Sounds Like Bin Laden's Dead

MoonlitSunshine · 05-06-2011, 02:12 PM

That's great that you can "see right through" something that isn't there, Dirty. Maybe you can see right through the monsters under your bed before you can go to sleep, cause you know, they're out to get you as well!

There's no point in even trying to argue with you. You refuse to accept that anything but your own view could possibly be the case. You have absolutely no concrete proof that Bin Laden was even in Pakistan for that long: there are reports of him having been in Afghanistan not that long ago, from what I recall of reading numerous articles on the subject, let alone the fact that seeing as he was a man with a serious amount of medical problems that if he had been in Abottabad for any substantial length of time he would have shown up on some sort of medical record. The fact is that the only people claiming he's been in Pakistan even for months, let alone years, are the US Government.

I'm happy for you that you have that much faith in your government, but there has also been an announcement stating that the op took 40 minutes, when there is twittered information about choppers being above the city for two hours, and a number of other accounts which don't seem to be adding up. I don't know who's not telling the whole truth, but I refuse to claim that any one thing is true until the facts do add up.

I do however, refuse to believe that an entire government would be ok with hiding him. It's not like he killed only Americans, by any stretch of the imagination, and if he had been there for long, someone in the local vicinity would have figured it out, and I don't think anyone who wasn't an avid follower of his would want to be within 50 miles of even rumoured whereabouts of OBL. Unless you want to claim that everyone who would have come into contact with him or the vicinity around his compound were his avid supporters? Cause that's a lot of people. Might as well just declare the city, hell, the country, if the government was involved, fundamentalist america-haters. Because Osama Bin Laden did not have that much money, he doesn't have multi-billion handouts to give to countries to keep him hidden, especially if he was planning more attacks. He would have to be worth a lot more than the bailouts Pakistan get from America and other countries to even consider hiding him for such a logical reason as money.

You know, having written that, I'm really not bothered. You believe what you want to believe. It's not going to make the slightest bit of difference either way.

~~Dirty~~ · 05-06-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonlitSunshine

That's great that you can "see right through" something that isn't there, Dirty. Maybe you can see right through the monsters under your bed before you can go to sleep, cause you know, they're out to get you as well!
There's no point in even trying to argue with you. You refuse to accept that anything but your own view could possibly be the case. You have absolutely no concrete proof that Bin Laden was even in Pakistan for that long: there are reports of him having been in Afghanistan not that long ago, from what I recall of reading numerous articles on the subject, let alone the fact that seeing as he was a man with a serious amount of medical problems that if he had been in Abottabad for any substantial length of time he would have shown up on some sort of medical record. The fact is that the only people claiming he's been in Pakistan even for months, let alone years, are the US Government.

I'm happy for you that you have that much faith in your government, but there has also been an announcement stating that the op took 40 minutes, when there is twittered information about choppers being above the city for two hours, and a number of other accounts which don't seem to be adding up. I don't know who's not telling the whole truth, but I refuse to claim that any one thing is true until the facts do add up.

I do however, refuse to believe that an entire government would be ok with hiding him. It's not like he killed only Americans, by any stretch of the imagination, and if he had been there for long, someone in the local vicinity would have figured it out, and I don't think anyone who wasn't an avid follower of his would want to be within 50 miles of even rumoured whereabouts of OBL. Unless you want to claim that everyone who would have come into contact with him or the vicinity around his compound were his avid supporters? Cause that's a lot of people. Might as well just declare the city, hell, the country, if the government was involved, fundamentalist america-haters. Because Osama Bin Laden did not have that much money, he doesn't have multi-billion handouts to give to countries to keep him hidden, especially if he was planning more attacks. He would have to be worth a lot more than the bailouts Pakistan get from America and other countries to even consider hiding him for such a logical reason as money.

You know, having written that, I'm really not bothered. You believe what you want to believe. It's not going to make the slightest bit of difference either way.

I'm not arguing with you on th bolded part.. I'm straight up telling you that's what you were saying. It's not even debatable. "surely we should make at least some attempt to raise our morals and standards above those we claim to be dealing justice to?"

Please tell me how that statement doesn't suggest our morals are on par with Bin Laden/Al Quaeda's. That's exactly what that statement applies, just accept it.

I don't need concrete proof to speculate and form opinions base don common sense... Wouldn't you think Bin Laden, who was apparently being sought out by Pakistan, would have tried to be a little more discreet in his living situation instead of living in a huge mansion in a military town?? Does it make any bit of sense for him to be living like that and drawing attention to his home when supposedly the government is out to get him? Hell no it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Like I said, he was living .8 miles from their military base. If you don't think anything about this seems the least bit suspicious then you probably are in denial of something or are just a plain moron. Do the simple math here, it doesn't take a confession of the Pakistani government for me to realize OBL obviously had help from Pakistanis.

VEGANGELICA · 05-07-2011, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty

No need for a trial. Just a waste of more money and time for something that will inevitably result in his death sentence. Go for the kill and get it over with.

You are saying that our morals and standards are on par with Osama Bin Laden, which I disagree with. He organized a massive terror attack that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I'm not willing to put the US's morals on that level because we killed our biggest terror threat and the man who organized the killing of thousands.

You may value every human life as precious and equal, but I don't. Luckily the government doesn't either and we were able to assassinate OBL.

A government that willingly dispenses with the whole notion of a justice system (lawyers, courts, due process) is one to be feared, not applauded.

The justice system is there to protect all of us, Dirty. When any government creates situations in which to ignore due process, then we should not overlook that violation, in my opinion. I understand it can be emotionally difficult to want to give someone a fair trial when you have reason to hate and fear that person...but I believe all accused people deserve a fair trial, whether or not they are U.S. citizens.

I don't fault the U.S. for wishing to hold Bin Laden accountable for his role in terrorist actions. But I *do* fault the U.S. for killing him without trying to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I don't think we ought to fear becoming barbarians, and I do think we should question who really is innocent. I assume in the later case you meant the woman who was killed. Why, exactly, is she innocent? Was she unaware that Bin Laden had killed thousands? And whos to say that barbarism is subpar in some capacity. The implication there is that we're an uncivilized mongrel nation.

Why, exactly, was the woman who was killed in the crossfire innocent, Big3? Because people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even being proven guilty in a court of law doesn't ensure a person is *truly* guilty of some crime...but it is better than killing her first and asking questions later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Killing might be wrong. It goes against our human instincts. But it is primal to believe that, if this individual remains alive, some of us may not. All too often we see Murder as a crime, therefore all murder is a crime. But the root-reason murder is a crime is because its often considered a punishment too severe for anyone action. As a civilized society, we have created pathways for resolution, we've built a code of interaction. When this is compromised by indiscriminate murder, its in our interests to eliminate this aberration.

And thats the point. There are countless ways to address a grievance in the West, and even when conducting business with the West. It may be laborious and slow-moving, but there are ways. Death prohibits all of these things. And because of this, we view death not only as the elimination of a life, but as a direct attack on things like democracy, separation of powers, the judicial system. We see it this way because we've agreed as a society that there are plenty of ways life can be unjust. As such we've created a process for resolution. And I happen to believe its a damn good system.

But death is finite and shouldn't be so easily forgiven. Should the US have killed Bin Laden? That depends on how you look at it. But I think the Obama Administration had every interest in keeping him alive first, and killing him second, and I do think he's an individual who values fair play in these matters more than he's given credit for.

We're free to disagree. But I would like to think that if my prerogative, upon our disagreement, was to kill you over that disagreement, they would visit upon me the same fate. It is certainly, in both instances, illogical. But it does return a balance of logic to a system created to sustain civility.

I agree with what you say in bold.

Did the U.S. value fair play, however, in its handling of Osama? Should fair play involve a court system even when a person is accused of a heinous crime and may continue to use his life to kill others while he is free?

In my opinion, fair play should involve a court system process and a fair trial, and the U.S. did *not* value fair play while attacking and killing Osama bin Laden.

If you were to kill me over our disagreement, Big3, I would *still* want you to live and get a fair trial and be found guilty, if you were. Killing you without a trial would not create more balance but just add to incivility. Killing you *after* the trial would also add to incivility. My hope would be that you would spend a long, long life in prison where you might eventually realize what a wonderful person you had snuffed out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paloma

...it kind of irritates me this "Oh gawd that woman with Osama, what kind of person must she have been to be with him gawd!!!"

Agreed, Paloma.

Zaqarbal · 05-07-2011, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I like how its only America thats got one ******* for every civilized person. You know, you sent us these ****ing people. Its not our fault the English tried to starve your race. If I were a lesser man, I'd make a comment to the effect that your countries avoided major foreign policy f-ups because they've been too drunk to function.

But I won't do that because I've got Irish ancestry. So if you think I'm an *******, you can blame Ireland.

America isn't the worlds greatest everything. We've got problems, and we've got people in elected office looking to shut down a lot of our foreign interventions. Thanks to the Paul family, Blowback is now being discussed in Presidential Primaries. The MIC is being actually removed.

What I still don't get from the non-American dissenters here is why you insist on making this an issue about how ALL of america is out in the street celebrating murder. Don't you think that sounds a little ridiculous? First of all, its mostly college kids who are notoriously dopes to begin with. Secondly, our government, who according to our friend here is such a **** up, handled this situation with dignity and class.

If this is, in fact, just anti-american sentiment, I'm a little more than disappointed in the posters here. I joined these boards as President Bush was reelected and I thought it was the height of AA fervor. Unfortunately it wasn't a fervor, it was a general bigotry it seems, and I think its pretty said to paint a nation of millions with the same brush.

In a certain way, I empathize with you. Ideed, as Jean-François Rebel says, there is an "anti-American obsession" nowadays. But that kind of hostile propaganda is not new. Historically speaking, the World's predominant power has always been demonized and, its defects, exaggerated. For instance, when discussing about a historical issue with someone, many times I face Hispanophobic clichés and gross exaggerations. That's what many Historians call "the Black Legend". The anti-American obsession is somehow the modern equivalent of our black legend. As Historian William S. Maltby said in 1969:

Quote:

Originally Posted by William S. Maltby

In more ways than one, the position of the United States in the twentieth century approximates that of Spain in the sixteenth. Wielding enormous power in the defense of an essentially conservative ideal, it finds itself object of hatred and jealousy to friends and foes alike. No one who reads the newspaper can doubt that a new Black Legend is being assembled by the nations of the world, or that America is the intended victim. Like Spain, it has indulged its passion for self-criticism to the fullest; and in the end, its fate may be the same.

TheBig3 · 05-07-2011, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Why, exactly, was the woman who was killed in the crossfire innocent, Big3? Because people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even being proven guilty in a court of law doesn't ensure a person is *truly* guilty of some crime...but it is better than killing her first and asking questions later.

As I've said before, she lived in a mansion with one of the worlds most notorious killers. If you can't see how I'm coming at this, I don't know what I can do for you. The idea that she charged the SEAL team coming in makes me think she wasn't a captive.

I'd like you to tell me why we shouldn't suspect that she's guilty of being an accomplice.

Quote:

I agree with what you say in bold.

Did the U.S. value fair play, however, in its handling of Osama? Should fair play involve a court system even when a person is accused of a heinous crime and may continue to use his life to kill others while he is free?

In my opinion, fair play should involve a court system process and a fair trial, and the U.S. did *not* value fair play while attacking and killing Osama bin Laden.

If you were to kill me over our disagreement, Big3, I would *still* want you to live and get a fair trial and be found guilty, if you were. Killing you without a trial would not create more balance but just add to incivility. Killing you *after* the trial would also add to incivility. My hope would be that you would spend a long, long life in prison where you might eventually realize what a wonderful person you had snuffed out!

How the **** would you have put him in the court system?

Quote:

Agreed, Paloma.

So I can go live in a house with a mass murder and no one should think I know a damn thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaqarbal

In a certain way, I empathize with you. Ideed, as Jean-François Rebel says, there is an "anti-American obsession" nowadays. But that kind of hostile propaganda is not new. Historically speaking, the World's predominant power has always been demonized and, its defects, exaggerated. For instance, when discussing about a historical issue with someone, many times I face Hispanophobic clichés and gross exaggerations. That's what many Historians call "the Black Legend". The anti-American obsession is somehow the modern equivalent of our black legend. As Historian William S. Maltby said in 1969:

I'd guess that some of the sentiments are born from hating any nation perceived as being the worlds super power. Still, the ranting from some of these posters, who I think should know better having spoken to a few of us here. Let alone the fact that Americans are fighting, on these boards, about this issue.

Bloozcrooz · 05-07-2011, 01:34 PM

Personally I dont believe anything our government tells us. Im still not fully convinced that OBL and alkida were the only ones that were behind the 911 attacks. Theres just so much corruption that you never really know the truth. If he was fully responsible for the attacks im not taking anyones word that he was all of a sudden captured after years of searching for him. Right when its getting close to election time. The fact that they wont allow the pictures to be seen just adds to the disbelief for me. Show the ****in pictures already!! Who cares if its disrespectful? Are we really worried about disrespecting an alleged killer of thousands of people? Or the family of someone of his stature? We shouldnt be but thats just my opinion.

midnight rain · 05-07-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozinbloozin

Personally I dont believe anything our government tells us. Im still not fully convinced that OBL and alkida were the only ones that were behind the 911 attacks. Theres just so much corruption that you never really know the truth. If he was fully responsible for the attacks im not taking anyones word that he was all of a sudden captured after years of searching for him. Right when its getting close to election time. The fact that they wont allow the pictures to be seen just adds to the disbelief for me. Show the ****in pictures already!! Who cares if its disrespectful? Are we really worried about disrespecting an alleged killer of thousands of people? Or the family of someone of his stature? We shouldnt be but thats just my opinion.

Ok first of all it's Al Qaeda for crying out loud, can't imagine misspelling that so badly with how much they're on the news.

Secondly, you say there's "so much corruption". Are you sticking to being intentionally vague because you can't actually think of any examples grounded in fact? And I'm not sure what you want to hear about the timing of it? Do you think Bush didn't capture Osama because he wanted it to benefit Obama's chance at a second election or something? Sounds really like actions of that buffoon...

Finally, if the pictures were shown, you would just claim they were doctored or find any other reason to dismiss them. They were taken years ago, they're pictures of someone else, etc.

Bloozcrooz · 05-07-2011, 01:53 PM

Yeah I blew the spelling on that but oh well what the hell...thanks for bringing that to my attention. Ill try an work on that.

What do you mean by being vague with that corruption statement? What part of politics and government isnt corrupt would be a better question. Do you not remember JFk for one blatent example?

You just never really know who is behind what and who is on whos agenda. Whats the truth and whats conspiracy.

If they told you the world was going to end tommorow would you ****ing believe that?

TheBig3 · 05-07-2011, 03:50 PM

I think we've gone as far as we can in this thread.

Zaqarbal · 05-07-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Urban's right. 30 years of living with terrorism taught both sides the need to eventually compromise. There really is no other end game.
Assassinating one man won't make a blind bit of difference.
If anything all that has been achieved is to create a void that will be filled by another of which you'll know less about.

Do you consider the I.R.A. (or any other terrorist group) to be a representative of society? Let's see:

On one hand, we have some terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, IRA, etc.)
On the other hand, millions of ordinary people who don't commit any terrorist act.

Which of the above should be considered as the best representative of a whole people (or a country, a society, a human community, etc.) in order to establish compromises? It seems to be the first one to you. If you reach a political agreement with terrorists, it is because you treat them as political representatives. Are you aware of the message you would send to terrorists? It's like saying: "be radical, so then you'll become a representative of the people in the eyes of the government". And "the more violent you are, the more concessions from the government you will obtain".

From a national perspective, you're violating the principle of equality before the law, because, among all criminals, you give a deferential treatment to terrorists. Think about the victims and their relatives. For instance, a couple loses their son, killed in an armed robbery (or any other non-terrorist crime). Another couple loses their son in a terrorist attack. The former will see justice done. To the latter, crime goes unpunished. Why? It sounds as if terrorism were a defence or an extenuating circumstance. The mere fact of stop killing should never be rewarded. That's morally and legally aberrant.

In addition, you must observe the separation of powers. The government (executive power) is only one of the three powers. It cannot decide on legislative and judicial questions.

Quote:

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil" (Thoman Mann: The Magic Mountain).

05-06-2011, 02:12 PM	#421 (permalink)
MoonlitSunshine Dat's Der Bunny! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,088	That's great that you can "see right through" something that isn't there, Dirty. Maybe you can see right through the monsters under your bed before you can go to sleep, cause you know, they're out to get you as well! There's no point in even trying to argue with you. You refuse to accept that anything but your own view could possibly be the case. You have absolutely no concrete proof that Bin Laden was even in Pakistan for that long: there are reports of him having been in Afghanistan not that long ago, from what I recall of reading numerous articles on the subject, let alone the fact that seeing as he was a man with a serious amount of medical problems that if he had been in Abottabad for any substantial length of time he would have shown up on some sort of medical record. The fact is that the only people claiming he's been in Pakistan even for months, let alone years, are the US Government. I'm happy for you that you have that much faith in your government, but there has also been an announcement stating that the op took 40 minutes, when there is twittered information about choppers being above the city for two hours, and a number of other accounts which don't seem to be adding up. I don't know who's not telling the whole truth, but I refuse to claim that any one thing is true until the facts do add up. I do however, refuse to believe that an entire government would be ok with hiding him. It's not like he killed only Americans, by any stretch of the imagination, and if he had been there for long, someone in the local vicinity would have figured it out, and I don't think anyone who wasn't an avid follower of his would want to be within 50 miles of even rumoured whereabouts of OBL. Unless you want to claim that everyone who would have come into contact with him or the vicinity around his compound were his avid supporters? Cause that's a lot of people. Might as well just declare the city, hell, the country, if the government was involved, fundamentalist america-haters. Because Osama Bin Laden did not have that much money, he doesn't have multi-billion handouts to give to countries to keep him hidden, especially if he was planning more attacks. He would have to be worth a lot more than the bailouts Pakistan get from America and other countries to even consider hiding him for such a logical reason as money. You know, having written that, I'm really not bothered. You believe what you want to believe. It's not going to make the slightest bit of difference either way. __________________ "I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?" - Arthur Dent

05-07-2011, 03:50 PM	#429 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	I think we've gone as far as we can in this thread. __________________ I've moved to a new address