aside on the issue of whether or not it is ever truly justified taking a human life, how can anyone champion such a man for whom human life meant so little?

Of course the Middle East is not some monolithic entity. Islam is not monolithic and without its differences. Christianity is not. Atheists such as myself are not. It's one thing to rightly point this out, and it's another to try to state a falsehood in pursuit of proving such a point. There are Islamic assholes and there are American assholes and there are probably all sorts of assholes out there with other defining characteristics. That's ok. The point is to not let the assholes win, and to keep them from controlling the dialog between differences in opinion. Let the grownups have a conversation for once, and that won't mean we'll all ever hash out our differences, but maybe we can keep folks like bin Laden from dominating the conversation.

SeeMyu

3rd May 2011, 12:00 AM

Hopefully this isn't another one of his "doubles"..

crocobaura

3rd May 2011, 12:24 AM

I am no fan of Bin Laden, but the US's entitlement to pursue terrorits is unbelievable. They practically had a military intervention in Pakistan, complete with grenades and guns, without Pakistani government knowledge nor consent, and killed pakistani citizens and residents. Had they done this to Russia or China it would have been considered an act of war, but as it is, they even have the audacity to imply the Pakistani government had knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts, when in fact the nearby military academy was caught by a surprise attack of the US troops in their neighbourhood. Oh, and burrying him at sea within 24 hours of killing him is very convenient. You'd think that after they attacked a country and put forth such strong accusations they would have kept the incriminating evidence for a bit longer to prove their case.

DigitalSympathies

3rd May 2011, 01:43 AM

Because Bin Laden's biggest attack was against the US? Because US troops are the ones who killed him? (no other country had any part in killing the man, I've heard rumors that Pakistan knew but I'm not sure.....) Because Americans are the ones who started the war? Yes it's a great day for the world but it's also a great day for each individual country and there's nothing wrong to say so. I love how quick you're able to generalize an entire country of over 300 million people by one persons words (with no source might I add).....

“This is a great day for America: Justice has been done,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw. “Osama bin Laden’s death is a major blow to al-Qaida and terrorist networks around the globe and a comfort to the loved ones of those who perished on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-leaders-weigh-american-forces-killing-osama-bin-laden

I also remember Obama and CNN repeating these words.

RoseCity

3rd May 2011, 02:20 AM

What happened to bringing someone to justice, trying them in a court of law, etc.?

Oh, and burying him at sea within 24 hours of killing him is very convenient. You'd think that after they attacked a country and put forth such strong accusations they would have kept the incriminating evidence for a bit longer to prove their case.

Yeah, what was that about? Definitely something shady going on.

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 03:17 AM

“This is a great day for America: Justice has been done,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw. “Osama bin Laden’s death is a major blow to al-Qaida and terrorist networks around the globe and a comfort to the loved ones of those who perished on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-leaders-weigh-american-forces-killing-osama-bin-laden

I also remember Obama and CNN repeating these words.
They're American politicians, of course they would say this is a great day for America, cause it is. I don't see how that implies that we don't think it's great for other places on the planet. You're still completely stereotyping!!!!! Al-Qaida's attacks were very focused on America, and we had the most deaths by their attacks by far. Sorry but we have more reason to be happy than Australia or Denmark or Norway, etc. etc. etc. which were never attacked or much affected by his madness.

Rikachu

3rd May 2011, 03:30 AM

Oh, and burrying him at sea within 24 hours of killing him is very convenient.

"Bin Laden was buried at sea from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the north Arabian Sea after being washed according to Islamic custom during a religious funeral, a U.S. defense official said Monday." "A U.S. official said that the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. There also was speculation about worry that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants." "President Barack Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42859914/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/)

Hopefully this isn't another one of his "doubles"..

DNA tests confirmed that it was bin Laden himself, and not a double.

pinketamine

3rd May 2011, 03:36 AM

Am I the only one who finds that throwing his corpse to the sea instead of giving it to his family is extremely disrespectful? Even if they followed Islamic traditions (which we will never really know if is true), the corpse should have gone to his beloved ones, in my opinion, and not to the sea.
I would be happy if they had arrested and judged him, but I can't be happy with what I would define as a murder. All criminals should have the right to be judged, instead of out-of-law executed.

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 03:43 AM

I read that it was intended as a capture mission but it didn't turn out that way.....

socherish

3rd May 2011, 03:45 AM

I would be happy if they had arrested and judged him, but I can't be happy with what I would define as a murder.

In my mind, the man was a monster, not a human being, so human customs should not have been observed in his death. Murder only applies when you're dealing with a human being or an animal. If a zombie came up to me and I shot it in the head, it's not murder. He's as much human imo as a zombie is.This may be ignorant and evil of me to think, but I can't help the way I feel. People I loved died in 9/11. They never got a normal burial. He wasn't even a little sorry - if he was, I might have been able to see logic right now, but he didn't care, and I don't either.

Tempscire

3rd May 2011, 03:48 AM

Am I the only one who finds that throwing his corpse to the sea instead of giving it to his family is extremely disrespectful? Even if they followed Islamic traditions (which we will never really know if is true), the corpse should have gone to his beloved ones, in my opinion, and not to the sea.
Assuming he hasn't actually been disappeared into a cell somewhere for long-term interrogation, no body and no grave site means no place to become a shrine for his allies. I think similar was done with Hitler, whose ashes were scattered in an unknown location.

Sucks to be related to mass-murdering despots/terrorists.

Mistermook

3rd May 2011, 04:44 AM

OBAMA: What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

It's not like Obama didn't tell Pakistan even before he was elected exactly what our foreign policy on this issue was. The man was holed up in an expensive compound with neighbors who worked for Pakistan's military, a short trip outside of the capital city of the country. It's no joke that Pakistan's government has limited control over the country, if they're upset about the heavy-handedness of the operation they're perfectly welcome to return the billions of dollars in aid we've given them over the last few years and we'll start backing India's claims over their country. Seriously, if Pakistan wants to back the horse up to bin Laden's cart now I'm fine with that. That horse won't run any longer, and Pakistan's always been an ally of convenience, not of ideology or long term strategy.

The only reason the current regime is in power right now is because of us, and once we leave it will probably fall. Depending on how that pans out, we could very well find ourselves treating Pakistan like Afghanistan II: Electric Boogaloo in less time than we're comfortable with. That's precisely why we've been doing drone raids in Pakistani airspace for years - they can't stop us, they're not helping us, and they may be (or must certainly be, depending on how polite we're being) actively hindering us from meeting our objectives. Are we disrespecting Pakistan? Almost certainly. But I think that's because there's very little to respect going on right there other than enough self-interest to cash our checks and try to stay on our good side.

Honestly? Don't care. Pakistan wants to bitch, I accept their futile tears.

RoseCity

3rd May 2011, 04:59 AM

It's not like Obama didn't tell Pakistan even before he was elected exactly what our foreign policy on this issue was. The man was holed up in an expensive compound with neighbors who worked for Pakistan's military, a short trip outside of the capital city of the country. It's no joke that Pakistan's government has limited control over the country, if they're upset about the heavy-handedness of the operation they're perfectly welcome to return the billions of dollars in aid we've given them over the last few years and we'll start backing India's claims over their country.

I followed up to the part about backing India's claims over their country. You make it sound like we have some right to throw a country in the trash can when we're done with it.

The only reason the current regime is in power right now is because of us, and once we leave it will probably fall. Depending on how that pans out, we could very well find ourselves treating Pakistan like Afghanistan II

If you mean, escalating the US involvement in Afghanistan by officially moving into Pakistan that will be one step further down the road to our downfall. We're pretty much broke - Obama is trying to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

Are we disrespecting Pakistan? Almost certainly. But I think that's because there's very little to respect going on right there other than enough self-interest to cash our checks and try to stay on our good side.

I think you have a very US-centric view of the world. You were just saying that Pakistan wasn't helping us - now you say they try to stay on our good side. And we are justified to disrespect them because they aren't showing us anything to respect. It's all about the USA.

lewisb40

3rd May 2011, 05:30 AM

I would be happy if they had arrested and judged him, but I can't be happy with what I would define as a murder. All criminals should have the right to be judged, instead of out-of-law executed.

He was not an ordinary criminal that committed murder, he was a war criminal. That takes on a different judgement, yet they do get killed. Same is felt on their side when they capture Americans.

Originally he was meant to be captured and judged, not in a court of law, but a war court. (I am not sure of the name) Anyway, Bin Laden decided to go out in a blaze of glory, and he got what was his aim. Good riddance.

ElementMK

3rd May 2011, 05:59 AM

chearing ... chearing ... chearing.WHAT IS THIS

http://i55.tinypic.com/s2ebs3.png

Chear ... chear ... cherub/bear?

SingleClawDesigns

3rd May 2011, 06:10 AM

I can't tell you how many times I've been told today that we shouldn't cheer for his death. And it's been mostly by republicans trying to usurp Obama's role in making this happen of course. That it's not to be celebrated like so because we're a christian nation and it's unbecoming to rejoice in death. (full disclosure not an atheist i dabble a bit in wicca)

Does any one see the blatant hypocrisy so far? We can't celebrate this inherently evil mans demise because its not right, yet at the same time what major holiday just passed that glorifies a death and supposed resurrection?

It's a little OT but i mean honestly am I the only one seeing the lengths some republicans will go to make themselves look idiotic just to try to take credit away from Obama. I'm not totally for the guy either but he did what Bush couldn't do in 8 years in the first 2 years of his presidency. That counts for major points. And yes the SEALS deserve credit also but it was Obama who gave the final word.

unalisaa

3rd May 2011, 07:04 AM

Sorry but we have more reason to be happy than Australia or Denmark or Norway, etc. etc. etc. which were never attacked or much affected by his madness.
The rest of the world wasn't affected? And, say, Buttcrack, Oregon was affected by an attack that took place in NYC? Geography isn't the issue. The rest of the world is plagued by everything that happens in the US because you guys are the damn centre of the world.

I read that it was intended as a capture mission but it didn't turn out that way.....
It was stated at the press conference yesterday (or today. Your absurd time zones are just that d: ) that the intent of the mission was not to capture, but to kill.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told today that we shouldn't cheer for his death. And it's been mostly by republicans trying to usurp Obama's role in making this happen of course. That it's not to be celebrated like so because we're a christian nation and it's unbecoming to rejoice in death. (full disclosure not an atheist i dabble a bit in wicca)
I am by no means a Republican (admittedly, I am not an American, either), but I am slightly ambivalent about the subject of cheering. I recognise that it might be necessary to kill, but cheering, really? Ding, dong, the witch is dead? I don't care what other people do, but it does strike me as slightly overdoing it in an attempt to instil a feeling of Americanity to an otherwise somewhat politically split nation. It might be effective, but I'm not certain about the need for such a feeling based on nationality in the first place.
Remember, it was not American soldiers who killed Osama Bin Laden. It was "Americans". "They were not Republicans, or Democrats, but Americans".

As for the point about religion, I don't think it's relevant. Wicca and Christianity (as it is practised by most) claim that we should respect life. Additionally, Easter does not celebrate death. It marks it as significant, but the actual celebration is about conquering death. There's a reason you're not supposed to be cheery on Good Friday.

nhayes17

3rd May 2011, 01:57 PM

RoseCity

3rd May 2011, 02:06 PM

wickedblue

3rd May 2011, 02:44 PM

In my mind, the man was a monster, not a human being, so human customs should not have been observed in his death. Murder only applies when you're dealing with a human being or an animal. If a zombie came up to me and I shot it in the head, it's not murder. He's as much human imo as a zombie is.This may be ignorant and evil of me to think, but I can't help the way I feel. People I loved died in 9/11. They never got a normal burial. He wasn't even a little sorry - if he was, I might have been able to see logic right now, but he didn't care, and I don't either.

He wasn't a zombie or monster. He was a human being that did very despicable things. To say that he was nothing but a monster fundamentally denies that human beings have the capacity for both incredible acts of good as well as incredible acts of evil. He had choices, just like all of us do. He made the choices, he is responsible for them. It is my belief that saying he isn't human just excuses his actions as though human beings aren't capable of such atrocities. But sadly, we are.

I'm so sorry you lost loved ones in the attacks. I really do hope you find peace with their deaths in some way.

Re-born Phoenix

3rd May 2011, 03:03 PM

I believe in what I can see, but if that's really truth, then I'm feeling a big relief because what that "man" did to the United States was really the worst thing I've ever seen in my life! I'll never forget that day or those terrible scenes!

nhayes17

3rd May 2011, 03:06 PM

I'm not saying he didn't commit horrendous acts, but the USA isn't blameless in all this and have committed more than a few atrocities themselves

Tempscire

3rd May 2011, 06:02 PM

Martin Luther King sums up my feelings totally

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Not a real quote (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/) from MLK, for what it's worth, though the last couple sentences are his. Somehow someone's personal thoughts (http://i.imgur.com/cqtjw.jpg) got mangled into it and it went viral. Just for the record.

I am by no means a Republican (admittedly, I am not an American, either), but I am slightly ambivalent about the subject of cheering. I recognise that it might be necessary to kill, but cheering, really? Ding, dong, the witch is dead? I don't care what other people do, but it does strike me as slightly overdoing it in an attempt to instil a feeling of Americanity to an otherwise somewhat politically split nation. It might be effective, but I'm not certain about the need for such a feeling based on nationality in the first place.
I don't think the cheering is a deliberate attempt at anything: it's an honest outpouring of jubilation that after 10 years (18, if you count from the first attack on the WTC), we finally got the figurehead of so much hate and violence against America. Commentators may be trying to push the unified-apolitical-Americans observation, and it is indeed fair to say that Democrats and Republicans alike are, generally, equally pleased about this turn of events, but there's not been any artificially constructed push for unity. People are just happy (and personally, I think they have a right to be).

Actually, if anything, it's a subtle push for more divisiveness by reminding the people that anyone who does try to politicize this into a Republican/Democrat thing (likely to be defensive Republicans) is an asshole (which will foster better feelings towards the Democratic party).

kattenijin

3rd May 2011, 06:17 PM

The rest of the world is plagued by everything that happens in the US because you guys are the damn centre of the world.

And, why is that? Because the rest of the world has made it so. Whenever things go wrong beyond your own abilities to take care of them, who do you turn to? The USA. Then, after your cries for help, if we don't step in we "aren't upholding American ideals of democracy and freedom", and if we do we are showing our "true imperialistic face". Obviously there is no winning for the USA.

Face it, people. We are “it.” History, geography, and the efforts of our forefathers have all combined to make the United States a superpower. For most of our existence, we ignored our potential to dominate world affairs – even though we could have done so easily from the turn of the 20th century on. Even after World War II when our victorious armies in Europe and Asia could have remained in place and dominated those continents as they had never been before, we chose to bring the boys home and – unprecedented in world history – actually disarm.

I give this little history lesson in order to make the point that even today when we are the only superpower with an $11 trillion economy producing nearly a quarter of all the goods and services on the planet and a pop culture that people can’t get enough of, by virtue of our size alone, we dominate the planet.

There are those who are uncomfortable with that fact. Perhaps you can give us all the benefit of your wisdom and tell us how we could stop “dominating” the planet without tearing our economy to shreds, destroying our culture, causing a worldwide economic catastrophe, and give free rein to every cutthroat, thug, maniac, and butcher who would then seek to take advantage of the fact that the only thing between them and their sick goals is the United Nations. The idea that UN sanctions would scare off any of these cutthroats is laughable. The next tsunami that hits Indonesia or some other natural disaster that the world needs to tend to, we’ll fly a couple of UN bureaucrats out there to help with morale. Since that’s all the help victims of those disasters are going to get for a couple of weeks, let’s hope too many people don’t die because of it.

What else? Get Hollywood to stop making crappy movies? Or maybe make it impossible for other countries to purchase our music, our movies, TV programs, and other manifestations of the most wildly popular cultural exchange in human history.

Now we’re where the asshats of the world want us to be. No more of this runaway globalization, no more militarism. No more cultural dominance. Just the US taking its rightful place as subservient to the UN and other international bodies. Let the Europeans run the world. They’ve been doing it a long time and experience has to count for something.

For all our faults, foibles, stumbles, good and bad motives thrown in for good measure, the world cannot do without us. You can have a president that grovels before the UN or the EU. But that won’t change the fact that when the EU’s chestnuts are in the fire, they won’t turn to the French to bail them out.

Can we do it while acting more humbly? Must we be so “arrogant?” Next tyrant we overthrow, we should be sure to apologize before having our military rip his regime a new one.

acid_fairy

3rd May 2011, 07:17 PM

The fact of the matter is: how involved was he with Al Qaeda recently anyway? There were no phone lines or internet connections in the compound.

Al Qaeda is less large orchestrated attacks, more one person one bomb sort of attacks now (eg the Stockholm bomber in December last year). This makes us all that much more vulnerable. Until we manage to un-brainwash a huge chunk of people, we will never be safe.

I don't cheer his death, because I am British and that would be a very un-British thing to do :lol: I'm glad he's dead, although I'd rather have what happened to Saddam: the people of his country try him and execute him. That way retaliation towards the west would seem less of a likely prospect.

Oh and to an earlier poster: no photos have been faked. When the information was released, lots of newspapers somehow had the same photo which was quickly debunked because it had been on the internet for some years. Typical media: never fact checking!

@kattenijin: Gotta admit, I find your post extremely rude, and yes, arrogant. Also, how could the EU turn to the French for help? France is part of the EU...
And for what it's worth, nobody I know supports Britain's BFF being the US. Cameron and Blair might have been up America's arse, but the vast majority of the population aren't. Thanks for HBO though! ;)

wickedblue

3rd May 2011, 07:40 PM

The fact of the matter is: how involved was he with Al Qaeda recently anyway? There were no phone lines or internet connections in the compound.

To answer this, I'll start by admitting right up front that I'm not as informed on this as I probably could be but I don't see how not having phone lines or internet connection is a valid argument against him being involved with Al Qaeda. There are other ways one could communicate to his followers.

And there appears to be evidence found in his compound (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54151.html) that seems to suggest that he was still very much involved.

Nekowolf

3rd May 2011, 07:45 PM

Well, I have to say. I'm happy he's dead. I'll be perfectly honest in saying I have no qualms about using force and violence; I see it as, yes, it most certainly can be used as an answer. The problem is, it's a very situational answer. A dangerous-if-mishandled answer. But I think in a case like this, it was called for, and may have well been the best option.

Firstly, about them entering Pakistan without consent. Well the problem is, the White House did it because they were worried about an intelligence leak to the base. Pakistan is complicated in relation to terrorism. What it seems to be is that Pakistani officials play both sides of the field. They are not actively against terrorist (unless perhaps they are actively against Pakistan), and it something of a safe haven for them. If the US had told Pakistan, and then that information was leaked through Pakistani officials, be it in government or military, that base may have been cleared out, which would have ruined the chance. However, this operation was not without some huge risk, either.

And I must take issue with this line: "they even have the audacity to imply the Pakistani government had knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts" - it's massive building out in the suburbs that suddenly went up complete with big ass walls and barbed wire, as well as no outside connections through technology; no phone lines, no internet. How could they not know that, hm, something is suspicious about that place. It would be like if I built a giant concrete fort in my back yard. Someone in Pakistan likely either knew, or was being paid not to ask questions. And if it's neither of them, they why the hell should they even bother having an intelligence agency if they can't pick up on something so blatantly obvious?

"Oh, and burrying him at sea within 24 hours of killing him is very convenient. You'd think that after they attacked a country and put forth such strong accusations they would have kept the incriminating evidence for a bit longer to prove their case." Evidence for what? That they killed him? That's what's being considered right now; whether to release evidence or if such a release may have complications. The official reason they dumped him at sea was because they didn't want him to be enshrined like a marytr, sort of like a pseudo-holy site. Apparently, from what someone said *I can look for it again later if you want,* that's sort of what happened with Saddam's grave site by his supporters. They didn't want to give Al Queda or other terrorists the satisfaction of that, so they dumped him into the sea where he'll never be found again.

And you can only bring someone into justice if you can either convince them to come, or subdue them enough. But sometimes, that is just not possible. Sometimes, to kill is the greater benefit. Cops, for example, may try to bring someone in alive, but sometimes, that just is not an option.

And apologize if I repeated any information. Which, I'm sure I have.

Edit: On, and acid_fairy? They used couriers; human messengers. That seems to be how they actually caught Bin Laden's location, was through a courier he was reliant on.

Edit2: And Element Leaf? STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! ARE YOU MAD!? You have the man(ish)! You have the bear! It's just one pig away from creating Manbearpig, and the world will be doomed! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

kattenijin

3rd May 2011, 07:47 PM

@kattenijin: Gotta admit, I find your post extremely rude, and yes, arrogant. Also, how could the EU turn to the French for help? France is part of the EU...
And for what it's worth, nobody I know supports Britain's BFF being the US. Cameron and Blair might have been up America's arse, but the vast majority of the population aren't. Thanks for HBO though! ;)

Well, you could always turn the governing of your country over to the Germans, basically where you'd be about now if we hadn't decided to be BFFs during both World Wars.

As for France, the are the "go to" country (after the USA) for the rest of the EU, because, apparently, they all remember the part Germany took in the aforementioned World Wars.

You're welcome for the HBO, and the televisions, computers, and mobile devices you watch it on.

How well did Scotland Yard, SIS, MI5, et al do at finding Bin Laden, after the 2005 subway bombings?

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 08:43 PM

The rest of the world wasn't affected? And, say, Buttcrack, Oregon was affected by an attack that took place in NYC? Geography isn't the issue. The rest of the world is plagued by everything that happens in the US because you guys are the damn centre of the world.
Wait so you're actually arguing that because over 3,500 of our people were killed (more then any other country) by Al-Qaeda (not including the war) that everywhere else was affected? Yes there were people from other countries killed in 9/11 but there were also Americans killed in the Japanese earthquake. Was America overall affected by the earthquake? No, but was southern Japan which was also not hit by an earthquake affected by their people's suffering in the north? Yes they were. It's a blow to national pride and a large loss of life and I guarantee that as a whole Americans grieved more then any other country in the world. We don't plague the rest of the world, the rest of the world decides to feed off of us. We don't force you to import our music/movies/clothes. Btw at least one person from Oregon did die in 9/11.....

I don't cheer for his death, I'm happy that it's he's dead but I'm not prancing in the streets about it. There will be retaliation and I'm scared about what they might do (note that it will most definitely be against America). If there's anytime for the TSA to prove itself useful/necessary it's now.....

RoseCity

3rd May 2011, 09:02 PM

And, why is that? Because the rest of the world has made it so. Whenever things go wrong beyond your own abilities to take care of them, who do you turn to? The USA. Then, after your cries for help, if we don't step in we "aren't upholding American ideals of democracy and freedom", and if we do we are showing our "true imperialistic face". Obviously there is no winning for the USA.
France is a classier country than we are - I never hear them reminding us about the help they gave during the American Revolution. Maybe that's because they also remember that there was self-interest involved - hurting the English. Again, classy.

Face it, people. We are “it.” History, geography, and the efforts of our forefathers have all combined to make the United States a superpower. For most of our existence, we ignored our potential to dominate world affairs – even though we could have done so easily from the turn of the 20th century on. Even after World War II when our victorious armies in Europe and Asia could have remained in place and dominated those continents as they had never been before, we chose to bring the boys home and – unprecedented in world history – actually disarm.
Thank God there were intelligent people in charge at that time.

unalisaa

3rd May 2011, 09:18 PM

Can we do it while acting more humbly? Must we be so “arrogant?” Next tyrant we overthrow, we should be sure to apologize before having our military rip his regime a new one.
I see how my phrasing was unclear. I meant "We are plagued by [every tragic event] that happens because you are the damn centre of the world". I did not mean to imply that this is necessarily a bad or a good thing, but that the phenomenon of Americanisation is a very real one indeed. The US is the largest, richest, English-speaking country in the world, and the lingua franca of the world is English. Of course it'll have influence. My remark was grounded in me being offended by being excluded from feeling anything about the death of Osama Bin Laden because I am not an American. I do not like identifying as "a [nationality]", but I *am* a citizen of planet Earth. The American influence is so huge that telling other nations that they have no right to stick their nose in US affairs is simply not an option.

Wait so you're actually arguing that because over 3,500 of our people were killed (more then any other country) by Al-Qaeda (not including the war) that everywhere else was affected?
Yes, I am. Affect is not measured purely in loss of lives, but also in fear and political impact. Every single terrorist attack on America shook the entire world. We've been terrified right along with the US. Which is the entire point of terror, I guess.

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 09:21 PM

I see how my phrasing was unclear. I meant "We are plagued by [every tragic event] that happens because you are the damn centre of the world". I did not mean to imply that this is necessarily a bad or a good thing, but that the phenomenon of Americanisation is a very real one indeed. The US is the largest, richest, English-speaking country in the world, and the lingua franca of the world is English. Of course it'll have influence. My remark was grounded in me being offended by being excluded from feeling anything about the death of Osama Bin Laden because I am not an American. I do not like identifying as "a [nationality]", but I *am* a citizen of planet Earth. The American influence is so huge that telling other nations that they have no right to stick their nose in US affairs is simply not an option.
But who said that you couldn't feel anything about his death?

unalisaa

3rd May 2011, 09:26 PM

But who said that you couldn't feel anything about his death?
No one, I suppose. I interpreted the following post as being somewhat dismissive of the rest of the world in terms of being affected.
They're American politicians, of course they would say this is a great day for America, cause it is. I don't see how that implies that we don't think it's great for other places on the planet. You're still completely stereotyping!!!!! Al-Qaida's attacks were very focused on America, and we had the most deaths by their attacks by far. Sorry but we have more reason to be happy than Australia or Denmark or Norway, etc. etc. etc. which were never attacked or much affected by his madness.

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 09:33 PM

It's not intended to be. All I'm saying is that Bin Laden's death means more to the average American than the average Chinese or Australian (etc.) Of course it's a great day for the world, one of the most sought after terrorists is dead but is there really something wrong with saying that it's a great day for America specifically? I'm just sick of the egotistical stereotypes, sorry :)

agon999

3rd May 2011, 09:48 PM

lies all lies just like when we landed on the moon hahaha

Nekowolf

3rd May 2011, 10:05 PM

acid_fairy

3rd May 2011, 10:20 PM

Well, you could always turn the governing of your country over to the Germans, basically where you'd be about now if we hadn't decided to be BFFs during both World Wars.

As for France, the are the "go to" country (after the USA) for the rest of the EU, because, apparently, they all remember the part Germany took in the aforementioned World Wars.

You're welcome for the HBO, and the televisions, computers, and mobile devices you watch it on.

How well did Scotland Yard, SIS, MI5, et al do at finding Bin Laden, after the 2005 subway bombings?

LOL oh my goodness are you for real?! First of all: stop bringing up the war. I'm 23. It's such a tired argument!

Secondly, Germany is a very nice country and if they had won the war and taken over Europe and in 65 years NOTHING had changed or progressed, and no one had questioned Hitler's policies (a stretch of the imagination, I think you will agree), then I wouldn't know any different, would I?

Thirdly, my TV was made by a Japanese company. I may have an iPhone, but I believe it was assembled in China.

Fourthly, oh it only took you how long to find Bin Laden? With how many more people than us? Eeeeexactly. (Oh and it's the tube or underground, a subway is a walkway under a road, or a really nasty sandwich shop you imported over here. God damn you for that!)

Your posts reek of patriotism. A little bit of patriotism is great. Too much is nauseating. I think Americans, on the whole, are good people. You should be, most of you have European ancestry ;) But stop making the US out to be the greatest country in the world and attacking everywhere else! I have no problem with America, I have a problem with people like you who belittle all the other countries who helped make the US what it is today!

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 10:57 PM

Why has this turned into some US vs. the world debate? In our defense I've heard some really nauseating European patriotism too so we're equal.
Fourthly, oh it only took you how long to find Bin Laden? With how many more people than us? Eeeeexactly
Lol it's not like the entire country was out searching for the guy, I don't understand why population would play any part. Basically it comes down to the interrogators and soldiers.

CuddlesdaTeddlyBear

3rd May 2011, 11:02 PM

In my mind, the man was a monster, not a human being, so human customs should not have been observed in his death. Murder only applies when you're dealing with a human being or an animal. If a zombie came up to me and I shot it in the head, it's not murder. He's as much human imo as a zombie is.This may be ignorant and evil of me to think, but I can't help the way I feel. People I loved died in 9/11. They never got a normal burial. He wasn't even a little sorry - if he was, I might have been able to see logic right now, but he didn't care, and I don't either.

And yet, murderers who commit crimes in our own front yard get a fair trial and life sentence, paid by our tax dollars (not even the death sentence anymore). I'm not taking a stab at you or anything it's just the hypocrisy of the governments and legal systems. It's okay to put child killers and cannibals behind bars but terrorists... no, they get shot on sight. It's either okay to kill killers or it's not!

Oh, and the whole 'burial at sea' thing seems fishy to me too. (Pardon the pun)

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 11:08 PM

And yet, murderers who commit crimes in our own front yard get a fair trial and life sentence, paid by our tax dollars (not even the death sentence anymore). I'm not taking a stab at you or anything it's just the hypocrisy of the governments and legal systems. It's okay to put child killers and cannibals behind bars but terrorists... no, they get shot on sight. It's either okay to kill killers or it's not!

Oh, and the whole 'burial at sea' thing seems fishy to me too. (Pardon the pun)
Some states and countries still have the death penalty and they use it too.

Nekowolf

3rd May 2011, 11:10 PM

Update: Seems like the White House will release a photo to prove that yes, bin Laden has been killed. No word on when, though, yet.

el_flel

3rd May 2011, 11:12 PM

Back on topic: Whilst I'm definitely not sad about this I do agree with previous posters who have said it seems... wrong to cheer about it. I kind of feel like that's just lowering ourselves to the level of the people who cheered 9/11 and is a bit juvenile to use their behaviour as a justification for our own.

I seriously doubt his death will change much (he's been in hiding the past decade, how much damage can you do when you're in hiding?). He may have been the leader of al-Qaeda but he has followers who will continue his ideals. But, it is a step forward and whilst I am anti-death penalty and fully believe in everyone having a fair trial, it kind of seems as though this was inevitable and unavoidable.

Lol it's not like the entire country was out searching for the guy, I don't understand why population would play any part. Basically it comes down to the interrogators and soldiers.I think acid_fairy's statement was in response to this: "How well did Scotland Yard, SIS, MI5, et al do at finding Bin Laden, after the 2005 subway bombings?"

Tempscire

3rd May 2011, 11:22 PM

Why has this turned into some US vs. the world debate? In our defense I've heard some really nauseating European patriotism too so we're equal.
First thing I thought of, because I spend too much time on the internet:
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/images/h/haters_gonna_hate_eagle-14265.jpg

(Actually, I thought of a ridiculous turkey version first, but close enough.)

Robodl95

3rd May 2011, 11:35 PM

Apparently they're supposed to release a video of the burial at sea in the next few days.....

RoseCity

4th May 2011, 12:23 AM

Troooooooll alert.

@RoseCity - "France is a classier country than we are - I never hear them reminding us about the help they gave during the American Revolution. Maybe that's because they also remember that there was self-interest involved - hurting the English. Again, classy."

I can't really see how this bears much relevance, though, on Katt's point, which is that the US is a powerhouse, and is often turned to as the first measure to help quell situations that other nations cannot handle. While France may have helped us gain independence from the crown, America in the last several decades has had an ever-increasing role; sometimes by our own interventions, yes, but also sometimes by the request of other nations.

Edit: And there are times when maybe we should have gone in and done something, but did not.

Are you calling me a troll? Perhaps you should notify a moderator. But I'd think very hard before you do that about your own posts.
But in any case, I was responding to his statements about saving European countries' bacon as if the whole world is supposed to take shit from us now because we participated in WWII (or because they're bullied by us) - one of the country's he mentions helped us out once and yet I never hear them belaboring the point.

CuddlesdaTeddlyBear

4th May 2011, 12:31 AM

Some states and countries still have the death penalty and they use it too.

I'll save my opinion on this for another debate but, good to know.

Also, terribly off-topic but I love that picture of the eagle. It looks like he's walking on water, Jesus-style. And it's not even a regular walk, it's more like a pimp-walk.

el_flel

4th May 2011, 12:38 AM

Troll comment I'm sure was aimed at agon999's post, not yours, RoseCity :)

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 12:55 AM

@RoseCity

Not you! Didn't you see the one-liner above my post? *scrolls up* agon999 < clearly a troll, or an idiot.

Robodl95

4th May 2011, 02:52 AM

All I can say is that I believe USA has caused more deaths than Osama. I also believe that USA likes to fix problems they create. I also believe that anyone who lives in extreme poverty would trade lives with those who died in WTC, even with the knowledge of them dying that day, just to see how it felt to live as spoiled people. We're all going to die. We're all dead people who hasn't died yet. And dead is what you will be most of the time, and that's how people will remember you - as a dead person who once lived, buried underground or at sea, with no God there to greet you with open arms. And when you die I will move on with my life and that's called love. And when I die you won't have to avenge me. Just make sure you focus on the real problems such as poverty or famine. And that's being humane.

And what's with the charismatic President Obama saying "We know well the cost of war". Does the American people also understand if you are poor or stupid enough to work in the military you will probably be shot at? That's pretty much what they signed up for. So don't cry nor feel proud and patroitic over the lost of loved ones or the cost of war. That could be solved by poverty and knowledge. Knowledge leads to enlightment. Enlightment leads to peace.

Being poor doesn't lead to peace it leads to people fighting over limited resources. You can't provide quality education if you are poor. Some of the worlds worst dictators rose out of poverty/were very educated. Enlightenment gave way to the French and American Revolutions, how did that promote peace? Are you really so ignorant to ignore any lives that people ever gave to protect your country? Are you honestly saying that anyone who works in the military is either poor or stupid and that their families should not cry over their deaths? Should we just not do anything and wait for the terrorists to bomb us? Your views on life are unrealistic.

By the way you're really cheery, it's all the positive energy that I love about you Damocles ;)

acid_fairy

4th May 2011, 11:42 AM

Why has this turned into some US vs. the world debate? In our defense I've heard some really nauseating European patriotism too so we're equal.

Lol it's not like the entire country was out searching for the guy, I don't understand why population would play any part. Basically it comes down to the interrogators and soldiers.

Lol not the population! I meant that you had how many more soldiers and goodness knows what else in the wars than any other country.

RoseCity

4th May 2011, 02:00 PM

Troll comment I'm sure was aimed at agon999's post, not yours, RoseCity :)
@RoseCity

Not you! Didn't you see the one-liner above my post? *scrolls up* agon999 < clearly a troll, or an idiot.

Oh, yeah, sorry! That's what happens when I don't get enough sleep.

missy harries

4th May 2011, 02:15 PM

I just don't know how to feel about it and honestly I feel nothing. There has been sooooo many conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Bin Laden I just don't know what to believe any more and if they did kill him then it's essentially legalised murder and I don't even think the war should have started in the first place (Bush is a warmonger in my veiw). Fact is there'll always be Bin Laden's and Bushes, humanity is a two faced peice of sh*t, we honestly are the worst race on the planet. We like to preach about right and wrong but we'll still do the wrong anyway and try to justify it. We do horrible, horrible things and I just don't want to know......

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 02:54 PM

@RoseCity

Tis alright. No harm, no foul.

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 04:55 PM

Double-post, I know.

Geronimo: Code-name for bin Laden blasted (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42897871/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/)

I read this, and I have to say... this sounds like being offended just for the sake of being offended. It's not like they were comparing Geronimo to bin Laden. It's just a code name, for god sakes. It's just meant to signify a target. The only people who would put an active link between Geronimo and bin Laden would be those people who are already prejudice. And I'm sorry, but, "Think of the outcry if they had used any other ethnic group's hero," okay, and what if they had used the code name Geronimo for another target? Would there be an outcry then? I doubt it, or at least one that goes this high up.

Granted, I won't disagree that Native American images have been used in a variety of ways, some not very pleasant, but this just seems like lashing out at something just for the sake of it. Hell, if they didn't bring it up, I doubt anyone would have even cared about bin Laden's code name, probably not even remember it a week from now.

unalisaa

4th May 2011, 05:16 PM

Even if it wasn't an intentional linking that took place when the code name was given, I still think it carries unfortunate implications. Even if no one considers it, it still contributes to a larger hostility that may be perceived every day by people who identify as Native Americans.
Code-naming Bin Laden "Luther King" or what have you would be considered very inappropriate. Yeah, I found it difficult to come up with a proper example; please bear with me.
No, there probably wouldn't have been an outcry about the code-naming of another target, but that's because people wouldn't have known.

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 05:51 PM

"it still contributes to a larger hostility that may be perceived every day by people who identify as Native Americans." I see it as the problem here is this. I very seriously doubt that the picked code name has anything to do with any sort of prejudice against Native Americans; for all we know, it was just a randomly chosen name, or might have specific guidelines, like with the guidelines of naming operations. Any implications would be by those who are already prejudice, whereas most people simply wouldn't care. I think perhaps, in some ways, part of the "unfortunate implications" might be that this, in turn, feeds an idea that is not as, uh, how to say it... the problem of prejudice definitely exists, but, I think a case like this might be inflating it beyond actual intentions or implications. Sort of like, if you start getting offended at every little thing, then you're always going to be offended. You might become paranoid, or people just aren't going to take you as seriously, or both. And arguing over something like this may well feed into the idea of hostility that might not even be there, or isn't as bad as perceived (due to a situation like this).

In some ways, something like this may actually be more empowering to those who are prejudice. Something like this seems to be more arbitrary when compared to something that is real, like legislature that might actually be harmful to the Native American community. But by going out and putting a focus on something like this, you could say it shows an easy way for those racists to really get under the skin; you could even say it shows some weakness to those people. Really, I'd think the best way to handle it would've been to just ignore it and let it die. But they are prolonging it by bring it to light, which really, in the end, probably wouldn't help that much at all. A better one would have been the Supreme Court ruling to allow a Christian cross on currently Native American-owned land, put up against their will mind you, because that land will "eventually" be handed over to someone else, or something like that (I can't remember exactly what was going on in the dispute). That may be well be a fight worth bringing to light.

Edit: Although I do understand why they might be upset. I mean, heathen symbolism was hijacked by the freaking Nazis, of all people; you can't get any worse than the Nazis. Now granted, it's certainly not as big of an issue, at least in the United States, as the Native Americans imagery and icons, but I understand where they are coming from. It's very disheartening to have symbols and icons you may hold great reverence for having been abused in the past or being abused now. But there is something to be said about picking your battles, and I just don't think this makes for a very good one. A better one would have been the Supreme Court ruling about allowing a Christian cross on currently Native American-owned lands, a cross that was put up against their will, because the land would "eventually" be handed over to someone else, and the Supreme Court ruling (or maybe it was opinion) basically saying, well... Even though it was a cross set up as a tribute to veterans, it still could be secular (even though the cross is still one of the most-recognized Christian symbol), and hence could stay even though the Native Americans wanted it down. That would have been a better case to bring to light.

unalisaa

4th May 2011, 06:44 PM

In some ways, something like this may actually be more empowering to those who are prejudice. Something like this seems to be more arbitrary when compared to something that is real, like legislature that might actually be harmful to the Native American community. But by going out and putting a focus on something like this, you could say it shows an easy way for those racists to really get under the skin; you could even say it shows some weakness to those people. Really, I'd think the best way to handle it would've been to just ignore it and let it die. But they are prolonging it by bring it to light, which really, in the end, probably wouldn't help that much at all. A better one would have been the Supreme Court ruling to allow a Christian cross on currently Native American-owned land, put up against their will mind you, because that land will "eventually" be handed over to someone else, or something like that (I can't remember exactly what was going on in the dispute). That may be well be a fight worth bringing to light.

Well, there's oppression as a legal construct, and there's oppression as a social construct. I'd argue that the social construct is more hurtful than the legal one, but that's probably irrelevant.
Picking your battles is difficult as a minority because few things are Big, Bad Discriminations nowadays. Instead, there's a string of microaggressions -- pointing out one makes you overly sensitive, but not pointing anything out at all makes people think it's okay. It's a difficult line to balance.
The code-naming may indeed not be a big deal, but if a minority group finds it hurtful, I think it's worth listening. Being White, I have the privilege of not having to question whether every single thing that happens to me has something to do with my race. I also have the privilege of being able to tell my hypothetical children about people I consider admirable and expect these to be of my race. If one of these people is used in a negative context, I can be sure that there'll lots of pop-cultural material to refuse this.
How many people know the details of Geronimo the historical character? How many will hear his name for the first time in the context of Osama Bin Laden?

The Native Americans might be over-reacting. But they might also be noting actual concerns about their cultural heritage. They've been reasonable in this protest, and I see no reason to not take a declaration of discomfort seriously.

In other news, Newsy (http://www.newsy.com/videos/is-codename-geronimo-offensive/) has an interesting article on the matter. Be sure to read the sources; it's worth it!

wickedblue

4th May 2011, 07:15 PM

unalisaa addressed it very well and the only thing I can possibly add to that is this: who are you to say what battles a marginalized group should or should not be fighting?

Racism is ubiquitous in our culture and things like this do have very real, very big repercussions.

RoseCity

4th May 2011, 08:37 PM

Maybe Native American anger has to do with the fact that Geronimo was a warrior chief of the Apache who fought back against Mexico and the US for many years - a hero. I don't think his name was being used respectfully, considering who it was being applied to.
It also brings to mind that one man's murderer is another man's hero. It just depends on whose perspective you're looking at it from.

Robodl95

4th May 2011, 08:48 PM

@Robodl95,

I like you. You should definitely join my sect.
I'm good, thanks for offering though!

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 09:10 PM

*shrugs* I simply disagree. I think this is a very minor issue, and one that has no real influence over, well, anything. Like I said, most people will probably even forget the technical details like what codes were used in a week. They'll think about it more about it being the death of bin Laden rather than any connection between bin Laden and the real Geronimo. And what I'm saying isn't that they shouldn't, but rather, why bother? Like I said, in my view, it's going to be a non-issue for most people. They're not going to care. They're not going to think about it as some prejudicial comment. It's not like someone in the White House got caught with a recording of them saying "Man, fuck those redskins dogs." How many people are really even going to pay attention to the issue? You can say, well they should still fight for it! But... fight who? For what? It's over and done with. Bin Laden is dead, the operation was a success, it's over and done with. What are you really going to fight about, that they should have used a different code name? That's great, but it doesn't change anything, because it already happened.

Now, if it's true that it probably was a remnant of the Bush administration, I will say that does sort of play up the context. As the idea of being all cowboy and such, I could see that from Bush, yeah. I could definitely see, in that case, that there might be more cause to be offended over something like this. But again, why put in the effort to fight it? The operation is done, they can put it to rest. That's it, the end. Osama's dead. So, yeah.

And I agree that racism in our country is everywhere, but it's not everyone. To be honest, you're making it sound like just about everyone out there is adamantly racist. I know you don't mean that, I'm sure, but that's just how it comes across to me. And that's just not true. I really do disagree that every little transgression has "very real, very big repercussions." I say that, because... "things like this," things like what? What are you comparing it to? Is the precedence of it happening, of military code names leading into some kind of racism?

Look, I see it like this. If they don't push it, I think it'd be the best option. They get their opinion in, and the rest of the world forgets it. If they try to push for it, well... depends how hard they push for something. On one hand, they could say they tried. But if they push too hard, it may make them look more, well, whiny, in the eyes of others. Though, admittedly, that's really only be if it gets big coverage, which I doubt, to be perfectly honest.

And, I really don't have much more to add on the subject, sooooo, yeah. *shrugs*

Edit: Oh! "but that's because people wouldn't have known." Also, that's not necessarily true. It depends. Who was the target, how classified was the operation, who knew what, etc.

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 10:01 PM

Update: Change of plans, and this is may be the official word. The White House will not release photos of bin Laden's body.

Mistermook

4th May 2011, 10:27 PM

I'm glad. I think if they're placed in the archives and pulled out for the satisfaction of bin Laden's family, the Saudi government, our government, and whatever that's plenty respectful without giving the Murdoch group something horrifying to parade over Fox and such like a deer kill over the next month or so. After a while, when the luster has worn off, let someone else get accused of trying to win political points with pictures of corpses. It's like those terribly little shows showing people's birth defects and surgeries for entertainment. Ugh.

Nekowolf

4th May 2011, 11:03 PM

I'm somewhat divided on it. In some ways, I see why there might be benefits to releasing the picture. However, not releasing, I do have to agree, may be the best benefit right now. If they want to release it, I think it would be best to wait a while, for it to cool down. If they want to release something, I think the best option would be to release video of his aquatic burial.

Mistermook

5th May 2011, 02:15 AM

Nah, I'm not sure we need footage of the burial either. I mean, just judging from some of the folks in the peanut gallery here there's gonna be people outside of the US who'll damn the whole US Navy if the soldiers performing the service didn't throw flowers and weep over the body before they kicked it into the water. And on the flip side, over here there will be folks complaining about "Shariah law" if we gave him an Islamic service rather than having the whole boat show up and take turns shitting on the body. There's really no way to win I think, better to just be glad the guy's gone, let the haters hate, and move on in our Osama-free world.

Nekowolf

5th May 2011, 03:12 AM

Too true, too true.

unalisaa

5th May 2011, 05:24 AM

I don't see why everything that is not an urgent matter of state security shouldn't be released. Photos, videos, reports, etc. There's no winning, and everyone is going to be displeased, but on principle it's important that citizens have easy access to material about their government's affairs. Don't make a big circus out of it, and release it into the public archives. It's going to turn up on WikiLeaks in a few months, anyway, and isn't it better to have done it yourself before the scary WL does it?

RoseCity

5th May 2011, 06:05 AM

^ I think in this case, they'll probably hope that Wikileaks gets the pictures - in fact, they'll probably give them to wikileaks. That way the pictures will get out while allowing the U.S. government to take the high road.
Code-naming Bin Laden "Luther King" or what have you would be considered very inappropriate. Yeah, I found it difficult to come up with a proper example; please bear with me.
I was just thinking it would be like giving him the code name 'Robert E. Lee' or 'Stonewall Jackson'.

unalisaa

5th May 2011, 06:24 AM

^ I think in this case, they'll probably hope that Wikileaks gets the pictures - in fact, they'll probably give them to wikileaks. That way the pictures will get out while allowing the U.S. government to take the high road.

That's an excellent point. I was just thinking that getting anything pertaining to your own government released by WikiLeaks makes people think that you are "hiding" something from them.

Nekowolf

5th May 2011, 12:20 PM

Mistermook

5th May 2011, 03:00 PM

I don't think you guys quite understand just how much shit is still rolling downhill in Washington and the DoD because of the jerkwad little traitor who posted all the classified material to Wikileaks. As far as very many people in the US government are concerned Wikileaks isn't some neutral whistleblower group any longer, it's an unlicensed group of spies without the normal chains of courtesy and expectations that passes for normal relationships with spooks of different flavors. In other words, as far as the US government (and apparently other governments as well) is concerned, they're the terrorist, asymmetrical warfare equivalent in spies, and they're going to be treated as such no matter how much they wave the journalism flag from now on. I've defended Wikileaks in the past and I still think it's not a terrible idea, but any proposed relationship or interacting with Wikileaks coming up in a meeting amongst security people in the US is going to go over like a modest proposal to rape and kill someone's kids. Seriously, it would be someone's job, thrown right into the crapper.

Still not sure why anyone wants to look at pictures of corpses "or it didn't happen." It seems to me a little bit like wanting pictures of a graphic rape before you're willing to admit an assault occurred.

unalisaa

5th May 2011, 03:22 PM

Still not sure why anyone wants to look at pictures of corpses "or it didn't happen." It seems to me a little bit like wanting pictures of a graphic rape before you're willing to admit an assault occurred.
I can only speak for myself, obviously, but I'm not particularly interested in seeing photos of Bin Laden shot in the face.
However, given that a government is employed by its citizens, the citizens should have a right to know what it's up to. That means releasing any material that doesn't compromise essential safety for the public to access. No one should be hogging information unless they have a very good reason to do so, and I don't think "morbidity" is a good reason.

Taking Nekowolf's post into account, though, I could see the idea in delaying the release of information to lessen the risk of backlash.

Nekowolf

5th May 2011, 03:24 PM

"I've defended Wikileaks in the past and I still think it's not a terrible idea" - I agree with you here, it's an interesting, and not necessarily bad, idea. Granted, I don't know much about WikiLeaks, but, from what news I've seen and such, I gotta say... they essentially seem to be a bit like griefers, in some way. I mean, there's just some information, even if you have it, you should not release, because it can have very serious consequences. And I'm not talking jail or whatever, I'm talking, like, real world danger to others. So I'm thinking, like, if they came across something like that, would they do the responsible thing, or the ideological thing?

Edit: Ninja'd. But there's other reasons involved other than simply its morbidity. Probably the more important concept would that it may be used as a means for other terrorists who supported bin Laden as a, uhm, what's the word I'm thinking of... as a, uh, an inciter, I guess you could say. A focal point. Again, like the Qu'ran burning that lead to seven UN deaths, this photo may have a similar effect. It may inspire others even more.

unalisaa

5th May 2011, 03:26 PM

Damn, edit ninja'd!

el_flel

5th May 2011, 03:26 PM

Nekowolf

5th May 2011, 03:29 PM

Personally, I don't think I would. Conspiracy theorists will find any and every possible solution, no matter how asinine or insane, to belief that it cannot possibly be real.

Johnny_Bravo

5th May 2011, 05:59 PM

Sometimes I think : ''WTF USA..'' Like now, Bin Laden is dead, ooooh and now, aren't they going to show their proud? Seriously, I love USA, but somtimes I hate the government over there.
Sorry for going off topic, but are there any proofs that the WTC attack or the Pentagon attack were planned by Bin Laden?
I doubt that the WTC has collapsed because the fire, to me it also seemed like a very planned collapse with bombs. And at the Pentagon I'm sure it wasn't a plane, I mean, perfectly cut out walls and ripped out lightpoles, ''proof video'' doesn't help at all, it's only like 2 FPS or less and wehre did the wings go? There weren't any holes caused by the wings.
D$*& US Government, you're so obvious!
What if Bin Laden isn't dead, this time shot another double, and he really plans an attack on the USA? What can Obama say then?

I'm sure I'm getting many disagrees, I don't care, I'm telling what I know.

RoseCity

5th May 2011, 06:55 PM

I don't think they'd go that far, myself. I do think if they ever are released, it will be by the White House. You have to realize there are serious cons to having these photos released or leaked, and part of that could be real-world violence, sort of like that ass-brained pastor who released the Qu'ran burning and got UN people killed. I don't think they're trying to cover anything up, but rather trying to prevent incentivising violent actions by bin Laden supporters or straining relations with the Muslim community any further.
I'm probably missing some crucial point as usual and I don't think they should show the pictures, but I think as far as possible backlash is concerned the damage is already done. Killing him without a trial, shooting him in the face while unarmed, throwing his body in the sea, lying about what went on - don't think showing pictures would make that much difference. But from a strategic point of view, just quickly killing him and getting rid of him was probably the best way to go. Edit: Wouldn't want him to get the chance to say anything inconvenient.

CuddlesdaTeddlyBear

5th May 2011, 07:08 PM

I also wonder whether releasing pictures of the body would even quell much of the suspicion. People, in general, are more aware of how easy it is to fake photographs and I think a lot of people wouldn't believe that pictures were real, conspiracy theorists especially.

Personally, I love a good conspiracy theory, and I wouldn't trust a politician as far as I could throw 'em, and I've been working out! I also like to keep in mind that people will sooner believe a big lie than a small one.

RoseCity

5th May 2011, 07:19 PM

Nah, I'm not sure we need footage of the burial either. I mean, just judging from some of the folks in the peanut gallery here ...

Peanut gallery?

el_flel

5th May 2011, 07:23 PM

CuddlesdaTeddlyBear

5th May 2011, 08:28 PM

I find conspiracy theories interesting, that's for sure! Don't necessarily believe them, but they're a good read.

Re the pictures: I just think that releasing any would be kind of futile because the people who already believe it won't need any additional proof, and most of those who disbelieve won't be persuaded by them to change their opinion, so what purpose would releasing them serve, other than to fulfill some kind of weird curiosity?

People are actually being warned not to trust any pictures of Bin Laden's death that may wind up floating around the internet. Obama and 'Big Brother' have no intention of releasing them ever and, as far as we should be concerned, any proof of his death has been tucked away in the 'Top Secret File of Documents Never to be Released to The Public' in a secret military bunker underground, or tossed into a fire. Any doctored photos found online are fakes and may contain malware.

I read this on cbc.ca earlier today but, for the life of me, can't find the darn thing.

el_flel

5th May 2011, 08:31 PM

It was on the news earlier that no photos are being released.

Mistermook

5th May 2011, 08:57 PM

Peanut gallery?
Do you need that translated into another language or did I stutter somehow?

CuddlesdaTeddlyBear

5th May 2011, 08:59 PM

Okay, I found it. It took some sniffing around. You'd think a news site would be a little more user friendly. XD

Fake bin Laden photos emerge

The images are bloody, grotesque and convincing: Osama bin Laden lies dead, the left side of his head blasted away.

Unverified photos purporting to show bin Laden's corpse rocketed around the world on television and online almost as soon as his death was announced. The pictures have spread without regard for their origin or whether the images are real.

Newsrooms and the public are left in the tough spot of deciding what to believe when software has made doctoring photographs easier than ever. The hunger for visual evidence of bin Laden's death may only grow now that U.S. President Barack Obama has said the government's photos will remain classified.

The FBI warns that scammers may exploit that hunger by spiking digital bin Laden images with computer viruses.

Associated Press

Nekowolf

5th May 2011, 09:24 PM

@RoseCity

I was going to try using an example, but then realize, we're not terrorists, we're not extremists. We probably won't think in the same way, so an example is sort of difficult to make. So, bear with me on that. But it's basically the idea of martyrdom and being an icon. The idea is, that with his picture floating around, it would serve as an inspirational tool, to those who would commit such acts. It would spur them on. Be used as a tool for recruitment. Etc.

"throwing his body in the sea, lying about what went on" - and while I may disagree with you, these things, really got me. Okay, uh, how is throwing his body into sea bad, how is it part of this backlash outside other than conspiracy? They gave reason why, and it makes sense why, not only that, but there's precedence thanks to Saddam Hussein's grave site, which has basically become a shrine to him by those who supported him. Throwing his body into the sea is a way to prevent that, for the same reasons as I stated above. You want to try to minimize his influence as a "martyr." As for lying, lied about what, exactly? So far, the only thing I've seen, is information coming out, getting changed, which... in a situation like this, is just what happens. You watch any really big, really sudden news stories, and you'll see that a lot facts may be wrong, and changed, as the story develops. So I would really like an example of what they lied about so far in this case.

@Zandvoort

I was going to respond to you. But there really isn't any point. It would be talking to a wall. I acknowledge your opinion, and now, I ignore it.

acid_paradox

6th May 2011, 01:06 AM

Peanut gallery?

Peanut gallery- a group of people whose opinions are considered unimportant.

AlexandraSpears

6th May 2011, 01:42 AM

You guys, bin Laden has been dead since 2001.

My husband said, "Why didn't Bush announce this, then?"

Because if he did that, he wouldn't have a boogeyman. Every time his approval went down, bin Laden got trotted out, 1984 style.

Funny how this all comes on the heels of the fake birth certificate and everything.

I guess Big Brother has no use for Goldstein anymore.

RoseCity

6th May 2011, 01:56 AM

@RoseCity

I was going to try using an example, but then realize, we're not terrorists, we're not extremists. We probably won't think in the same way, so an example is sort of difficult to make. So, bear with me on that. But it's basically the idea of martyrdom and being an icon. The idea is, that with his picture floating around, it would serve as an inspirational tool, to those who would commit such acts. It would spur them on. Be used as a tool for recruitment. Etc.

"throwing his body in the sea, lying about what went on" - and while I may disagree with you, these things, really got me. Okay, uh, how is throwing his body into sea bad, how is it part of this backlash outside other than conspiracy? They gave reason why, and it makes sense why, not only that, but there's precedence thanks to Saddam Hussein's grave site, which has basically become a shrine to him by those who supported him. Throwing his body into the sea is a way to prevent that, for the same reasons as I stated above. You want to try to minimize his influence as a "martyr." As for lying, lied about what, exactly? So far, the only thing I've seen, is information coming out, getting changed, which... in a situation like this, is just what happens. You watch any really big, really sudden news stories, and you'll see that a lot facts may be wrong, and changed, as the story develops. So I would really like an example of what they lied about so far in this case.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say - I was just referring to the thing about showing the pictures, that it would cause a backlash? I just meant that I don't understand how showing the pictures would cause a backlash anymore than the things I mentioned from a bin Laden follower's point of view. (And I hope they don't show the pictures). Or put another way - if you want to make a shrine to someone, you can very easily do it without their body. I won't argue about it anymore as it's pointless - what will be, will be.

Rikachu

6th May 2011, 02:03 AM

@RoseCity: It may cause a backlash from Al-Qaeda and bin Laden sympathizers, just due to the fact that we've already killed him, and now we're rubbing it in even more. It's like taking a kid's stuffed animal, ripping it's head off, then giving the kid a picture of the ripped-up bear to remind them that it's gone.

wickedblue

6th May 2011, 02:04 AM

Nekowolf

6th May 2011, 02:36 AM

Maybe she's joking, playing with the whole conspiracy stuff? *yeah, I'm giving her the benefit of a doubt*

Purity4

6th May 2011, 06:51 PM

Unfortunately, I'm sure A.S. is serious, and there are a very small number of people out there who think the same way as her. :rolleyes:

kiwi_tea

6th May 2011, 06:56 PM

To be fair to A.S, the theory that Bin Laden died in 2006 (although not 2001) had gained quite a strong foothold among academics prior to his death the other week.

Nekowolf

6th May 2011, 08:51 PM

Well, it seems even Al-Qaida has come out saying, yes, bin Laden has been killed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42928874/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/

Mistermook

6th May 2011, 10:02 PM

Well, it seems even Al-Qaida has come out saying, yes, bin Laden has been killed.
This. If they thought they could get away with claiming that he was still alive, or making accusations that we'd killed him a decade ago, this would be the moment that wasn't.

Aren't tinfoil hats uncomfortable? Someone want to theorize how this fits in with HAARP maybe? UFOs?

RoseCity

6th May 2011, 11:05 PM

This. If they thought they could get away with claiming that he was still alive, or making accusations that we'd killed him a decade ago, this would be the moment that wasn't.

Aren't tinfoil hats uncomfortable? Someone want to theorize how this fits in with HAARP maybe? UFOs?

Yeah, cause when people question things it means they're in contact with the planet Zarkon and the terrorists win.

Mistermook

6th May 2011, 11:43 PM

Yeah, because when people believe stupid things it means they are stupid. Being open-minded and questioning things is not the same thing as allowing yourself to believe the most batshit crazy things imaginable on the flimsiest of evidence. Having a conversation on the various ways and means of fighting terrorism is ok, believing that you could hide an earthquake raygun in the US military or that George Bush, he of the shitty legacy, wouldn't parade a success wherever he found it whenever he was able, is dumb. There's always room for rumors and urban legends in large organizations, but most of the time I hear the crazier, no-nonsense-that's-fucking-nuts crap that involves something the US military is supposed to have done, or be capable of doing, it's not an internal rumor. It's some idiocy from the lunatic fringers that alternately believe that our US military is an ultra-powerful monolithic machine that's working on weaponizing unicorns and that it can't do anything right even if it spends a billion dollars on it.

wickedblue

6th May 2011, 11:48 PM

Well, questioning is one thing but when you state something as fact when it flies in the face of, you know, The Facts, it's going to be hard for anyone to take you seriously.

Then there's that whole bit stating as (again) fact that the birth certificate is fake, when one, there's no actual facts to substantiate that claim and two, that has nothing to do with this topic but it's being trotted out as some sort of infallible proof of the ridiculous, completely-made-up-but-stated-as-if-it-were-true-fact statement made before it.

That whole post is a perfect example of a logical fallacy.

There's really not a lot of reason to take the post seriously other than to be worried that it was meant in complete earnest.

kattenijin

7th May 2011, 07:33 PM

Yeah, because when people believe stupid things it means they are stupid.

Unfortunately, in most cases it isn't about stupidity, or even ignorance. It's willfull obtuseness. No matter how much proof you have of what is real/the truth, to these people it will always be "proof" and "real" and "the truth"; they will never give up their tin-foil hats. It's best to just stop responding to them and walk away.

Volvenom

7th May 2011, 09:16 PM

I have been to the us, prefer to call it that. America is after all a continent. Like many have said already the only news you ever get is your own. Oh yes, I just had to say it in big letters. I guess you do get some foraign news too, if you're interested. Do you know it died more people in the Tiananmen Square Massacre by the chinese government on their own people? That was pointed out to me by an american I was talking too. Someone else pick up the proof.

Al-Qaida's attacks were very focused on America, and we had the most deaths by their attacks by far. Sorry but we have more reason to be happy than Australia or Denmark or Norway, etc. etc. etc. which were never attacked or much affected by his madness.

Norway actually lol. Well we were occupied by the nazies during the war. You wouldn't know how many norwegians they killed, by sending them to Germany or just torturing them on Norwegian soil. I don't know, we don't talk about the number. I have heard many different stories though, and they were not all about jews.

Terrorists is not something new, infact Europe have had lots of trouble with them in the past. More quiet now. We're used to terrorist and blood shed in Europe frankly. Sorry to say so, but it's a fact.

I'm fairly sure we would not be chearing in the streets, the reason is not only because it's not a nice thing to do. The war is not over, not at all over. Your chearing over a ... well, minor victory. You're chearing over revenge. Something not good by lutheran standards. Revenge doesn't do any good we have always been told. I'm an atheist, but I still don't think it's a nice thing to do.

Sorry if I'm very late here. It's a long thread lol.

Johnny_Bravo

7th May 2011, 09:50 PM

*offtopic in 3..2..1*
@Nekowolf
Actually you'd type to an anonymous:)
*offtopicstop*

Robodl95

7th May 2011, 10:01 PM

I have been to the us, prefer to call it that. America is after all a continent. Like many have said already the only news you ever get is your own. Oh yes, I just had to say it in big letters. I guess you do get some foraign news too, if you're interested. Do you know it died more people in the Tienanmen Square Massacre by the chinese government on their own people? That was pointed out to me by an american I was talking too. Someone else pick up the proof.

Norway actually lol. Well we were occupied by the nazies during the war. You wouldn't know how many norwegians they killed, by sending them to Germany or just torturing them on Norwegian soil. I don't know, we don't talk about the number. I have heard many different stories though, and they were not all about jews.

Terrorists is not something new, infact Europe have had lots of trouble with them in the past. More quiet now. We're used to terrorist and blood shed in Europe frankly. Sorry to say so, but it's a fact.

I'm fairly sure we would not be chearing in the streets, the reason is not only because it's not a nice thing to do. The war is not over, not at all over. Your chearing over a ... well, minor victory. You're chearing over revenge. Something not good by lutheran standards. Revenge doesn't do any good we have always been told. I'm an atheist, but I still don't think it's a nice thing to do.

Sorry if I'm very late here. It's a long thread lol.
I don't understand what bringing up the people killed in Tienanmen Square and WWII has to do of anything, this is a thread about the death of Bin Laden. I'm well aware that terrorism is nothing new, people like to think that it is but it's not, the tactics of terrorism has changed though (before it was mostly focused on assassinations of leaders but now it's more about massive crowds and causing panic). We're all people, Europeans are not different no matter what you like to think. I'm sure that if somewhere in Europe had had a similar 9/11 attack people there would cheer his death also. Why do you think that Europeans are fundamentally nicer than Americans? Also would you quit saying that we're all cheering his death? It's a very small percentage of the country who have taken to the streets. Not that it's justifiable but people in the Middle East took to the streets after 9/11 cheering the deaths of over 3000 civilians.

Purity4

7th May 2011, 10:23 PM

the us, prefer to call it that. America is after all a continent.
:up: Thank you. America consists of two continents, though. :beer:
One of my pet peeves is when people refer to the United States of America as America, ignoring all the other countries that exist on those two continents.
There are 6 countries in North America, 8 countries in central America, and 15 countries in South America.
Not everyone wanted to Unite with those States, so they shouldn't have to be lumped in there with the U.S.A by calling the U.S.A America.
That just negates the existence of those other 29 countries.
How rude.

Mistermook

7th May 2011, 10:41 PM

Robodl95

7th May 2011, 10:45 PM

We don't call Mexico The United Mexican States or Germany The Federal Republic of Germany (etc.) America is the country's simple name whereas United States is more a part of the formal title, we're Americans not United Statesicans. It is possible to have a dual meaning to words (in reference to either the country or the continent).

Purity4

7th May 2011, 11:02 PM

Robodl95

8th May 2011, 03:16 AM

The name of the country of Mexico is Mexico. The name of the United States of America is United States of America, often abbreviated as U.S.A or USA. Mexico citizens are called Mexicans, USA citizens called USAians. :P It's not my fault USA made a stupid name for themselves. Maybe it would sound cooler if it was simply called Unity, even if it's not as unified as the name may lead one to believe.
Actually its real name is the United Mexican States.... but no one calls it that, just like we're called The United States of America but everyone just calls us the US or America (personally I never use the USA, USA is just for overly patriotic merchandise and it sounds good in chants :lol:)

Mistermook

8th May 2011, 05:58 AM

It's not my fault USA made a stupid name for themselves.
Since it's not the formal name all you've got to do is to come up with a better name that sticks. I mean, you're the one that's complaining about it, so it's pretty much your own fault if no one takes you seriously.

Seriously, it's not the formal name. You want it changed then make up something so terrific that we all go "Americans is a stupid, yesterday sort of name. We're gonna call ourselves <Purity4's magnificent and totally not crap name> instead!" I warn you though, most people who try to change language in a non-organic manner usually pretty much come off like incredible douchebags, like the guys pushing "freedom fries." Unless you're in an amazingly popular sitcom or on the cover of teen magazines because of your fantastic popularity in your boy band, you're running up hill in the language wars.

Anyways, moving along...

So you're pro-Osama bin Laden because Americans piss you off with what we call ourselves, right?

Mistermook

8th May 2011, 06:00 AM

Actually its real name is the United Mexican States.... but no one calls it that, just like we're called The United States of America but everyone just calls us the US or America (personally I never use the USA, USA is just for overly patriotic merchandise and it sounds good in chants :lol:)
I tend to use USA because it doesn't get accidentally switched by my various spell-checking devices when I'm in a hurry.

Osama bin Laden is still dead. Still not feeling bad about it.

HystericalParoxysm

8th May 2011, 10:41 AM

MTS Staff Note: please read before posting further on this thread:

1. Please stay on-topic. The topic of this thread is the death of Osama Bin Laden, and what implications it has for the future, etc. - things related to his death. The topic of this thread is not, um... anything else... including stuff related to US or world politics or anything of that nature unless it's directly related to this topic.

2. Please stay kind, courteous, and respectful of your fellow debaters. This means not being snarky, rude, insulting, or namecalling, even in a sideways fashion.

If you cannot follow both points 1 and 2 above, please don't post on this thread. I know this is a big topic and feelings often run hot on stuff like this, but please remember to keep a cool head, and feel free to step away from the thread if you cannot do that.

Miko09

8th May 2011, 05:12 PM

I thought it was a little bizarre to see people cheering about his death. I think a feeling of relief might have been appropriate, but, even though he was an evil man, it's still strange to cheer for someone's death. In any case, I'd love to be optimistic and say that this will contribute to the end of the terrorist attacks and the end of the war, but I doubt it.

If you think that bad, then probably haven't heard about the new games out there where you go in and shoot Osama Bin Laden: http://ca.kotaku.com/5799580/watch-gamers-kill-osama-in-recreation-of-seals-assault-on-compound

I think making a video game of about killing someone is taking it a little too far but what do you expect when one of the recent best selling games in America is about war(Black Ops)

pinketamine

8th May 2011, 06:27 PM

While I more or less understand that some people are happy about Bin Laden's death I just can't agree with how US dealt with this, I can't agree with how it was handled. US sent their forces to a foreign country, they entered Bin Laden's house and shot a man, who wasn't carrying any weapons, in the face... in front of his full family, kids included; of course, some innocent people where harmed in the process. I'm sorry, but I can't see anything well done. As far as I know, that is called State Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism); it is illegal for the states (not US, states as a general concept) to kill ANYONE without a previous judgement, what US has done to Bin Laden violates International Law. I'm sorry but I can't cheer about that.

Also, I don't think that killing Bin Laden has helped "the war against terror" at all. Terrorism will still exist, with or without Bin Laden. If Al-Qaeda, which was formerly economically supported by USA during Afghanistan war against USRR, wants to commit more attacks, they will, they sure have a way to do it and a leader can be replaced with a new one, if necessary.

About the video game... I don't think that violent games or war based are necessarily bad, but I video game based only in killing a real person is just over the top for my tastes. I think it is morally wrong and honestly I can't understand why someone would want to play it.

Mistermook

8th May 2011, 06:56 PM

Terrorism will still exist, with or without Bin Laden. If Al-Qaeda, which was formerly economically supported by USA during Afghanistan war against USRR, wants to commit more attacks, they will, they sure have a way to do it and a leader can be replaced with a new one, if necessary.
Right, and since people will still steal stuff there's really no point in locking your doors or catching thieves. Heck, I bet since women will still get raped they should just lay back and try to enjoy it!

Hey, Charles Manson is in prison - it's clear that there's still an enormous circle of Manson devotees following him, killing in his name, since he's been put away! But really, one mass murderer is the same as any other, why bother putting any of them away, because once you associate with someone it never matters what they do after that, you're not allowed to decide they're bad news no matter how many people they kill and they're completely interchangeable anyways.

Who knows, you could be poisoning your local aquifer right now... but since we've been chatting I guess you'd have to be okay in my book. Killing innocent women and children doesn't demand any action and it shouldn't change the way I feel about you, once we're associated we're always associated, come hell or high water.

/eye rolling

Robodl95

8th May 2011, 07:06 PM

While I more or less understand that some people are happy about Bin Laden's death I just can't agree with how US dealt with this, I can't agree with how it was handled. US sent their forces to a foreign country, they entered Bin Laden's house and shot a man, who wasn't carrying any weapons, in the face... in front of his full family, kids included; of course, some innocent people where harmed in the process. I'm sorry, but I can't see anything well done. As far as I know, that is called State Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism); it is illegal for the states (not US, states as a general concept) to kill ANYONE without a previous judgement, what US has done to Bin Laden violates International Law. I'm sorry but I can't cheer about that.
People killed in war don't get a trial, I don't disagree with you but the entire story is too sketchy to make a clear judgment on at this point. I've heard stories of him being armed with a machine gun to him being completely unarmed. Depending on how feasible capture was I could sway either way on this issue. I know that other people in the compound did have guns.

Mistermook

8th May 2011, 07:49 PM

People killed in war don't get a trial, I don't disagree with you but the entire story is too sketchy to make a clear judgment on at this point. I've heard stories of him being armed with a machine gun to him being completely unarmed. Depending on how feasible capture was I could sway either way on this issue. I know that other people in the compound did have guns.
As I understand it there's been no clear indication that anyone in the compound was armed but the single shooter. On the other hand it would have been supremely reckless to have assumed anything other than "we're going to get shot at, expect anything" on the part of the special forces involved in the raid. I firmly believe that finding him in the first place was a vindication of old-fashioned police work, but this was a military raid, not some Barney Fife operation.

The expectation is going to be shoot first, ask questions later in such things because the consequences of failure could be someone tripping a suicide switch or destroying the actionable intelligence while you're pussyfooting around in the seconds between deciding if someone is armed or not. This doesn't mean that they were going in there to just shoot people, but anyone not interested in getting shot better get face down on the ground, arms extended and palms open, as quickly as humanly possible during something like this.

They don't get to be top tier security operators because they're slow to pull a trigger, or because they're pacifists. Anyone who looked remotely like an armed target probably already had two strikes against them. I even think it's possible that they'd given some credence to the rumor that bin Laden was on dialysis, which would likely mean that they were keyed even higher to simply shoot any male walking around normally as a threat because of the high percentage that they'd be one of the big guy's guards.

pinketamine

8th May 2011, 07:51 PM

Right, and since people will still steal stuff there's really no point in locking your doors or catching thieves. Heck, I bet since women will still get raped they should just lay back and try to enjoy it!

Hey, Charles Manson is in prison - it's clear that there's still an enormous circle of Manson devotees following him, killing in his name, since he's been put away! But really, one mass murderer is the same as any other, why bother putting any of them away, because once you associate with someone it never matters what they do after that, you're not allowed to decide they're bad news no matter how many people they kill and they're completely interchangeable anyways.

Who knows, you could be poisoning your local aquifer right now... but since we've been chatting I guess you'd have to be okay in my book. Killing innocent women and children doesn't demand any action and it shouldn't change the way I feel about you, once we're associated we're always associated, come hell or high water.

/eye rolling

I didn't say that and didn't intend to imply it. I don't like the way Bin Laden execution has been handled, no matter if he was a total criminal.

He is dead, one terrorist less out there, but as a whole, this will not help combating terrorism. Of course, it does not mean that we don't have to fight against terrorism, but Bin Laden's death changes nothing really, that's why I don't think there are many reasons to cheer about his death.
Bin Laden's death has "helped" people who directly suffered his killings, they can now "rest" somehow because they know that person will not harm anyone again, but not war against terror, which is at the same point it was, or even at a more delicate point because this could have pissed Al-Qaeda so much.

Purity4

8th May 2011, 08:00 PM

Sorry about derailing the thread with my silliness about the name of the country. I was just trying to be entertaining and goofy.
On topic, I have mixed feelings about the way Osama was dealt with. On one hand, I am pleased he is gone, not jump up and down happy, just more glad that is over. One less reason for the US to keep troops in the Middle East. On the other hand, I know he is just one person, even if he was an influential person, he was just one person, and there will always be more terrorists, just as there always has been, even if they've not always been called that.

Mistermook

8th May 2011, 08:06 PM

Hitler's dying probably didn't make a lot of Nazis happy either, and it's certain that some of the generals would have kept on fighting if there weren't pressing assaults on the heartlands to discourage such things, but I think you're vastly underestimating the effect of the death of a leader like bin Laden can have. Yes, Al Qaeda is decentralized and completely not uniform... but that's ok. The thing that's dangerous about organizations isn't that they exist at all, it's their ability to cooperate and coordinate. They can be decentralized, but being decentralized is a weakness is their ability to execute and plot action. We've killed the spider at the center of the web and sent ripples throughout that web. On the short term it's possible we'll see a broad spike in terrorist attacks as the new leaders try to step up and prove their ability to lead, but in the longer term it will take a very long time for any other leader to build up the reputation and trust that bin Laden had. To build it up properly will require they bring people in for meetings and face to face sorts of things - which spit in the face of the protection that their normal decentralization affords them. Or perhaps we'll end up with a lot of smaller organizations plotting attacks - in which case we're still ahead because smaller organizations have more limited resources and potential. Better yet, they argue amongst themselves because they'll have similar mission statements and organizational goals that might be leveraged against each other. And since there would be even less cooperation, the ability to infiltrate and manipulate these effects is amplified... Terrorism is essentially organized crime. All the tactics useful in organized crime, for all the same reasons, are good for terrorism. The bonus is that since terrorists are committing acts of war in some case the tools available to go after them are a lot cooler than the ones you have on hand to take down your local meth dealing ring.

TurtleLover

9th May 2011, 11:35 PM

Yes I Learned this to.....Its kinda.....Random. Of course they've been looking forever for him but it just happend so quick it became random to me.

~Dee~

11th May 2011, 03:57 AM

I will never forget the day the twin towers came down, I watched for hours trying to understand how something like this could have happen... crying, and I'm not an American.

The poor people in the plane who knew they would die in a few seconds and the people in the towers, seeing the plane come towards them, I can't imagine the terror they must have felt.
People jumping out of windows...it was horrid.

All those thousands of people died because of one man and now he is dead, well deserved in my opinion.
I don't really care if the US handled it the right way or not, the end result counts.

SuicidiaParasidia

11th May 2011, 07:15 AM

i dont know, guys. i think bin laden's death works pretty well; -1 mass murderer from the world.
and if you can muster the enthusiasm to cheer at a wedding, or a football game, or your kids 5th birthday, all things that the victims of 9/11 will never do again, im pretty sure its not that far fetched to cheer for the death of a mass murderer.

Volvenom

12th May 2011, 01:27 PM

Uh, or maybe it's just because referring to ourselves as anything other than Americans feels ridiculously awkward in English. Maybe it's all awkward to those of you that don't speak English as your first language, but for the rest of us its a lot like "Great Britainers," "United Kingdomers" or something equally convoluted.

I heard Thomas Jefferson just wanted us to be referred as "those cool guys with the big gigantic country dominating the map of North America," but he was overruled. Language is thusly made by compromises.

It's different when you're talking about a country, than of people. I think calling US America is kind of rude to those living in America but not in the US.
And being a European I know it's called english and englishmen, or perhaps scotts or welsh. There my english stops, and I know the scotts might be offended if I called them greatbritainers or something. lol

I don't understand what bringing up the people killed in Tienanmen Square and WWII has to do of anything, this is a thread about the death of Bin Laden. I'm well aware that terrorism is nothing new, people like to think that it is but it's not, the tactics of terrorism has changed though (before it was mostly focused on assassinations of leaders but now it's more about massive crowds and causing panic). We're all people, Europeans are not different no matter what you like to think. I'm sure that if somewhere in Europe had had a similar 9/11 attack people there would cheer his death also. Why do you think that Europeans are fundamentally nicer than Americans? Also would you quit saying that we're all cheering his death? It's a very small percentage of the country who have taken to the streets. Not that it's justifiable but people in the Middle East took to the streets after 9/11 cheering the deaths of over 3000 civilians.

I'm just saying that sometimes we all need to see ourselves through someone else's eyes. The fact that people in the middle east did cheer doesn't mean it's right, as you said.

Back to the subject. Bin Laden is just 1 man. What happens now only time will tell. Not all information is good information. Yet again, giving out his pictures as proof of his death, it's like when the romans used to drag the captured enemy leader through the streets. They wanted to do that with Cleopatra, but she died before.

When it comes to all the details in this case I haven't really been paying attention. Osama is just Good Riddence for me, and the us has not signed the treaty to give him a trial in Haag is it? ... weather he was killed by the us or by a bodyguard or what ever, still good riddence. Would have been good for the future with a trial though.

xRaigeX

7th Jul 2011, 02:09 AM

Personally... I think maybe they figured since no one could find him that they'd just claim they killed him. When I see evidence then I'll think differently.

DittanyPark

7th Jul 2011, 03:17 AM

Bin Laden's death was an assasination of an unarmed man. He wasn't the mastermind of the 9/11 event. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others have/will stand trial for being the masterminds of 9/11. Bin Laden should have been brought for trial and not executed without benefit of the constitutionally guaranteed trial before execution. Not the first time the US government has assasinated or attempted an assasination when it has suited their needs.

Nekowolf

7th Jul 2011, 04:25 AM

Or maybe consider the fact that, A. he was not unarmed if you consider that those inside the compound were armed. While he himself may not had had a weapon on him at that moment, you can bet he was no more than a few moments away from some kind of weapon. And B. he would have either escaped or fought to the death anyway. If I recall, the order was to bring him alive if possible, and the SEAL team made the call that, no, it would not be possible.

opiumgirl

14th Jul 2011, 12:30 PM

Rawra

14th Jul 2011, 03:30 PM

ok guys, I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion:
Regardless of what Bin Laden was, he was a human being, his motivations are not know to us. Killing him without the benifit of a trial was legalised murder.

A US military team entering another country and shooting a man in his house, armed or not, is an act of terrorism in itself.
None of this will bring back those who died because of Bin Laden. All this does is dehumanise everybody involved. Revenge wil beget revenge, revenge and round and round it goes. It wil not stop terrorism.

And lastly, the glee with which people passed around fake videos and pictures of his execution on facebook made me sick. We have turned into gouls that howl for blood, to call Bin Laden a zombie or not human, is rediculous and takes away our own humanity. Every atrocity in the history of the world has been commited by a human being. Not by some other scapegoat. It is time we stop.
Just my two cents.

Why would anyone care about how "human" he was, as long as, because of him, many actual humans died? Painfully, might I add?

IMHO, the way "Beast" Laden died was more than fair. He didn't deserve a trial, not at all. Actually, torture to death would have been the best choice, but it works anyway. He's dead, and that's what matters.

I don't really think anyone believes that Bin Laden's death is going to stop terrorism. In fact, I don't see anything that would ultimately eliminate terrorism, but one Al Qaeda leader less is certainly something good.

By the way, don't you think that sentencing him to jail for life, for example, would have been a worthless sentence? Maybe his little "boom-boom" friends would have helped him escape from jail, and everything would have been even worse? I'm sure it would have, so killing him was indeed the only and the best choice.

And, OMFG, motivations? Now this drives me bananas! Motivations for MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE? Are you nuts? There is NO such thing as motivation for killing innocent people. It doesn't exist. Only in your head, probably, but there is absolutely no such thing.

Bin Laden's death was an assasination of an unarmed man. He wasn't the mastermind of the 9/11 event. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others have/will stand trial for being the masterminds of 9/11. Bin Laden should have been brought for trial and not executed without benefit of the constitutionally guaranteed trial before execution. Not the first time the US government has assasinated or attempted an assasination when it has suited their needs.

THEIR needs? You mean that terrorism has, is, and will only affect the US? Oh, my God, wake up, it's a global problem, a major one, not just the US'! Why does every single country has to blame either Russia or USA for whenever something bad (in their opinion or not) happens? The Americans have saved the world from a criminal mastermind and all you're thinking about is "oh, no, why didn't the poor (fucking terrorist) Bin Laden get a trial! It's unfair, waah :cry: "!!! Isn't it unfair how hundreds of innocent people died because of him? Just tell me, isn't it??? As I have stated above, a trial would have either lead to execution, which would have been the same thing, or to jail for life, which would have been worthless, because he would have almost certainly escaped. :faceslap:

opiumgirl

14th Jul 2011, 05:14 PM

First of all sorry for the format of my reply, I haven't posted on the net in years and am still figuring out how. That said:
@ The Creeper

"By the way, don't you think that sentencing him to jail for life, for example, would have been a worthless sentence?"
"As I have stated above, a trial would have either lead to execution, which would have been the same thing, or to jail for life, which would have been worthless, because he would have almost certainly escaped"

I do think sentencing him to life would be useless, I do think he should have been executed, but and this is a big but, NOT with out a trial.

I am concerned when people have one standard of conduct in one instance and a different in another. Let me see if I can express that more clearly. If a murderer, a shooter, a bomber, a rapist or a paedophile can expext trial, regardless of whether they are guilty and their victims are innocent, why is it ok for the US army to enter another country and shoot someone without a trial in his house? This is what I object to.

"Why would anyone care about how "human" he was, as long as, because of him, many actual humans died? Painfully, might I add?
IMHO, the way "Beast" Laden died was more than fair. He didn't deserve a trial, not at all. Actually, torture to death would have been the best choice, but it works anyway. He's dead, and that's what matters."

But you should care, or if not at least think about it for a second. Actual humans? We are all humans, some humans might do inhuman things but they are still human. My point was that tit for tat never stops. We had 9\11, We had Iraq ( I assure you the people who have died are actual humans, hell they may even be innocent)
Because governments are what they are, they have to adhere to some standard of conduct and acountability, they cannot just do what they wish, regardless of how popular their actions might be at the time. Otherwise you stand at the top of a very slippery slope where at the end you have people asking pionted questions in back rooms without anybody's knowledge. This was exactly the case in my country.

" It's unfair, waah "!!! Isn't it unfair how hundreds of innocent people died because of him? Just tell me, isn't it???"

Ofcourse it is unfair. I am not trying to imply that he was right or good of anything of the sort, I am trying to say that the way this was handled and the response of most people, has much larger repercusions for the world, than might be apparent.
Because people are so emotional on the subject and the whole world is literally cheering his death, no one is stopping to consider the implications of one country entering another without it's consent and killing someone in that country.
Surely this is an act of war, surely Bin Laden deserved it, but I ask again where does it stop? Does it ever?

Nekowolf

14th Jul 2011, 05:36 PM

ok guys, I'm sure this will not be a popular opinion:
{1} Regardless of what Bin Laden was, he was a human being, his motivations are not know to us. Killing him without the benifit of a trial was legalised murder.

{2} A US military team entering another country and shooting a man in his house, armed or not, is an act of terrorism in itself.
{3}None of this will bring back those who died because of Bin Laden. All this does is dehumanise everybody involved. Revenge wil beget revenge, revenge and round and round it goes. It wil not stop terrorism.

And lastly, the glee with which people passed around fake videos and pictures of his execution on facebook made me sick. We have turned into gouls that howl for blood, to call Bin Laden a zombie or not human, is rediculous and takes away our own humanity. Every atrocity in the history of the world has been commited by a human being. Not by some other scapegoat. It is time we stop.
Just my two cents.

{1} He may have been human, but that really doesn't mean much. Essentially, it was either fight him to the death, or kill him in that spur-of-the-moment. Because a man like him, I really doubt, would have simply given up, and it well could have given up. And frankly, I'd rather have him shot dead at that one moment, rather than having our soldiers going into a gunfight with him (in which case it would either end when he ran out of bullets, killed himself, or we kill him). Taking someone into custody, alive, is great when it can be done. But there are times when it simply is not the most reasonable action in comparison to the possibility of other casualties (like, say, a gun-fight between police officers and some anti-government lunatic).

{2} How is it an act of terrorism? We were not making demands, we were not targeting civilians or innocent people. Terrorism, by definition, uses various means to terrorize, usually for a cause or for a demand. This was not that case. We went in as a covert operation (and for every good reasons; the Pakistani government could not be trusted with the information) to take down a criminal; it would be closer akin to a police raid than terrorism.

{3} But it brings Al-Queda down a peg, which could weaken their influence, thereby slowing their progress, or even causing trouble for them to take action due to, say, internal conflict. Especially since the new head, Saif al-Adel, could cause some internal conflict himself being Egyptian, which some members of Al-Queda are really not fond of.

Rawra

14th Jul 2011, 05:56 PM

Surely this is an act of war, surely Bin Laden deserved it, but I ask again where does it stop? Does it ever?

No, the fight against terrorism implies things that may seem cruel to the weak-hearted, but they are necessary, and if we were to judge every single terrorist in court, we would have certainly been overwhelmed by terrorism by now.

I repeat, out loud, that Bin Laden and every other terrorist in this world don't deserve a trial, they don't deserve being judged like any other criminal. You know what they deserve? Death and nothing but. I just cannot see a bigger crime than terrorism. Absolutely NOTHING in this world can't be compared to it, therefore terrorists cannot be compared to other criminals, nevermind judged along with them. They're not humans, they're demons.

I have to assure you that, if you were in the position of someone whose friend died in a terrorist attack, you wouldn't think like that. You would pray every night that the respective terorist is killed, killed the way your friend had been. I am not in that position, but I empathize with people like that completely, and I know how it feels how to lose someone, nevermind lose someone in a terrorist attack.

Tempscire

15th Jul 2011, 02:35 AM

I have to assure you that, if you were in the position of someone whose friend died in a terrorist attack, you wouldn't think like that. You would pray every night that the respective terorist is killed, killed the way your friend had been.
If you were in the position of someone whose friend was murdered, you wouldn't think like that. If you were in the position of someone whose friend was raped, you wouldn't think like that. Etc etc. That's not how justice works.

Rawra

15th Jul 2011, 09:38 AM

If you were in the position of someone whose friend was murdered, you wouldn't think like that. If you were in the position of someone whose friend was raped, you wouldn't think like that. Etc etc. That's not how justice works.

Works in this case. Face it, Bin Laden deserved it fully. Whatever you think, it won't change anything anyway, and believe me, it was the only way he could have been eliminated.

dutch

15th Jul 2011, 10:08 AM

Then again, Bin Laden and his story might just be a wonderfully crafted myth. You never know.
Bad man? Must be: damn, his beliefs were different from ours and he blew shit up so shit's got to be blown up in return till we find and kill him for the sake of our kind. Was everything true? Don't know. Did the movement succeed in uniting people against a common enemy they never actually SAW involved in the relevant terrorist acts? Definitely.
I'm in no way implying Bin Laden was good and stuff. What I'm saying is sometimes it can be funny how people blindly give in to the info they get, and inflict extreme hate upon others, and say things over the top to defend the stance they were fed.

Take a chill pill ffs.

Rawra

15th Jul 2011, 10:32 AM

Take a chill pill ffs.

Why, I'm not even angry. :D

whiterider

15th Jul 2011, 10:38 AM

Whatever you think, it won't change anything anyway, So why are you in the Debate Room?

pinketamine

15th Jul 2011, 11:47 AM

Works in this case. Face it, Bin Laden deserved it fully. Whatever you think, it won't change anything anyway, and believe me, it was the only way he could have been eliminated.
No, it doesn't work like that in this case, as it doesn't work in any case. Justice isn't supposed to be emotional, but rational and proof based.

No, the fight against terrorism implies things that may seem cruel to the weak-hearted, but they are necessary, and if we were to judge every single terrorist in court, we would have certainly been overwhelmed by terrorism by now.
I don't like people to be murdered, if that makes me weak-hearted, then I am weak-hearted. I thought having compassion and giving a high value to every life was a good thing in humans, apparently I was wrong.

Then again, Bin Laden and his story might just be a wonderfully crafted myth. You never know.
Bad man? Must be: damn, his beliefs were different from ours and he blew shit up so shit's got to be blown up in return till we find and kill him for the sake of our kind. Was everything true? Don't know. Did the movement succeed in uniting people against a common enemy they never actually SAW involved in the relevant terrorist acts? Definitely.
I'm in no way implying Bin Laden was good and stuff. What I'm saying is sometimes it can be funny how people blindly give in to the info they get, and inflict extreme hate upon others, and say things over the top to defend the stance they were fed.

I agree with this so much.

game90

15th Jul 2011, 12:04 PM

No, the fight against terrorism implies things that may seem cruel to the weak-hearted, but they are necessary, and if we were to judge every single terrorist in court, we would have certainly been overwhelmed by terrorism by now.

So it seems the terrorists have managed to convince another person to abandon the Rule of Law.

Rawra

15th Jul 2011, 01:29 PM

So why are you in the Debate Room?

Because we are expressing our opinions, yet they aren't going to change what the authorities decide.

What I was saying, in any case, is that I prefer this one person to be murdered, instead of probably a dozen others who would have been his next attack's victims. I just don't see the point of a trial; plus, I'm sure taking him into custody would have been impossible, seeing as he was armed, or so I know. So it was the only possibility (and, in my opinion, the best, but whatever) to take him down that way.

dutch

15th Jul 2011, 01:55 PM

No, you're right. It's better that he died, because, has it ever occurred to you, now it's the allied forces that also have one less reason to scorch the Middle East and kill its innocent. Try to look at everything from a more balanced standpoint.

Tempscire

15th Jul 2011, 08:01 PM

No, it doesn't work like that in this case, as it doesn't work in any case. Justice isn't supposed to be emotional, but rational and proof based.
Yes; this is the point I was trying to get at in my earlier reply.

pinketamine

15th Jul 2011, 09:36 PM

Yes; this is the point I was trying to get at in my earlier reply.
I was replying to The Creeper, not to you Tempscire, I agree with you on what you said.

el_flel

15th Jul 2011, 11:39 PM

I just don't see the point of a trialThere was little point in having a trial for Saddam Hussein - there were mountains of evidence of his guilt and everyone knew he would be found guilty and executed - yet he still had one. Even if you know for fact that the person is guilty they still deserve a fair trial. It's one of the fundamental aspects of our justice system. I understand why you feel the way you do - no here is saying that Bin Laden was a nice man who shouldn't have been punished - but in order to have a fair and effective justice system the rules need to be the same for everyone. We shouldn't be able to pick and choose who we try and who we don't. Give him a trial, let him be found guilty, and then execute him. The end result is the same but by doing it that way we've kept our integrity.

I do tend to agree with Nekowolf in that it probably would have been near impossible to take him alive but I do think that should have been the aim.

~Dee~

16th Jul 2011, 03:42 AM

I don't understand some of the comments here at all, Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group, as a leader he would have sanctioned anything this group did, therefor he was responsible even if he wasn't there in person.

This man has been responsible for so many atrocities and what he did on 9/11 was an act of terrorism the world had never seen.
Over 3,000 innocent people died that day with the full knowledge that their would. Can any of you imagine what it's like to be in a highrise and have fire behind you with nowhere to go? You have only two choices, be burned alive or jump out the window, either way you are dead, because of some mad man.

What about the people in the planes, knowing they would die horrible any minute.

And you want to give this man a fair trial, knowing full well if he did and went to jail that his followers would have found a way to get him out.
So he can kill more innocent people and for what, so you can feel better because justice has been served!

I know what I would prefer...rather him dead then more innocent people dying.

Mistermook

16th Jul 2011, 04:59 AM

There are certainly other terrorists out there. The good news is that for a certain flavor of terrorist they're probably still in a bit of a confused state trying to figure out who's in charge next, and the next guys who might be up for being in charge are possibly weighing the "good things about being the boss" versus "bad things about being the boss meaning I get shot by US Navy SEALS." I've never been shot dead, but I don't imagine there are a lot of good things to be said for it as a career move. Probably better to work at McDonalds and stfu with the bombs and stuff.

Tempscire

16th Jul 2011, 06:55 AM

I was replying to The Creeper, not to you Tempscire, I agree with you on what you said.
I know, I was using your post as a launching point for my clarification. :)

Rawra

16th Jul 2011, 09:25 AM

el_flel

16th Jul 2011, 12:38 PM

~Dee~

16th Jul 2011, 02:24 PM

Where did I say that people here don't care about the victims, I can't see that anywhere in my post. Now you are putting words into my mouth, I gave my opinion like everyone else.
If you don't like it that's certainly not my problem.

el_flel

16th Jul 2011, 02:44 PM

Then why the need to "remind" everyone what happened on 9/11? I'm pretty sure that people remember what happened, I sure do.

Rawra

16th Jul 2011, 02:47 PM

Then why the need to "remind" everyone what happened on 9/11? I'm pretty sure that people remember what happened, I sure do.

Because that is one of the reasons for which Bin Laden didn't deserve a trial.

dutch

16th Jul 2011, 02:49 PM

@el_flel: Which is a very interesting thing to think about in itself. All the hate and arguing would be gone if only humans were built to quickly let go, wouldn't they? Just a thought. :)

@TheCreeper: Okay. You're right.

el_flel

16th Jul 2011, 02:51 PM

But ~Dee~ didn't say anything like that. :wtf:Refer to my post above yours (which probably crossed). If that wasn't Dee's intent then I take back my comment to her but it came across as though she was accusing those of us who think the whole situation wasn't dealt with in the best way of not caring about the victims.

I always see this sort of attitude on threads that have a similar theme: If people have an opinion about something which isn't solely outrage towards a criminal then they are assumed to be sympathising with the criminal and don't care about the victim. People can have sympathy for victims and think the criminal was wronged, you don't have to sit at either one end or the other.

Rawra

16th Jul 2011, 02:53 PM

Refer to my post above yours (which probably crossed). If that wasn't Dee's intent then I take back my comment to her but it came across as though you were accusing those of us who think the whole situation wasn't dealt with in the best way somehow don't care about the victims.

I always see this sort of attitude on threads that have a similar theme: If people have an opinion about something which isn't solely outrage towards a criminal then they are assumed to be sympathising with the criminal and don't care about the victim. People can have sympathy for victims and think the criminal wronged, you don't have to sit at either one end or the other.

I understand, me, personally, I don't think you either sympathise with the terrorist or don't care about the victims. I'm just expressing my opinion regarding his death and the way he died, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, really.

el_flel

16th Jul 2011, 02:57 PM

Thank you.

Let me explain my stance: Obviously Bin Laden was an evil man who deserved to be punished for what he did. But I think that punishment should have followed the proper channels where possible. I'm certainly not upset about his death and, even though I oppose the death penalty, I don't think it was the wrong decision to execute him, but I think in order to keep the integrity of a western justice system the aim should have been to arrest if possible.

I'm not crying into my drink about it or anything but I just think it's a slippery slope when the authorities begin to dictate who is and isn't worthy of a fair trial, especially as a fair trial is a basic human right (I know that there are people who think that a criminal gives up their human rights by committing a crime but the fact is that it doesn't work that way. If you're a human, you have human rights, regardless of what you've done).

Mistermook

16th Jul 2011, 04:51 PM

I think that when you're dealing with criminal masterminds living in secret compounds in foreign countries that we're supposedly allies with, whose organizational members are well known for using suicide bombs and other explosives, and the mission already had a major hiccup when the super-secret helicopter modification was ruined by the narrow courtyard it was supposed to maintain over... I think in those circumstances, yes it would have been better if the guy had been taken alive but it's acceptable that the military unit sent to retrieve him decided to kill him rather than worry about the mission going more awry or failing at their mission.

I get incredibly upset with cops who use too much force apprehending shoplifters and other people who are not exactly threats simply by being, but you start upping the ante with hostages, explosives, etc. and I even waive cops liability and they're presumably trained better to take out targets in a non-lethal manner than SEAL teams, at least at the higher ends of competency. But a SEAL team isn't some police unit, their default setting is going to very violent and lethal - they probably weren't the best choice except for the logistics of the mission which involved intruding on allied airspace without them knowing from a carrier and getting out again. Until we have a police unit designed to do something like that though, which would scare the hell out of my politically because of the implications (that we were going to do shit like that regularly enough to need specific organizations to accomplish those regular missions,) I think this is the sort of compromise (and body count) we're simply going to have to accept.

Of course, this is all predicated on the premise that this wasn't an assassination as much as a retrieval gone squirrelly, with the lawful orders at least (never mind unofficial recommendations, which would be another thing entirely) concerned mostly with getting Osama and his intelligence neutralized (and without any language to protect him saying "don't kill this guy under any circumstances.") And I think that's probably a fair assessment of the mission parameters - I don't think there was any reason to declare that Osama had to live at the expense or threat to the SEAL team,they got a little over their head in a dicey situation, and in the end they started rushing things and in rushing things it became simpler to shoot people than keep them alive on their adjusted timetable.

Nekowolf

16th Jul 2011, 05:42 PM

Official reports (take them as you will, as some people refuse to believe official reports) were that orders given were to take bin Laden alive, if possible, but were set entirely on the SEAL team's evaluation of the situation; i.e. they made the call to shoot bin Laden, not the President or anyone else. At least, I think that's what it was.

~Dee~

17th Jul 2011, 12:32 AM

Refer to my post above yours (which probably crossed). If that wasn't Dee's intent then I take back my comment to her but it came across as though she was accusing those of us who think the whole situation wasn't dealt with in the best way of not caring about the victims.

I always see this sort of attitude on threads that have a similar theme: If people have an opinion about something which isn't solely outrage towards a criminal then they are assumed to be sympathising with the criminal and don't care about the victim. People can have sympathy for victims and think the criminal was wronged, you don't have to sit at either one end or the other.

That's what I dislike, that people read something into the post what wasn't there.

I reminded everyone of what the victims went through not because I think that people here didn't care about them, rather that it has been 10 years since 9/11 and the shock would have worn off.
A crime seems less horrendous once time passes.

Nowhere did I say or imply that people here are sympathizing with Bin Laden.
If you think he should have had a trail, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it's not mine.

I'm all for a consistent justice system, unfortunately we don't have one.
Rich people with fancy lawyers get off or get a lesser sentence than poor people.
Saw a program last night where a black man got 120 years in jail for raping 3 women and the next one was a white men who had killed his wife and chopped her up, guess what he got... 20 years.

I wouldn't call that consistent.

Your last sentence... yes you can have sympathy for the victims but I do not agree that you can sit on either one end or the other.
You have to make a choice (not you personally, generally speaking) but with me, my choice would always be with the victims.

el_flel

17th Jul 2011, 12:23 PM

As I said, if that wasn't how you meant it then I take it back but the way it came across (to me, at least) was that you were using emotive language to try and make people feel bad for having their opinion. Apologies for reading that wrong.

I didn't say you either sit on one side or the other. I said you can have sympathy for victims but still feel that a criminal was wronged - that is definitely possible. Using your example of the differences between how black and white offenders were sentenced: I feel sympathetic for the victim but can still be bothered by the fact that the black offender got a much harsher sentence than the white offender who committed a more serious crime.

And yeah, we may not have a consistent system, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do all we can, when we can, to make it consistent.

~Dee~

17th Jul 2011, 03:39 PM

I didn't say that you said I either sit on one side or the other, I just said that I would side with the victims and not the wronged criminal. If that's what I meant I would have said so.

What fascinates me is the idea of a wronged criminal, if that person wouldn't have decided to commit a crime, he wouldn't be in the position he finds himself in. It comes with the job description that you will get caught and punished.
Unfortunately victims aren't that lucky, they didn't decide to become victims.

And thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. :)

el_flel

17th Jul 2011, 03:47 PM

Ah I see.

IMO just because a person commits a crime doesn't mean they can't be wronged by the criminal justice system. Evidence can be falsified/misrepresented, or offenders can be given a harsh sentence, or suspects can be beaten whilst interrogated. Just because the offender broke the law doesn't make that ok. I just think that if we all took the attitude of, "well you broke the law therefore we don't care if bad things happen to you" then there would be so many more miscarriages of justice, and that would be wrong.

But I feel this is getting into a whole other territory.

Rawra

17th Jul 2011, 03:51 PM

So, uh, hey, everyone is happy now... Who wants champagne? :beer:

RoseCity

17th Jul 2011, 07:38 PM

What fascinates me is the idea of a wronged criminal, if that person wouldn't have decided to commit a crime, he wouldn't be in the position he finds himself in. It comes with the job description that you will get caught and punished.
Unfortunately victims aren't that lucky, they didn't decide to become victims.
Well, you can be considered a criminal and be on death row for a crime you didn't commit. So far the Innocence Project has exonerated 272 people who were falsely accused and imprisoned. The system of 'justice' in the U.S. is really effed up.

Nekowolf

17th Jul 2011, 08:59 PM

Actually, if I recall correctly *and excuse me if I'm not* I believe inmates on death row receive an automatic appeal under law (I want to say federal, but maybe it's state). Just thought I'd point that out for some clarification.

@The Creeper

Champagne? BAH! Bring me more rum! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhsZayay-Q) More wenches and mead! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-8Uo1j0AiA)

RoseCity

18th Jul 2011, 12:37 AM

Actually, if I recall correctly *and excuse me if I'm not* I believe inmates on death row receive an automatic appeal under law (I want to say federal, but maybe it's state). Just thought I'd point that out for some clarification.

I think I see your point, so I checked and 17 of the 272 exonerees served time on death row, so I guess their automatic appeal didn't help them. The others were serving long or life sentences. The Innocence Project website says that it's been estimated that between 2.3 and 5% of prison inmates are innocent. Chilling to wonder how many innocent people have been executed before DNA testing of evidence was available.

Tempscire

18th Jul 2011, 09:34 PM

I think I see your point, so I checked and 17 of the 272 exonerees served time on death row, so I guess their automatic appeal didn't help them.
It helped them if they weren't wrongly executed while on death row.

RoseCity

19th Jul 2011, 12:51 AM

~Dee~

19th Jul 2011, 01:09 AM

I was responding initially to Dee saying that if someone didn't commit a crime, they wouldn't find themselves in their current situation which I assumed to be prison. Which is not true. And people who have been on death row have been exonerated not by their automatic appeal, but by outside legal assistance, which is why I said their automatic appeal didn't help them.
A link if you're interested (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php)

When I said that, I meant people like Bin Laden, guilty people, not someone who got wrongly accused or is innocent of any crime.
Maybe I should have clarified that a bit better, but this is a tread about a guilty man, so I assumed people would know what I meant.

I have to stop assuming. :)

whiterider

19th Jul 2011, 01:23 AM

But then the problem is discerning between a wronged criminal, and a wronged wrongly accused person - alright, not in this case, but as a general facet of the rule of law.

funcioná!!!

23rd Jul 2011, 06:28 PM

They should have given him a trial, not do whatever they want skipping the international laws of human rights. By what they did, those people show they are just as bad as Bin Laden. Although I don't justify what he did, I suppose the 9/11 was an act of revenge for all the people the United States Army tortured and killed. I know not all of them were innocent, but anyway nothing justifies torturing a person, even if it's the worst person in the world.

Nekowolf

23rd Jul 2011, 06:42 PM

Okay, this is what gets me here.

Y'know what? I'll say it. Humans lives do have value. You can measure a life; let's be real about it here. The value of another person's life is relative. There are people I would -love- to see dead, but to others, they are invaluable. But one life does not equal 2,753 lives. One foreign terrorist killed does not equal the loss of 2,753 innocent people. So how the hell does a small military platoon who raided the compound of one of the most notorious terrorists and criminals in modern times equal the terror done by that man they are hunting?

It doesn't. And it never will. The idea that it's just as low, or just as bad, as the killing of over two-thousand innocent people simple for revenge and to terrorize is, I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it is utterly absurd, it's asinine, it's inane!

And frankly, I don't know where you're getting torture in on this here. Bin Laden wasn't tortured, he was killed in action during a military raid. Torture wasn't even a part of the problem yet when 9/11 was committed. To bring torture into this is confusing the issues here. Now that I think about it, is it possible you are in fact confusing the issue here? Because we are not discussing torture; we're discussing the circumstances around the death of Bin Laden. Now if you want to bring up whether torture actually helped gain information of his whereabouts, that could be something to discuss in tandem with his death.