Debate and Discussion

Can I get a hoohah! We got him!
ayesinback at 10:46AM, May 4, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,012
joined: 8-23-2010
Back on 12 Sept 2001, I wanted Osama bin Laden put down just like a rabid animal is put down. It's taken some time, and the world is going to have a thousand different views on how it was done, but it's finally done.

I absolutely agree, just like there's nothing to celebrate about any other rabid animal's death, there's nothing to celebrate with bin Laden's. I'm just glad it's done.

Was it worth all the lives taken? Does it end terrorism? Is our God damn war over? Are Americans even 50% intelligent, rational beings? No, No, No, and I don't think so.

But I have no grief how bin Laden was taken out, only that it took so long. This wasn't a police action. This was a man who declared war on a people who elect assholes into government, and he took his anger out on them, arbitrarily, killing thousands of innocents, many not Americans, on 9-11. He needed to be removed permanently, and going through the machinations of arrest, room and board, press, trial — just to execute the dog seems, well, inefficient at best.

But the war is not over (and it's a funky war because most Americans seem totally divorced from this reality that we are at war). I agree with Oz: war sucks.

under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
crocty at 12:18PM, May 4, 2011
(online)
posts: 6,673
joined: 8-16-2007
ayesinback
theorah
Rare, rational thoughts on his death that I agree with!
While it was clearly necessary, he wasn't going to come peacefully I'd bet, and it's not as if it's sad that he's dead, but celebrating and cheering at another person's death is just eugh. I'm not gonna say “It's just as bad as what he did”, because that's dumb, but it's still pretty sick.

Mind you, even if he had been captured, he'd have just gone the way of Saddam.
“We got him, America.

Now let's KILL the son of a bitch!”
THIS NEW SITE SUCKS I'M LEAVING FOREVER I PROMISE, GUYS.
NOT BLUFFING, I'M GONE IF YOU DON'T FIX IT.
Oh god I'm so alone someone pay attention to me
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
imshard at 2:39PM, May 4, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Celebrate? not as such. I did go out to the bar, though. I ordered some beers and set one aside for the friends that left to end that man's reign of terror. Friends that left and will never be coming back.
Was is it celebrating? No it wasn't celebrating. It was closure, for a job left unfinished but finally completed.

One things for sure, I enjoyed my damn beer that night.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
theorah at 1:23AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 78
joined: 7-19-2006
ozoneocean
Morally I agree with you 100%!
But in a more prosaic, cynical, practical way, I see a good argument to justify the execution/murder/assassination/whatever:
Osama Bin Laden was basically a meaningless figure as a terrorist at this stage. Time has moved on and he was isolated and in hiding too long to have much influence or be much of a figurehead anymore.
But if he had been imprisoned, that would've brought him back to prominence- Terrorist groups could've made a martyr out of him and used him as a rallying figure. Killing him short circuits that whole thing.
From Bin Laden's and even Al Quaida's point of view, being captured alive would probably have been a big win for them. It would've put them both right back into the centre stage of world focus, right where they wanted to be.


Yeah, I see what you guys mean there, you make a good and very interesting point!

Well, these kinds of discussions are always interesting and very debatable =3 I wonder sometimes if I was ever put in a more extreme situation or in more complex and higher power, if I would take the same moral stances I take now!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:25PM
Product Placement at 6:27AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
theorah
I honestly dont think that, no matter how much wrong a person has done in the world, celebrating the fact they have been killed voluntarily by your country is a good thing :S Just my opinion, I dont think violence should ever be celebrated, and I dont think I'd like to only feel like justice has been done once someone has been killed for what they may have done. I personally wonder why they didnt just put him in jail if it was a raid, if they had that choice to either kill or capture (maybe they didnt? Am I missing something maybe, I read he was unarmed?).
Morally I agree with you 100%!
But in a more prosaic, cynical, practical way, I see a good argument to justify the execution/murder/assassination/whatever:
Osama Bin Laden was basically a meaningless figure as a terrorist at this stage. Time has moved on and he was isolated and in hiding too long to have much influence or be much of a figurehead anymore.
But if he had been imprisoned, that would've brought him back to prominence- Terrorist groups could've made a martyr out of him and used him as a rallying figure. Killing him short circuits that whole thing.
From Bin Laden's and even Al Quaida's point of view, being captured alive would probably have been a big win for them. It would've put them both right back into the centre stage of world focus, right where they wanted to be.
How did killing him outright not put him back in the spotlight? If anything it runs an even greater risk of making a martyr out of him.
Wikipedia - on common features of stereotypical martyrdoms
1 - A hero
A person of some renown who is devoted to a cause believed to be admirable.

2 - Opposition
People who oppose that cause.

3 - Foreseeable risk
The hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause.

4 - Courage and Commitment
The hero continues, despite knowing the risk, out of commitment to the cause.

5 - Death
The opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause.

6 - Audience response
The hero’s death is commemorated. People may label the hero explicitly as a martyr. Other people may in turn be inspired to pursue the same cause.
I believe it would have been far better for America to capture him alive and put him through trial. Show the world that the States still follow the basic principals that all men are equal and have a right of a fair trial. It would have been the proper way for him to answer for his crimes.

Instead they ended up sinking to the same level as their enemies.

P.S. It also would have shut up all those pesky conspiracy theories that this is all just an alaborate hoax, in order to boost public confidence in the US leadership and to give them a valid reason to say why Pakistan can't be trusted. I mean… this is just pure food for those types. Small team of soldiers stormed an enclosed bunker and kill everyone inside? No footage shown of the act? No pictures of the deceased (which of course would have aided in making a martyr of him)? A speady burial at sea?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
ayesinback at 6:36AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,012
joined: 8-23-2010
Someone
I believe it would have been far better for America to capture him alive and put him through trial. Show the world that the States still follow the basic principals that all men are equal and have a right of a fair trial. It would have been the proper way for him to answer for his crimes.

Instead they ended up sinking to the same level as their enemies.
The basic principal is that all men are Born equal, and then they should be able to make of themselves what they will. Through bin Laden's own actions he removed himself from the rights afforded to civilized men. He voluntarily confessed to his crimes. He bragged about them, and threatened to do more. He urged others to do the same. No contrition. No mystery.

He had a death sentence on his head for nearly a decade that was well established globally. The news was that the USA was finally able to keep its promise and eradicate him.

I hate that the world's been torn apart so that we can “keep our promise”, but I cannot agree that bin Laden was “entitled” to anything more than annihilation.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
Product Placement at 7:34AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ayesinback
Someone
I believe it would have been far better for America to capture him alive and put him through trial. Show the world that the States still follow the basic principals that all men are equal and have a right of a fair trial. It would have been the proper way for him to answer for his crimes.

Instead they ended up sinking to the same level as their enemies.
The basic principal is that all men are Born equal, and then they should be able to make of themselves what they will. Through bin Laden's own actions he removed himself from the rights afforded to civilized men. He voluntarily confessed to his crimes. He bragged about them, and threatened to do more. He urged others to do the same. No contrition. No mystery.
Even when people confess to a crime, there's still a trial. Just a very speedy one where all that is needed to do is to give out the sentence.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
bravo1102 at 7:50AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 3,386
joined: 1-21-2008
It could be said Osama and his organization had declared war on the United States. Therefore he could be engaged as an enemy of the United States and not as a criminal.
However, he was actively engaging the SEALs so their shooting him is as justified as killing any criminal attempting to use deadly force against the forces attempting to apprehend him.
Law enforcement or Elite Military forces are taught that when shot at you kill the shooter. There is no such thing as shoot to wound or shoot to capture. A firefight is not a game.
A SEAL commander knows that the lives of any in his team are not worth any attempt to capture Osama as opposed to killing him.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:34AM
Product Placement at 8:49AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
From what I understand the initial order was to shoot to kill and not attempt capture. It wasn't even an option to consider taking him alive so it wouldn't even had mattered if they had caught him completely off guard, napping on his couch.

And since you brought it up; the whole “war on terror” thing has been a pretty flimsy thing. Terrorism is a concept. How does one combat a concept? War, as we know it, evolved from national conflicts. Whether you publicly declare war or perform surprise attacks, there usually are some forms of official channels that representatives of conflicting nations can interact through, to discuss cease fire, terms of surrender or something along those lines. You don't have that when dealing with terrorism. There are no predefined borders that contain this force. Where's the capital of Torrorismia for you to capture?

Yes. Efforts need to be made to fight and contain acts of terror but a declaration of war against terrorism itself will not work. It's a war you can't hope to win… ever.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
blindsk at 10:53AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
Product Placement
And since you brought it up; the whole “war on terror” thing has been a pretty flimsy thing. Terrorism is a concept. How does one combat a concept?

Yeah, you're right. I honestly feel this war was identified as such for security reasons. Overall we wanted to bring one figurehead to justice, but sooner or later someone else might take up the mantle. Eradicating it completely is out of the question, because, like you said, it's a concept.

As far as celebrating goes, I never thought people were celebrating the death of a man so much the death of a man's ideals. I'm sure by this point many Americans were desperately searching for some form of closure and killing that man also meant killing everything that he stood for. Some point in the near future we might be able to look back and forgive him, but for now there is good cause to celebrate a feeling of relief.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
Hawk at 10:56AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Do you think maybe if Bin Laden had been taken alive, we'd be more open to attacks? I mean, if he was still alive, Al Qaeda would have something to try to get back. They could take hostages or increase violence and demand his release. I know that's probably just comparable to trouble they could cause just getting revenge for his death, but at least now they have nothing to get back.

Though I don't think it was wrong to kill him, part of me still wishes he was taken alive. I wonder what it would be like for him to see the faces of the people whose lives he hurt. I'm sure he'd be unmoved, but it seems like a more appropriate indignity than death itself. The way things actually went down, I'll bet he died thinking he was a great hero.

Product Placement: I have to argue that killing Osama Bin Laden with a small surgical strike does not lower America to the same level as a man who orchestrated the events on September 11th. I understand your feelings that it would have been better to take him alive, but honestly, that man was at a pretty low level to sink down to.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 11:45AM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 25,086
joined: 1-2-2004
theorah
ozoneocean
Morally I agree with you 100%!
But in a more prosaic, cynical, practical way, I see a good argument to justify the execution/murder/assassination/whatever:
Osama Bin Laden was basically a meaningless figure as a terrorist at this stage. Time has moved on and he was isolated and in hiding too long to have much influence or be much of a figurehead anymore.
But if he had been imprisoned, that would've brought him back to prominence- Terrorist groups could've made a martyr out of him and used him as a rallying figure. Killing him short circuits that whole thing.
From Bin Laden's and even Al Quaida's point of view, being captured alive would probably have been a big win for them. It would've put them both right back into the centre stage of world focus, right where they wanted to be.
Yeah, I see what you guys mean there, you make a good and very interesting point!

Well, these kinds of discussions are always interesting and very debatable =3 I wonder sometimes if I was ever put in a more extreme situation or in more complex and higher power, if I would take the same moral stances I take now!
Exactly!
Personally, I'd probably take the moral stance. I'm not generally a “greater good” sort of person, normal human morals mean more to me.
Product Placement
How did killing him outright not put him back in the spotlight? If anything it runs an even greater risk of making a martyr out of him.
Not in the same way PP. Not at all. If he was alive and in prison, then he's still ALIVE: Al Quadia has a focus, a constant rallying symbol. They could constantly use that in propaganda, stage attacks and atrocities calling for his release or in his honour etc. As it is now, he died a meaningless man.
Hawk
Product Placement: I have to argue that killing Osama Bin Laden with a small surgical strike does not lower America to the same level as a man who orchestrated the events on September 11th.
Ah, no, the invasions and war in Afghanistan and Iraq arguably put the US on a level beyond which people like Bin Laden could only dream of aspiring too in their most insane fantasies.

At this stage, the “level” has been reached and exceeded. I think the objective now is to try and do everything that's possible to backtrack from that pit and get back to the moral highground that was well and truly lost 10 years ago. The Obama administration is on the track, but they're making slow going.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:38PM
Hawk at 1:10PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
Hawk
Product Placement: I have to argue that killing Osama Bin Laden with a small surgical strike does not lower America to the same level as a man who orchestrated the events on September 11th.
Ah, no, the invasions and war in Afghanistan and Iraq arguably put the US on a level beyond which people like Bin Laden could only dream of aspiring too in their most insane fantasies.

At this stage, the “level” has been reached and exceeded. I think the objective now is to try and do everything that's possible to backtrack from that pit and get back to the moral highground that was well and truly lost 10 years ago. The Obama administration is on the track, but they're making slow going.

Of course, I knew somebody was going to throw that at me. I even thought of preempting the comment. But it felt forced.

Product Placement was talking about action of the killing of Osama Bin Laden dropping America to the level of the man who wrecked three airplanes and destroy two enormous buildings full of people. My argument was killing one confessed terrorist =/= killing nearly 3000 innocent people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
seventy2 at 3:50PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
comment about the wildly exaggerated/under exaggerated number of civilians killed in these wars in response to hawk in:
3.
2.
1.
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:31PM
I Am The 1337 Master at 5:36PM, May 5, 2011
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009
@Hawk: I like this. Let's go kill 2999 terrorists and make us even.

@Hawk's rage: IT tis but a joke.

@My Mom: Hi, how ya doin?

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:55PM
Hawk at 5:59PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
seventy2
comment about the wildly exaggerated/under exaggerated number of civilians killed in these wars in response to hawk in:
3.
2.
1.


Well, CNN pegs the 9/11 death toll at 2,752. Or did you think I was talking about Iraq/Afghanistan civilians?

Let me just clarify my main point: I think killing Osama Bin Laden without a trial was not as bad as Osama Bin Laden's terrorist attacks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
ozoneocean at 6:04PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 25,086
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
ozoneocean
Hawk
Product Placement: I have to argue that killing Osama Bin Laden with a small surgical strike does not lower America to the same level as a man who orchestrated the events on September 11th.
Ah, no, the invasions and war in Afghanistan and Iraq arguably put the US on a level beyond which people like Bin Laden could only dream of aspiring too in their most insane fantasies.

At this stage, the “level” has been reached and exceeded. I think the objective now is to try and do everything that's possible to backtrack from that pit and get back to the moral highground that was well and truly lost 10 years ago. The Obama administration is on the track, but they're making slow going.

Of course, I knew somebody was going to throw that at me. I even thought of preempting the comment. But it felt forced.

Product Placement was talking about action of the killing of Osama Bin Laden dropping America to the level of the man who wrecked three airplanes and destroy two enormous buildings full of people. My argument was killing one confessed terrorist =/= killing nearly 3000 innocent people.
That argument is invalid. You simply can not have the 1 man Vs the 3000 without including the total (not just civilians Seventy) from the wars, whether that's 900K or 400K, not including that and just reducing this to the 2001 figure is immoral, dishonest, and even inhuman at this stage. They will always have to be included in the equation, forever, they should never be forgotten or rationalised away.

This “war on terror” has been a brutal time in our history that has brought us all down to that level.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:38PM
seventy2 at 7:08PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
ozoneocean
900K or 400K,

this vs. the towers total, is what i was referring to.

however greatly exaggerated, (minimum of 4x).

I am not going to try and justify the US's killing of civilians. it's a damn shame, and very sickening when it happens. However, it is never the same as intentionally planning an assault on a group of people doing nothing. When the military strikes, it strikes military targets. When a terrorist strikes, it strikes the most weak and open thing it can find. Such as unarmed office workers.

I think death was the right thing.
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:31PM
Product Placement at 7:28PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Hawk
Product Placement was talking about action of the killing of Osama Bin Laden dropping America to the level of the man who wrecked three airplanes and destroy two enormous buildings full of people.
No, that is not what I said. That is what you interpreted from what I said.

What I was actually talking about was the act of just going in with the clear goal of killing someone you hated. The scale of the 9/11 attack was terrible but it doesn't change the fact that it's the exact same type of thinking that drove both acts onwards. That's what I mean about sinking to their level.

Granted, you guys hated him for a very good reason. He was the embodiment of a monster for actually considering something like this. But it doesn't change the fact that storming his hideout with a force of soldiers that he and his guards had not a single ounce of a chance to repel, with the clear cut intention of killing him, is not all that different from a lynch mob.

Wouldn't you prefer to show the world that you're better then that? That your country represented the same morals that you so actively promote?

Even the Nazis got a trial.

That is what I was trying to say. Not 1 = 3000.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
ozoneocean at 8:17PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 25,086
joined: 1-2-2004
seventy2
ozoneocean
900K or 400K,
this vs. the towers total, is what i was referring to.

however greatly exaggerated, (minimum of 4x).
900K is the top figure, it's not an exaggeration, it's an estimate, 400K is a bottom figure, that is LOW.
Seventy, I have to make this CLEAR, I am NOT just talking “civilian deaths”, I am talking the complete total killed so far in both wars- armed men on all sides, civilians, aid workers, everyone, by everyone. All those deaths are a direct result of the invasions started by Bush in response to 9/11.
What I am saying is that because of this it is demonstrably evident and provable (through figures on monetary cost, cost of destruction, amount on injured as well as amount of dead) that the “war on terror” was a greater atrocity than the event to which it responded.

seventy2
I think death was the right thing.
I do not dispute this.

What I'm saying is that the atrocity of the wars and what they have involved cannot be forgotten in all this. We can't go around saying “oh, we're not as bad as him because…”- Yes, we ARE, or at least the administration that pushed for the war is and all those in all the other countries that joined in the “coalition of the willing”, which includes governments in Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and elsewhere.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:38PM
Hawk at 8:25PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I guess I'm not making myself clear enough. Maybe I should have said, "A murder without a trial =/= An airline-based terrorist attack killing thousands". I felt like you said America was as bad as Bin Laden based on the fact that they killed him without a trial, and that offended me. I think he was a very bad man. I felt like there was some justification to kill the guy, and I still do. And yeah, I'll admit just as I did in my first post, it would have been better to take him alive, for various reasons and I also agree with the ones you mentioned.

I wasn't trying to establish an exchange rate determining the value of terrorists versus civilians. And I certainly wasn't trying to set up a broadly-based karma meter for the United States regarding the entire war since 2001, as Ozone seems to think.

More on the topic of what we're discussing (instead of “what people meant”), it's hard to compare this situation with the Nazis. The Nazis surrendered. Al Qaeda isn't going to surrender when a gun is pointed at them, then wait for a trial.

I think it's presumptuous for us to assume the people behind the operation wouldn't have preferred to take Bin Laden alive… After all, that's a MUCH greater indignity to him and his cause, and we still get to execute him later. Is it possible that the logistics of the operation and knowledge of the ways Al Qaedas work made live capture implausible? I don't know, I'm not a tactician OR Al Qaeda expert, and I doubt very many other people here are. But if the only decision was to kill the guy without a trial, or risk him getting away or blowing up the entire Navy Seals unit along with him, I think it would be a clear choice.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Hawk at 8:33PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
What I'm saying is that the atrocity of the wars and what they have involved cannot be forgotten in all this. We can't go around saying “oh, we're not as bad as him because…”- Yes, we ARE, or at least the administration that pushed for the war is and all those in all the other countries that joined in the “coalition of the willing”, which includes governments in Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and elsewhere.

I'd like to take just a short moment to point out that I'm tired of footing the blame for the actions of an administration I didn't vote for. I resent the idea that I'm as bad as Bin Laden just because Bush and Cheney started a misguided war.

You shouldn't have to assume blame either, Ozone. You didn't make that call. We can feel bad that the events happened, but we shouldn't have to feel like terrorists.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
Product Placement at 9:01PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Hawk
More on the topic of what we're discussing (instead of “what people meant” ), it's hard to compare this situation with the Nazis. The Nazis surrendered. Al Qaeda isn't going to surrender when a gun is pointed at them, then wait for a trial.
Ah. But saying that, you kinda take us back to the point I made before.
Yes. This isn't a war that you're fighting. The Nazis were political members of a nation, that fought to the bitter end. You can't engage terrorism on the same level. Not without invading every single country that may or may not harbor or support such activities. And the more countries you attack in that manner, the more people will harbor ill will towards you and the more people will listen to those who suggest they do something about it. Terrorism cannot be defeated via violence. Track down whatever make shift headquarters they have put up and kill those organizing them and you will find yourself tracking down the next batch of leaders few years later.

There are allot of people who don't like what America has done for them. Entire nations got caught in the tug of war that was the cold war and ended up suffering.

Allot of Muslim resentment comes from the aftermath of WWII but going there is going to open up a can of worms I really don't feel like discussing but the bottom line is that these feuds are old. and they're not gonna go away just because you got bigger guns. Alternative methods have to be found.
Hawk
I felt like you said America was as bad as Bin Laden based on the fact that they killed him without a trial, and that offended me.
It can come off as that but I didn't mean to be sound that drastic and I guess I apologize for that. It's more that I believe you have the potential of being better then you are today. Your country supposedly represents the best values of mankind, yet I don't feel you practice those values. It is something I would like to see changed, along with allot of other things that I would like to see changed.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:53PM
ozoneocean at 9:14PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 25,086
joined: 1-2-2004
Hawk
I'd like to take just a short moment to point out that I'm tired of footing the blame for the actions of an administration I didn't vote for. I resent the idea that I'm as bad as Bin Laden just because Bush and Cheney started a misguided war.

You shouldn't have to assume blame either, Ozone. You didn't make that call. We can feel bad that the events happened, but we shouldn't have to feel like terrorists.
I covered that in my post, you might have overlooked that:
or at least the administration that pushed for the war is and all those in all the other countries that joined in the “coalition of the willing”, which includes governments in Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and elsewhere.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:38PM
Hawk at 10:05PM, May 5, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Thanks for explaining, Product Placement. And I can't say I disagree with you. A war on “terror” is vague, not winnable in any realistic sense, and prone to collateral damage.

ozoneocean
I covered that in my post, you might have overlooked that:
or at least the administration that pushed for the war is and all those in all the other countries that joined in the “coalition of the willing”, which includes governments in Britain, Australia, the Netherlands and elsewhere.

Right, I guess it was the use of the words “we” and “us” that threw me off. You meant “we” as nations, not individuals. Ever since my college guilt trips I've been extra sensitive about implied guilt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:47PM
same at 3:25AM, May 6, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,508
joined: 8-3-2008
Passive agressive internet fight!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:21PM
crocty at 6:26PM, May 6, 2011
(online)
posts: 6,673
joined: 8-16-2007
I think that the main problem is that you need to realise, no matter what evil this man has done, something evil was done to him.
If this was just any old civilian then you'd know it was evil, but people tend to get caught up with the difference between justice and what's right.

It's not like America needs to get even with him before it will be classified as evil, an evil act is evil, no matter what, that's plain and simple.
And as long as that fact is still true, people are gonna have issues.

If he was captured and put on trial, THEN murdered, that'd be fine. (Albeit everyone but America would have problems with the death penalty stuff, but hey, them's the rules in America)
If he was intending to be captured but fought back, then killing him would've been fine. (Albeit conspiracy theorists would say they were always intending to kill him.)

But that didn't happen, they set out to kill him, and they did.
THIS NEW SITE SUCKS I'M LEAVING FOREVER I PROMISE, GUYS.
NOT BLUFFING, I'M GONE IF YOU DON'T FIX IT.
Oh god I'm so alone someone pay attention to me
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
ayesinback at 6:39PM, May 6, 2011
(online)
posts: 2,012
joined: 8-23-2010
someone
If he was captured and put on trial, THEN murdered, that'd be fine.

Why? What exactly do we think the purpose of a trial is?

Determine guilt? Allow the “accused” to defend himself? Let the families of the victims look at the criminal for “closure”?

Bravo put it best. Bin Laden made of himself a war criminal, and he died during an act of war.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
I Am The 1337 Master at 6:44PM, May 6, 2011
(offline)
posts: 3,785
joined: 1-16-2009
ayesinback
someone
If he was captured and put on trial, THEN murdered, that'd be fine.

Why? What exactly do we think the purpose of a trial is?

Atticus doesn't know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:55PM
crocty at 7:41PM, May 6, 2011
(online)
posts: 6,673
joined: 8-16-2007
ayesinback
someone
If he was captured and put on trial, THEN murdered, that'd be fine.

Why? What exactly do we think the purpose of a trial is?

Determine guilt? Allow the “accused” to defend himself? Let the families of the victims look at the criminal for “closure”?

Bravo put it best. Bin Laden made of himself a war criminal, and he died during an act of war.
Well, a war crime trial, yes, I don't know how they work, but I think it's basically like a normal trial, pleads, blah blah, of course he'd be found guilty, but doesn't America generally hold that “everyone gets a trial” thing pretty high?

I mean even Hussein got a trial.
…I think? I assume he did. They didn't kill him on sight.

So I'm just wondering why Osama didn't get a trial, really.

It's not that it bothers me, it can be justified, even if it was technically wrong. It's just the people who say it wasn't wrong at all.
THIS NEW SITE SUCKS I'M LEAVING FOREVER I PROMISE, GUYS.
NOT BLUFFING, I'M GONE IF YOU DON'T FIX IT.
Oh god I'm so alone someone pay attention to me
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved