# Osama bin Laden is dead



## Huilunsoittaja

This thread had to suffer repairs due to software issues.
What follows was originally posted by Vaneyes (who was the original thread starter, not Huilunsoittaja as it now erroneously shows on the front page), and it was inserted under Huilunsoittaja's post to maintain continuity:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story developing.









------------------------------------------------------------------
Huilunsoittaja's response:
------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank God.


----------



## KJohnson

Great! Now they can give us our rights back.


----------



## Vaneyes

KJohnson said:


> Great! Now they can give us our rights back.


Not much chance of that. Guarding against the possibility of retaliation, you know.

Not much need for a 2012 reelection campaign now, but of course there will be.










This just in from Jim S. at Yahoo comments...

"Donald Trump wants to see the Death Certificate."


----------



## Almaviva

Wow! This is spectacular news! Even though I'm a pacifist, I can't say I'm not happy with this news!!!


----------



## Air

Of all places, I found out about the news on Facebook...


----------



## science

Well, that's good news.


----------



## mmsbls

I actually found out by logging into TC. I never thought I'd be getting my news from here.


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> I actually found out by logging into TC. I never thought I'd be getting my news from here.


Me too! I saw it here, then turned on the TV and I've been watching CNN ever since.


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> I actually found out by logging into TC. I never thought I'd be getting my news from here.


Same here, I didn't know about it until reading this thread. Initially thought it was a prank, but then I saw an article on ninemsn. I usually get my news there or from the radio, but this news broke after the early morning bulletins that I listened to today...


----------



## Air

Let's just pray that Osama's death will not result in a counterattack and 10 more years in the Middle East.


----------



## World Violist

The news of this actually got me into a somewhat bitter mood, so sorry if this post comes across as a downer and sparks a ten page long hyper-analyzed flame war that it probably would have eventually become anyway and that I won't be involved in anymore. But here goes:

I thought this thread could have been a prank too... Why the hell did I go to Wikipedia right afterward? It feels almost insulting to TC in hindsight.

Anyway, I watched Obama's spiel about it a few hours ago. I can't watch news channels for more than 5 minutes, so I was approaching a comatose state by the end.

Can't say I'm unexcited by the news (at least it's significance for once), but sometimes it just feels like another stunt. We just removed Al-Qaeda's leader. Okay, what now? A leader doesn't mean anything. It's significant that he was the mastermind behind all the crap that's happened the last few years. It's just a shame they call him a leader and leave it at that.

So, over ten years overdue, he's dead. Nice job.


----------



## KJohnson

You're not saying anything controversial, World Violist. No one said all our troubles are behind us.


----------



## Rasa

Congratulations, America has won the war on terror


----------



## Edward Elgar

Air said:


> Let's just pray that Osama's death will not result in a counterattack and 10 more years in the Middle East.


Islam is the religion of peace. It's not in their nature to be violent.


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> Islam is the religion of peace. It's not in their nature to be violent.


Well, most victims of Muslim terrorism are other Muslims, so it's definitely a mistake to see Muslim terrorism as a fight by all Muslims against the rest of the world. It's a fight of a small but significant minority of brainwashed fruitcakes against the rest of the world - including the majority of more moderate Muslims. Having said that, if the attitude of most Muslims towards women is anything to go by I don't think that I will become a fan of the Muslim faith anytime soon. Unfortunately sexism or violence towards women is still looked at - or at least treated as a lesser evil than racism, an attitude that I find unacceptable. The best punishment for a character like Osama would have been to capture him, give him the operation and drop him back in a Muslim country where he/she would have to live the rest of his/her days as a female.


----------



## KJohnson

jhar26 said:


> The best punishment for a character like Osama would have been to capture him, give him the operation and drop him back in a Muslim country where he/she would have to live the rest of his/her days as a female.


Before you knew it, he would kill him himself... I imagine him having to live like a woman in Saudi Arabia. )


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I really hope this mostly demoralizes the terrorists rather than embolden them, although we'll we can expect to see a mixed reaction. Seems to be that Bin Laden died in shame, not honor, and no one would want to follow him in that way, especially Muslim extremists, if they really think about it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Thank God.


Interesting response.

Although Osama bin Laden's followers would also feel sure that their God/Allāh, supposedly one and the same as your God, would have approved their actions, too.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting response.
> 
> Although Osama bin Laden's followers would also feel sure that their God/Allāh, supposedly one and the same as your God, would have approved their actions, too.


Just to put it indirectly... Bin Laden did not serve any true _God_...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Just to put it indirectly... Bin Laden did not serve any true _God_...


From your prespective, he did not, as you just explained, but he certainly did serve his God from the perspective of his devout followers. The point is, it doesn't qualify any one religion as being "morally more correct", if I may put it that way, than another. So thanking God is rather absurd.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> From your prespective, he did not, as you just explained, but he certainly did serve his God from the perspective of his devout followers. The point is, it doesn't qualify any one religion as being "morally more correct", if I may put it that way, than another. So thanking God is rather absurd.


Fine, I'll fix my quote.

THANK JESUS CHRIST! The only true God!


----------



## Sid James

Al Qaeda is like the hydra of Greek mythology. Chop of one of it's heads, and three others inevitably sprout from it's severed neck. There's no easy way of getting rid of this monster...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Al Qaeda is like the hydra of Greek mythology. Chop of one of it's heads, and three others inevitably sprout from it's severed neck. There's no easy way of getting rid of this monster...


In other words, Osama bin Laden is probably a marytr now in the eyes of many, or _Shahid_ as the Muslims might describe. Indeed, right now there are fears of retaliation/revenge attacks, no doubt to continue "his cause". The truth is, when killing is done in the name of religion, as the 9-11 was, killing the mastermind starts off a crusade no different to others in history.

It's all crazy.


----------



## Almaviva

Andre said:


> Al Qaeda is like the hydra of Greek mythology. Chop of one of it's heads, and three others inevitably sprout from it's severed neck. There's no easy way of getting rid of this monster...


Regardless, it's a significant victory. Apparently loads of information were found in the compound; computers and notebooks were seized, and this will lead to other Al Qaeda members and financial backers.


----------



## Rasa

More like Osama bin Shot amirite?


----------



## LordBlackudder

''Oi beardy, leave our boys alone!''


----------



## Polednice

He's a little bit brutal, and obviously exaggerative, but I have the same mindset as P.Z. Myers on this:



> While it's necessary to stop terrorists, sometimes with violence, it is barbarous to gloat over the execution of an enemy. I find the chanting crowds cheering over the corpse disturbing, and the triumphal tone of our leaders is misplaced. We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and threw away trillions of dollars, and our trophy is the bloody corpse of one old man? There's no victory in that.
> 
> I'm also cynical. What was the point? Nothing will change. We live in Idiot America, which is also Fearful America, which is also Paranoid America, which is also Solve-Our-Problems-With-A-Gun America. One figurehead is dead, now the focus of our country's fear will shift to some amorphous mass of generic Muslims, and the troops will continue their destruction, and we'll still flag our cowardice with pointless color changes at our airports, and we'll continue to sacrifice our civil liberties at the altar of national security. Nothing was accomplished, our purpose is as vague and tyrannical as ever, we'll need to continue to kill more to feed our illusion of safety.
> 
> Oh, there is one thing we've got now. A few more politicians will cloak themselves in the blood of our enemies in the next election, and victory will be achieved for Blowing **** Up in the name of Getting Things Done. And we'll perpetuate the violence because it appeals to our citizen savages.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> He's a little bit brutal, and obviously exaggerative, but I have the same mindset as P.Z. Myers on this:


Well, having a front-row seat to the devastation that has occurred here in Alabama this last week, and the overwhelming outpouring of generosity and service, I don't have much respect at all for the cynical view of P.Z. Myers about America. If this type of response from people all over the country is what is termed "Idiot America," then I'll take it over some other idealized version any day of the week.

And I think it is great that bin Laden is dead. Whatever else, his death was the only fitting end for a man that relished in heaping death on innocents. There is no place on this planet for his ilk, and I will not shed a tear for his death, or anybody else who seeks such ends. The man was a thug and a coward - for someone so willing to send others out to kill themselves, he sure clung tightly to his own life. I wonder what the last thing going through his mind was as the Special Forces stormed his compound - other than the bullet, of course.


----------



## Polednice

As far as my own perspective is concerned, I've ignored Myers's generalisations about 'America' - I just wanted to reproduce his comments in full.

What I find equally disturbing as him, however, is the 'cheering over the corpse'. I find it just a little bit sickening that there are masses of people and, even worse, leaders of countries, coming out in droves to say something to the effect of: "YAY! HE'S DEAD! AREN'T WE GREAT?!" It also surprises me that this attitude comes from leaders of countries that *don't* sign-up to the barbarism of capital punishment. I think it's hardly becoming for a government to adopt the position that: "You kill our people, we'll hunt you down and put a bullet through your brain." I thought modern justice had come a long way since 'eye for an eye'.

I think Myers is also right that we're only going to end up demonising other people.


----------



## Vaneyes

If you grow weary of The White House baby food served up by CNN, there are alternatives, such as Al Jazeera (English live stream) and Russia Today (English live stream).

Political motives and timing, burial at sea, no photos of a dead ObL are topics currently floating.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

http://rt.com/on-air/


----------



## World Violist

I just want to find out what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have to say about this; there's so much potential to skew this story something major.

I have to wait till Monday night though...


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> As far as my own perspective is concerned, I've ignored Myers's generalisations about 'America' - I just wanted to reproduce his comments in full.
> 
> What I find equally disturbing as him, however, is the 'cheering over the corpse'. I find it just a little bit sickening that there are masses of people and, even worse, leaders of countries, coming out in droves to say something to the effect of: "YAY! HE'S DEAD! AREN'T WE GREAT?!" It also surprises me that this attitude comes from leaders of countries that *don't* sign-up to the barbarism of capital punishment. I think it's hardly becoming for a government to adopt the position that: "You kill our people, we'll hunt you down and put a bullet through your brain." I thought modern justice had come a long way since 'eye for an eye'.
> 
> I think Myers is also right that we're only going to end up demonising other people.


I think many people also rejoiced at the death of Hitler, and I doubt it had any lasting detrimental impact on the global conscience. Some sociopaths deserve nothing better than death. As long as they are alive, they will strive to kill more people. I do rejoice when the world has one less of such people.

As for the U.S. demonising others, what is the real concern here? Iran guns down its citizens when they protest rigged elections. Syria does the same when its people protest a brutal regime. North Korea starves its people in pursuit of the insane agenda of a madman. Qaddafi only has to open his mouth for people to see what a loon he is - and his people are now revolting without any demonising on our part. For all the demonising of Saddam Hussein that took place, remember it was his own people that lynched him.

No, the problem is that all too often we coddle tyrants because of some ridiculous idea we call diplomacy. Better that we allow them to butcher their own people and send outh hatred around the world than stand up to them. How many people died at the hands of Stalin, or in Rwanda, or in Cambodia, or in China, while the international community patted itself on the back for helping keep the "peace?" How many people are dying in Darfur? In Syria? In Iran?


----------



## dmg

I found out through YouTube while reviewing keyboard concerti for the keyboard concerti thread!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Some sociopaths deserve nothing better than death. As long as they are alive, they will strive to kill more people. I do rejoice when the world has one less of such people.


All I need to rejoice is the knowledge that such a person is powerless to commit more atrocities - I do not need the bitter taste of revenge in death.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> I think it is great that bin Laden is dead. Whatever else, his death was the only fitting end for a man that relished in heaping death on innocents. There is no place on this planet for his ilk, and I will not shed a tear for his death, or anybody else who seeks such ends. The man was a thug and a coward - for someone so willing to send others out to kill themselves, he sure clung tightly to his own life.


That isn't a very Christian sentiment, to be glad someone has been murdered. Didn't Jesus preach forgiveness?



> You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, NRSV)


EDIT: Almost forgot this:


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> That isn't a very Christian sentiment, to be glad someone has been murdered. Didn't Jesus preach forgiveness?


I never said I was a perfect Christian. Don't get me wrong - Dr. Mike and the family will not be holding festivities tonight. But it is pretty darn hard to argue that this is not a good thing for the planet in general. And murder? The man had declared war against the United States and been involved in operations that directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. His death was the result of a military strike by the U.S. military, who, unlike bin Laden and his al Qaeda operatives, openly wear a military uniform and do not shield themselves with innocent civilians. This was a surgical military strike that eliminated the leader of a group openly engaging in armed hostilities against this country. That hardly constitutes murder.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> All I need to rejoice is the knowledge that such a person is powerless to commit more atrocities - I do not need the bitter taste of revenge in death.


That is all well and good - but how exactly did you propose that he be made powerless, other than through his death? And revenge? Was aggressively waging war against Japan following Pearl Harbor revenge? When one group declares war against you, kills your civilians, and continues to plan operations to cause the deaths of more civilians, and you then send your military to stop him so that he can no longer perpetrate such atrocities, how is that revenge? Are all punishments revenge?


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> That is all well and good - but how exactly did you propose that he be made powerless, other than through his death? And revenge? Was aggressively waging war against Japan following Pearl Harbor revenge? When one group declares war against you, kills your civilians, and continues to plan operations to cause the deaths of more civilians, and you then send your military to stop him so that he can no longer perpetrate such atrocities, how is that revenge? Are all punishments revenge?


It is revenge to be positively _gleeful_ at the sole fact of someone's death. If Bin Laden's death was the only conceivable way to protect us from future attacks, then you're right that it is good he is dead, but it seems to me that at the forefront of most people's minds (evidenced even in the comments of people like Tony Blair) is not "At last, I can sleep easy at night. This is a major step forward in the protection of our people", but rather, "Boo ya! That ******* is dead!" I fail to see even how people who believe the first statement can justify their sentiments - what is the death of a mere figurehead going to do in the larger scale of terrorism? No. This is all just about glorifying the death of one man who was not the threat himself, but who was transformed by the west into a killable symbol of the threat.

And if we're going to get involved in crimes committed against innocent civilians, just for starters, shouldn't we bring up the whole Bradley Manning affair? The U.S.A is still the imperialist hero, incapable of making mistakes.


----------



## chillowack

Air said:


> Of all places, I found out about the news on Facebook...


Let me guess: you "poked" Bin Laden and he didn't respond?


----------



## mmsbls

I just learned that bin Laden was living in a "suburb" 27 miles or so outside of Islamabad. His "mansion" was valued at over $1 million. I had assumed that he was hiding in the mountainous regions with support from local tribal groups.

Obviously the government was supporting bin Laden or at the very least not giving the US information that would help the US find him. I can't believe the Pakistani government did not know he was living there for 6 years. I can understand that Pakistan does not want their people to know the government is publicly cooperating too freely with the US. I am still amazed that it took that long for the US to get credible information about his whereabouts. 

I'd be interested to know from intelligence sources why they think it took this long (not that we will ever know details). I'd also like to know if essentially they got lucky. In other words could bin Laden have lived there for another 10 years without the US knowing?


----------



## Vaneyes

ABC News seems to be another staunch deliverer of The White House filtered 'n seeped news. This report infers that ObL was double-tapped.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osama-bin-laden-hid-wives-firefight-counter-terrorism/story?id=13507836


----------



## Vaneyes

mmsbls said:


> I just learned that bin Laden was living in a "suburb" 27 miles or so outside of Islamabad. His "mansion" was valued at over $1 million. I had assumed that he was hiding in the mountainous regions with support from local tribal groups.
> 
> Obviously the government was supporting bin Laden or at the very least not giving the US information that would help the US find him. I can't believe the Pakistani government did not know he was living there for 6 years. I can understand that Pakistan does not want their people to know the government is publicly cooperating too freely with the US. I am still amazed that it took that long for the US to get credible information about his whereabouts.
> 
> I'd be interested to know from intelligence sources why they think it took this long (not that we will ever know details). I'd also like to know if essentially they got lucky. In other words could bin Laden have lived there for another 10 years without the US knowing?


You ask good questions. This enormous compound was known by the Bush administration atleast by 2005, as the Obama administration is now readily admitting, and currently explaining *why* a mission wasn't conducted sooner.

BTW we also know now that this Sunday mission was postponed a day or so because of weather. Not the wedding?

Celebrations across America boosted the dollar only for a short period.


----------



## Guest

Apparently the original plan was to take him alive - but he resisted, AND hid behind his wife, and so they had to use force, and SEALs aren't typically trained to shoot to wound.

Apparently the information came at least in part from enhanced interrogations of captured al Qaeda operatives. From various sources, they learned that bin Laden liked to use a particular courier, and it took some time to locate and track the individual.

Not only was this compound a suburb of Islamabad, it was less than 1000 yards from a Pakistani military base. I think it was a very sticky situation, and I do give credit to Obama to going in and doing what needed to be done, with the right people, and not phoning in an advanced warning to the Pakistani government, as Clinton had done.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> I never said I was a perfect Christian. Don't get me wrong - Dr. Mike and the family will not be holding festivities tonight. But it is pretty darn hard to argue that this is not a good thing for the planet in general. And murder? The man had declared war against the United States and been involved in operations that directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. His death was the result of a military strike by the U.S. military, who, unlike bin Laden and his al Qaeda operatives, openly wear a military uniform and do not shield themselves with innocent civilians. This was a surgical military strike that eliminated the leader of a group openly engaging in armed hostilities against this country. That hardly constitutes murder.


No excuses have to be made for the war on oil, er, I mean terrorism. Re shielding, a dastardly act...that The White House, er, CNN and ABC are only too happy to report from this latest double-tapping. Although there's slight conflict, since some might not consider one of ObL's wives a victim. Yep, it's another tough day sorting out the news and the victims.


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> Apparently the original plan was to take him alive - but he resisted, AND hid behind his wife, and so they had to use force, and SEALs aren't typically trained to shoot to wound.
> 
> Apparently the information came at least in part from enhanced interrogations of captured al Qaeda operatives. From various sources, they learned that bin Laden liked to use a particular courier, and it took some time to locate and track the individual.
> 
> Not only was this compound a suburb of Islamabad, it was less than 1000 yards from a Pakistani military base. I think it was a very sticky situation, and I do give credit to Obama to going in and doing what needed to be done, with the right people, and not phoning in an advanced warning to the Pakistani government, as Clinton had done.


You understand the storyline, chapter and verse.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> No excuses have to be made for the war on oil, er, I mean terrorism. Re shielding, a dastardly act...that The White House, er, CNN and ABC are only too happy to report from this latest double-tapping. Although there's slight conflict, since some might not consider one of ObL's wives a victim. Yep, it's another tough day sorting out the news and the victims.


I'm sorry, but exactly how has all of this been about oil? Did I miss the vast oil reserves that Afghanistan controls? Or the endless flow of oil coming out of Iraq to the U.S.? It seems that gas prices are hitting record highs in the U.S. Was that the grand strategy all along? Because increased revenues for oil companies don't get politicians re-elected, especially if it comes at the cost of higher pump prices.

And I'm not sure what your various comments are inferring - some conspiracy here? All made up? Something along the lines of a faked birth certificate for Obama or a staged moon landing? If they were going to fake bin Laden's death, why wait nearly 10 years? You can't really fake his death. If you try, he just has to put out a new video to prove it a lie. So you really can't go public with the news that he is dead unless he really is dead. Are we doubting the methods? Because they are completely in line with how SEAL Team 6 operates - even down to the double tap. You have some information that contradicts any of this, or just tilting at windmills?


----------



## Vaneyes

DrMike said:


> I'm sorry, but exactly how has all of this been about oil? Did I miss the vast oil reserves that Afghanistan controls? Or the endless flow of oil coming out of Iraq to the U.S.? It seems that gas prices are hitting record highs in the U.S. Was that the grand strategy all along? Because increased revenues for oil companies don't get politicians re-elected, especially if it comes at the cost of higher pump prices.
> 
> And I'm not sure what your various comments are inferring - some conspiracy here? All made up? Something along the lines of a faked birth certificate for Obama or a staged moon landing? If they were going to fake bin Laden's death, why wait nearly 10 years? You can't really fake his death. If you try, he just has to put out a new video to prove it a lie. So you really can't go public with the news that he is dead unless he really is dead. Are we doubting the methods? Because they are completely in line with how SEAL Team 6 operates - even down to the double tap. You have some information that contradicts any of this, or just tilting at windmills?


You're swallowing the baby food as served. It's been 20 years since Desert Storm, or was it Dessert Storm? 10 years since 9/11.


----------



## chillowack

Polednice said:


> This is all just about glorifying the death of one man who was not the threat himself, but who was transformed by the west into a killable symbol of the threat.


He wasn't just "transformed" into a symbol of the threat--he _was_ the symbol of the threat. He was the greatest single symbol of terrorism in the world. There was no more dangerous terrorist leader than Bin Laden: he was _the_ terrorist. No "transforming" was needed to make him this; it was self-evident.

But far more important than his being the _symbol_ of the threat was that he _was_ the threat. As the mastermind running the deadliest and most notorious terrorist organization in the world, and the man who personally designed and carried out the most devastating terror attack in American history, Bin Laden was _the_ terrorist, symbolically and literally.

I'm both a progressive and a pacifist, but even I acknowledge that if _anyone_ needed to die, it was Bin Laden. If anyone _deserved_ to die, it was Bin Laden. If the cause of world peace could be advanced by one man's elimination, Bin Laden was that man. And if there was ever cause to rejoice at someone's demise, now is that time.

No injustice has been done here. A great villain, a great enemy of peace, has been removed from the world; and with him has gone the greater part of his organization's power; for without him to lead Al-Qaida, it will become much weaker. A collective sigh of relief is now being breathed across the world; and yes, a rejoicing. An entirely appropriate rejoicing.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> You're swallowing the baby food as served. It's been 20 years since Desert Storm, or was it Dessert Storm? 10 years since 9/11.


As opposed to the video from Al Jazeera and an english-language Russian news program you linked to? Conspiracy theories are wonderful things, because they don't require people to offer any proof, only accusations accompanied by winks and nods. Provide your evidence if you would like, and we can discuss it. But these veiled allusions to who knows what are more confusing than anything else. What the heck does "Dessert Storm" mean? And what exactly should I infer from the fact that Desert Storm was 20 years ago and 9/11 10 years ago? The government only launches its nefarious schemes once a decade?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> This is all just about glorifying the death of one man who was not the threat himself, but who was transformed by the west into a killable symbol of the threat.


I find this statement curious. Pray tell, what exactly was bin Laden before he was transformed by the west into a killable symbol of the threat? Was he not one of the founders of al Qaeda? Had he not been the leader of the organization that plotted the first World Trade Center attack? Had he not been behind the bombings of American embassies in Africa? Had he not put out statements shortly after 9/11 claiming responsibility? Had he not been calling for attacks against America?

Was he not the leader of the organization that carried out the largest terrorist act on American soil in history? He was al Qaeda. To the entire world, if there was one face to put on al Qaeda, it was bin Laden. He was busy making himself the symbol of al Qaeda long before the U.S. ever took any meaningful action against him.

And while there may be reprisals, his death sends a very clear message. To anybody who seeks to attack the U.S. as he and his organization did, they now know that the U.S. will never stop looking for them until they are dead or captured. No matter how long it takes. No matter how much it costs. No matter what political party is in power. There is no place on this planet where you will be safe enough. That will make people think twice. There will always be minions willing to throw away their lives for the cause that al Qaeda embraced. But there will not be nearly as many of those willing to take control as the figurehead and run operations. Al Qaeda was successful on 9/11, not because there is some unending supply of "martyrs" willing to blow themselves up, but because there were highly intelligent men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden who could plan and coordinate attacks. Right now, 2 of those 3 are dead or captured. You don't think that is going to have an impact on their ability to rebuild? These men aren't quite so willing to die as martyrs. They would rather live as leaders, and their ability to do that has just seriously been brought into question. They might lead a nice life in a mansion in Pakistan for some years, but their days are numbered. They will always have to live with eyes in back of their head. Their most revered leader, the one the U.S. couldn't find, died with 2 bullets in his brain while cowering behind one of his wives.

It is a good day indeed.


----------



## Aksel

"I﻿ mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy."

— Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## Air

The literal fortress Bin Laden was residing in is what... 35 minutes away from the Pakistani government in Islamabad? And right next to a Pakistani military academy? Hmm...


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> It is revenge to be positively _gleeful_ at the sole fact of someone's death. If Bin Laden's death was the only conceivable way to protect us from future attacks, then you're right that it is good he is dead, but it seems to me that at the forefront of most people's minds (evidenced even in the comments of people like Tony Blair) is not "At last, I can sleep easy at night. This is a major step forward in the protection of our people", but rather, "Boo ya! That ******* is dead!" I fail to see even how people who believe the first statement can justify their sentiments - what is the death of a mere figurehead going to do in the larger scale of terrorism? No. This is all just about glorifying the death of one man who was not the threat himself, but who was transformed by the west into a killable symbol of the threat.
> 
> And if we're going to get involved in crimes committed against innocent civilians, just for starters, shouldn't we bring up the whole Bradley Manning affair? The U.S.A is still the imperialist hero, incapable of making mistakes.


Mark Twain put it the right way: "I don't wish death on any man, but I read some obituaries with lots of pleasure."

Yes, I'm happy for bin Laden's death and not ashamed to say it.


----------



## Vaneyes

He's back with new tact!

"And you're either with us or ag'in us. Read up on the axis of evil and weapons of mass destruction dissertations and report back, people."


----------



## graaf

I understand that people who believe he is responsible for 9/11 will rejoice in his death - although I can't support that, I also won't moralize about it. I wish more of us can follow MLK and his quote mentioned above, but we're only humans, after all.

@Dr Mike
geostrategic politics is not that hard to understand, but we are trained to pay attention at the wrong things - it is not that much about _getting _the oil, as it is about_ preventing China_ (and possibly others) to get it, thus hindering their growth. Not to the benefit of US population, but to the benefit of the very few at the top. As African proverb says: "When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled".

It is not easy to accept that governments work against both domestic and foreign population - as seen in their internal documents once their status of secrecy has expired. It is not coincidence that Eisenhower warned people about the power of arms industry in his _last_ speech, and whoever tries to stop it might be the target of the _lone gunman_. But they sell us this idea of of false security, and we are too preoccupied (for a good or bad reason) to do something about it. And it is the same in any country, it is nothing else but the human nature (so don't think of this as a personal attack, or attack at USA only, every empire follows same or similar patterns).

And about the notion of _conspiracy theory_ - it is one of the best accomplishments of spin doctors - just by labeling any serious criticism of one's own government as conspiracy you dismiss it instantly! Probably best PR trick ever invented. And talking about proofs - Chomsky, one of the most quoted scientists, offers not only plethora of proofs, but also talks about it in very "ordinary" way (for a lack of better term). Things surely aren't black and white, but are also not that very complicated once you get proper perspective of viewing at things.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". And they rarely do. But we have this "voting show" every now and then to feel that we can change something that way. How did women get their voting rights? By _voting_? Heh. By activism. The rest is just one big reality show.

Speaking of voting - how is this gonna reflect on Obama's ratings? Not bad at all, he needed some boost anyway...


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> Speaking of voting - how is this gonna reflect on Obama's ratings? Not bad at all, he needed some boost anyway...


It can't do anything other than help him. To what degree, it remains to be seen.
I remember that during the campaign conservatives wanted to depict him as "soft on terror" and I was quite puzzled, because every time I heard him talking about it, he was more incisive and direct than both Clinton and Bush. I remember him saying literally during his campaign: "We will kill bin Laden." Then he said he would order attacks inside Pakistan regardless of how the Pakistani government felt about it, if high value targets were found there. People (e.g. Hillary Clinton) then said he was naive and it couldn't be done. Well, he did just that, and did not give any advance warning like Clinton, and did not take the eyes off the ball like Bush (e.g., Tora Bora). So Obama if anything is tougher on terror than his two predecessors. And I also remember during the campaign that when he promised he'd close Guantanamo Bay, I thought that it was an empty campaign promise and suspected that he was tougher than that and wouldn't do it, once elected. Obama within 30 days in power brought in his security advisers and intelligence officers and said: "I want in 30 days a plan to get bin Laden."

I wouldn't call any of this being soft on terror, and I am quite sure he will score some electoral points thanks to his firm stance on this.

But most elections are won or lost over the economy, so, we'll see.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> It can't do anything other than help him. To what degree, it remains to be seen.
> I remember that during the campaign conservatives wanted to depict him as "soft on terror" and I was quite puzzled, because every time I heard him talking about it, he was more incisive and direct than both Clinton and Bush. I remember him saying literally during his campaign: "We will kill bin Laden." Then he said he would order attacks inside Pakistan regardless of how the Pakistani government felt about it, if high value targets were found there. People (e.g. Hillary Clinton) then said he was naive and it couldn't be done. Well, he did just that, and did not give any advance warning like Clinton, and did not take the eyes off the ball like Bush (e.g., Tora Bora). So Obama if anything is tougher on terror than his two predecessors. And I also remember during the campaign that when he promised he'd close Guantanamo Bay, I thought that it was an empty campaign promise and suspected that he was tougher than that and wouldn't do it, once elected. Obama within 30 days in power brought in his security advisers and intelligence officers and said: "I want in 30 days a plan to get bin Laden."
> 
> I wouldn't call any of this being soft on terror, and I am quite sure he will score some electoral points thanks to his firm stance on this.
> 
> But most elections are won or lost over the economy, so, we'll see.


Oh, Obama will definitely get a bump in the polls. But if the economy is still in the crapper, it won't mean anything come election time. Remember, right after George H. W. Bush finished Desert Storm in 1991, his approval numbers were in the '90's. No serious Democrats wanted to take him on in '92. But then he was defeated by an unlikely candidate. It didn't matter how popular he was 1 year prior to the election - the economy went south and he lost re-election. 
So he will get a (well-deserved) bump, but it won't last a whole year. As gas prices continue to rise (remember, we aren't in the summer months yet, when prices are usually at their highest), and if the economy continues to grow at less than 2%, he'll be reminded of a phrase that H. W. Bush learned - it's the economy, stupid.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Oh, Obama will definitely get a bump in the polls. But if the economy is still in the crapper, it won't mean anything come election time. Remember, right after George H. W. Bush finished Desert Storm in 1991, his approval numbers were in the '90's. No serious Democrats wanted to take him on in '92. But then he was defeated by an unlikely candidate. It didn't matter how popular he was 1 year prior to the election - the economy went south and he lost re-election.
> So he will get a (well-deserved) bump, but it won't last a whole year. As gas prices continue to rise (remember, we aren't in the summer months yet, when prices are usually at their highest), and if the economy continues to grow at less than 2%, he'll be reminded of a phrase that H. W. Bush learned - it's the economy, stupid.


Yep, that's exactly what I said with my last phrase of my post that you've quoted. We are in entire agreement about it. I was just saying that what has just happened won't hurt him; much the opposite, will obviously help him, but if the economy doesn't improve chances are that he'll be toast anyway.

But we can't say it wasn't a very good week for him, with birthers being ridiculed and bin Laden being killed under his leadership.

Also, Obama is smart and may build up even more on his momentum, so he is not exactly easy prey for the Republicans.

Still, like you and I said, the economy is almost always the main factor.


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> I understand that people who believe he is responsible for 9/11 will rejoice in his death - although I can't support that, I also won't moralize about it. I wish more of us can follow MLK and his quote mentioned above, but we're only humans, after all.
> 
> @Dr Mike
> geostrategic politics is not that hard to understand, but we are trained to pay attention at the wrong things - it is not that much about _getting _the oil, as it is about_ preventing China_ (and possibly others) to get it, thus hindering their growth. Not to the benefit of US population, but to the benefit of the very few at the top. As African proverb says: "When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled".
> 
> It is not easy to accept that governments work against both domestic and foreign population - as seen in their internal documents once their status of secrecy has expired. It is not coincidence that Eisenhower warned people about the power of arms industry in his _last_ speech, and whoever tries to stop it might be the target of the _lone gunman_. But they sell us this idea of of false security, and we are too preoccupied (for a good or bad reason) to do something about it. And it is the same in any country, it is nothing else but the human nature (so don't think of this as a personal attack, or attack at USA only, every empire follows same or similar patterns).
> 
> And about the notion of _conspiracy theory_ - it is one of the best accomplishments of spin doctors - just by labeling any serious criticism of one's own government as conspiracy you dismiss it instantly! Probably best PR trick ever invented. And talking about proofs - Chomsky, one of the most quoted scientists, offers not only plethora of proofs, but also talks about it in very "ordinary" way (for a lack of better term). Things surely aren't black and white, but are also not that very complicated once you get proper perspective of viewing at things.
> 
> "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it". And they rarely do. But we have this "voting show" every now and then to feel that we can change something that way. How did women get their voting rights? By _voting_? Heh. By activism. The rest is just one big reality show.
> 
> Speaking of voting - how is this gonna reflect on Obama's ratings? Not bad at all, he needed some boost anyway...


Um, Noam Chomsky's area of expertise is linguistics, and the origins of language. Why he is viewed as some expert on foreign and domestic policy, I have never understood. But he tends to be reverenced in this country only by the hardcore left. And he is quite a knee-jerk America blamer. His is the typical Marxist view of America - that of America as the perpetual oppressor who can do no good.

I call conspiracy theory any idea thrown out there without proof, but based on suppositions and a skewed view of the government. They assume a nefarious government, and therefore see people lurking in all shadows. I'm not saying that the government is perfect. But with all of the things that get revealed all the time, government can't keep the big secrets secret that long. It just begs too much of a willful suspension of disbelief. And the lone gunman idea is great if you want to sell sensationalized movies, but Occam's razor makes the point pretty clearly - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

How, or why, would the death of bin Laden be faked? All he would have to do is put out an audio tape or a video to prove it wrong. He has done it before. Al Jazeera is always more than happy to broadcast any such thing. And if they didn't, somebody else would. So why claim bin Laden is dead when it could be so easily disproven? And if you are going to lie about it, why now? Why not earlier? Surely it would have been great PR for the Bush administration to make such a claim. Why not then?

Can anybody tell me the last conspiracy theory proven true? Or show me all the wonderful oil benefits the U.S. has reaped from both wars in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan? I know everybody thinks that these politicians are in bed with big oil, but their biggest allegiance is much more petty - they are in the business of getting re-elected.


----------



## jurianbai

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.burial.at.sea/index.html

Buried accordingly ,with respect to not passing five praying times law and with sholat jenazah chanted.


----------



## graaf

> I know everybody thinks that these politicians are in bed with big oil


After I have explicitly stated that(with all the italics, let's this time put some bold letters, too): it is not that much about _*getting *_the oil, as it is about _*preventing China*_ (and possibly others) to get it, thus hindering their growth.

But, let's begin with saying that you're missing the point that the very notion of conspiracy theory is PR label to _*serious*_ criticism of one's own government. The labes is such a successfull PR trick because it can cover anything from assassinating Latin American presidents (not unlikely at all, used to happen from time to time) to invading the planet Earth from outer space (likely only to Fox Mulder). But let's try to play the game that way, because it seems that's the framework we'll have to work with.



> Can anybody tell me the last conspiracy theory proven true?


short answer:
_Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason. _
- John Harington

long answer:
The whole point is that only those that haven't succeeded are called "conspiracy theories" (Operation Northwoods as an excuse to attack Cuba). The moment it becomes apparent that they are implemented (Iran-Contra affair - selling weapon to Iran by Reagan Administration people, which was subject of an arms embargo), nobody goes to the guy who yelled "conspiracy" all the time (while Raegan was selling weapon to Iran) to shake his hand and congratulate him, because his "conspiracy theory" came true. They might be forced to shake Daniel Ellsberg's hand (another "conspiracy" perhaps?), but they don't go to the guy who has arguing the same thing before it was dig out of Pentagon, black and white (as we will see later, sometimes even that is not enough).

So, conspiracy theories are called that way because they haven't been proven yet. Add to it some "Fox Mulder scenario" - and you make anyone criticizing the government in a serious way a laughing stock. You successfully, through PR, put the Iran-Contra advocate (go back in time, while it wasn't proven - there's no need to advocate it now) in the same category as Fox Mulder, and nation can sleep safely again.

In the similar fashion, and related to the poet's quote above - the treason for ones, is the "right of the self determination" for others. The outcome of the war will decide which label becomes mainstream.

By the way, nice ad hominem there with Chomsky - how about listening to his actual arguments before dismissing an "opinion of a linguist"? He doesn't even say he's the best expert in the field, he quotes and praises an array of people (who happen to have a degree which would satisfy your taste), but someone always singles out. And all the "Marxist", "hardcore leftist" tone is just another echo of the Red Scare, another conditioning, but does nothing to dismiss his arguments (it might work for you to feel better, like you actually said something of a value; if it will make you feel any better, let me repeat again and again - all empires do it, nothing here special about USA).

Which bring us to the fact that if people don't want to believe something, there is not a thing on Earth that would change it. Even if you have the audio recording of the plot to rob the people, there will always be rationalizations for anything - since generating excuses is what our brain does the best. I mean, even catching pope ordering prostitutes wouldn't decrease number of Catholics, and if you think that was over the top - what's the number of evangelicals after the Ted Haggard scandal? Pretty much the same.

Which brings me to the question - why do I write all this? Frankly, your post is just the cause, not the real motive. It might mean something to somebody who hasn't yet sold himself completely to any story (youth has the advantage there) might think twice before buying anything.

Best regards,
graaf


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> After I have explicitly stated that(with all the italics, let's this time put some bold letters, too): it is not that much about _*getting *_the oil, as it is about _*preventing China*_ (and possibly others) to get it, thus hindering their growth.


So let me get this straight - we are okay with letting China own more and more of our debt, we buy so much from them which creates more wealth for our country, but we have a secret plan in place to block access to oil for them? I'm not sure how that is coherent.

As to Iran-Contra, was that a conspiracy theory first, that was then proven true? Or was it merely something that was exposed? There is a difference.

Chomsky has definite Marxist sympathies. That isn't invoking some Red Scare - because honestly, I don't think Chomsky has enough credibility to make much of a difference. He may be a brilliant linguist whose work is often cited, but when he dabbles in the areas of politics, most people don't even know who he is.

I didn't rebut any of Chomsky's arguments, because you didn't cite any of them. You vaguely referenced him, but gave no specifics. I'm not going to go and systematically debate all of his views. If you cite specifics, I'll discuss, but I won't do your work for you. If there is a particular idea of his that you think has some merit, bring it up.


----------



## Polednice

These past couple of days, I've been finding it very difficult to have any kind of reasonable conversation with people who think that this is all a great triumph. At one moment, they accept that bin Laden was a figurehead - a symbol and a leader, but undoubtedly one that will be replaced; and the next moment, with seeming fluidity, but what seems to me to be fundamental contradiction, they seem to think that the death of this one man makes us all unquestionably safer. Which is it? Or, indeed, what's the compromise?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> These past couple of days, I've been finding it very difficult to have any kind of reasonable conversation with people who think that this is all a great triumph. At one moment, they accept that bin Laden was a figurehead - a symbol and a leader, but undoubtedly one that will be replaced; and the next moment, with seeming fluidity, but what seems to me to be fundamental contradiction, they seem to think that the death of this one man makes us all unquestionably safer. Which is it? Or, indeed, what's the compromise?


I don't see the contradiction. Bin Laden was both a figurehead and a threat. Or consider it this way. If a serial killer is caught and imprisoned/executed, does that not make the world a little bit safer? After all, that person is no longer free to go and kill more people. And yet at the same time we have no illusion that all murder will end with that person's execution.

The death of bin Laden will not end terrorism - indeed, it was there before him. But he is no longer around to perpetuate the terrorism. So that is one less person doing it. Al Qaeda may well be like a hydra, with many heads striking - but if we remember our mythology, each head still had to be cut off.

The concept is not really so difficult. What is not great about this triumph? There have been many times in history when people have (rightly) celebrated the death of particularly evil people. So he was a figurehead. Does that somehow make him less guilty of his crimes? Or less evil? Hitler was THE figurehead of Nazi Germany.


----------



## science

I don't see the problem. The terrorists wanted to attack us before; they want to attack us now. No problem there. 

Al Qaeda lost a leader, a "figurehead." No problem there. 

I could imagine that the autocrats in Syria, Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and so on try to use this to distract the pro-democracy advocates - but there's just no way to pull strings on that level. 

The message of the first 5 months of 2011: protest and political activism work (at least sometimes), terrorism doesn't.


----------



## Vaneyes

Polednice said:


> These past couple of days, I've been finding it very difficult to have any kind of reasonable conversation with people who think that this is all a great triumph. At one moment, they accept that bin Laden was a figurehead - a symbol and a leader, but undoubtedly one that will be replaced; and the next moment, with seeming fluidity, but what seems to me to be fundamental contradiction, they seem to think that the death of this one man makes us all unquestionably safer. Which is it? Or, indeed, what's the compromise?


Difficulty, because many are dialed into an ideology that's narrow-focused and all-consuming. You've heard the expression, It's like talking to a wall.

Re your question, it's a two-pronged message/sermon. Safer is for short-term, tied into, "Look at me. See what I did." You'll note that on Sunday evening Obama had largely lost his "We" and often prefaced with "I". Such as, I made you safer so you can sleep well tonight. After of course you celebrate my victory, preferably on camera, so others can see how happy I've made you.

Now, for the dollars to continue flowing to the Middle East, there must be a long-term message. You must be on-guard for more terrorists. Basically it's the same song, with spikes, that you've heard for 20 years.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Difficulty, because many are dialed into an ideology that's narrow-focused and all-consuming. You've heard the expression, It's like talking to a wall.
> 
> Re your question, it's a two-pronged message/sermon. Safer is for short-term, tied into, "Look at me. See what I did." You'll note that on Sunday evening Obama had largely lost his "We" and often prefaced with "I". Such as, I made you safer so you can sleep well tonight. After of course you celebrate my victory, preferably on camera, so others can see how happy I've made you.
> 
> Now, for the dollars to continue flowing to the Middle East, there must be a long-term message. You must be on-guard for more terrorists. Basically it's the same song, with spikes, that you've heard for 20 years.


Would you be arguing, then, that we need not be on guard for more terrorists? Or what is it exactly you are saying, because you make allusions that I really can't follow. Okay, I get it, you think it is goofy that Obama should claim personal responsibility for getting bin Laden, and that is fair. But what exactly are you implying with all of your posts? Do you believe bin Laden is dead? Do you disbelieve the story that is out there? If not, what do you believe in this matter? And what is the purpose of the dollars flowing to the Middle East? What is the long-term message? What is this 20-year old song? What is the narrow-focused ideology you reference? Can you please give some specifics, rather than vague generalities? You seem to be saying a lot, and yet nothing at all at the same time.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I don't see the contradiction. Bin Laden was both a figurehead and a threat. Or consider it this way. If a serial killer is caught and imprisoned/executed, does that not make the world a little bit safer? After all, that person is no longer free to go and kill more people. And yet at the same time we have no illusion that all murder will end with that person's execution.
> 
> The death of bin Laden will not end terrorism - indeed, it was there before him. But he is no longer around to perpetuate the terrorism. So that is one less person doing it.


Exactly. One less person. I see that what I said wasn't really a contradiction as I suggested it, but - perhaps it's just the usual hype - I get the impression that people feel the death of bin Laden will have a much greater impact on stopping terrorism than it actually will. We're fighting an ever-replicating ideology, not individuals; we need to spread certain kinds of education, not death.

[And just for the record, I don't think bin Laden's state as a figurehead or otherwise has any impact on the immorality of his actions.]


----------



## Vaneyes

"The White House suggested that pictures of bin Laden's body were too 'gruesome' to be made public because they could prove 'inflammatory'."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491113/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-White-House-backtracks-on-how-bin-Laden-died.html

Of course just talking about pictures of ObL's torn-up body would not be inflammatory. A picture's worth a thousand words, while words are maybe worth a quarter of that amount? And...

"Contrary to what US officials have suggested in citing a 24-hour period of time in which a body must be buried in Islam, there is no such requirement, says Yaser Alkhooly, an imam at the Islamic Society of Central New York in Syracuse, NY."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0503/Controversy-in-death-Seven-questions-about-Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea/Does-Islamic-law-prescribe-a-fixed-time-period-in-which-a-body-should-be-buried

Too many holes in another government's storyline. The gullible and/or partyliners are easily led.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> "The White House suggested that pictures of bin Laden's body were too 'gruesome' to be made public because they could prove 'inflammatory'."
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491113/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-White-House-backtracks-on-how-bin-Laden-died.html
> 
> Of course just talking about pictures of ObL's torn-up body would not be inflammatory. A picture's worth a thousand words, while words are maybe worth a quarter of that amount? And...
> 
> "Contrary to what US officials have suggested in citing a 24-hour period of time in which a body must be buried in Islam, there is no such requirement, says Yaser Alkhooly, an imam at the Islamic Society of Central New York in Syracuse, NY."
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0503/Controversy-in-death-Seven-questions-about-Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea/Does-Islamic-law-prescribe-a-fixed-time-period-in-which-a-body-should-be-buried
> 
> Too many holes in another government's storyline. The gullible and/or partyliners are easily led.


Fine. Then all bin Laden needs to do is put out another video to al Jazeera. Why shouldn't he, if he is still alive? After all, that would only help him, showing how ineffective the Great Satan is against him. You'll forgive me, though, if I don't hold my breath waiting for this video to emerge.

I suspect that even when they do release the pictures (I have no doubt they will eventually get out), that you will still remain unconvinced. I don't think that there is any amount of evidence that will satisfy you here, because it is just more fun to see conspiracies in all of this.


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> So let me get this straight - we are okay with letting China own more and more of our debt, we buy so much from them which creates more wealth for our country, but we have a secret plan in place to block access to oil for them? I'm not sure how that is coherent.


First let me say that I didn't know you are OK with China buying off your debt - I thought it is a consequence of few decades of "not-the-wisest" policy. But anyway, relation between oil and debt might not be as direct as you might think - China getting enough oil might not result in continuing to buy US debt, but can much more likely result in opening their own internal market, consolidating currency (already work on that field) and ditching dollar (which is backed only by US military for the last few years). Without their currency having any recognition internationally (takes time for something like that) they were buying dollars like crazy, but that is coming to an end. Oil and growth that goes with it just makes Chinese ever more self-assured, and the day dollar loses reserve-status is not far away.

Anyway, there are so many variables, no one can be sure what tomorrow brings, but to think even today that oil and Iraq war are not related seems a bit naive to me. "_War is a continuation of politics by other means, politics is continuation of economy by other means_" - attributed to Carl von Clausewitz.

Best regards,
graaf


----------



## samurai

Polednice said:


> Exactly. One less person. I see that what I said wasn't really a contradiction as I suggested it, but - perhaps it's just the usual hype - I get the impression that people feel the death of bin Laden will have a much greater impact on stopping terrorism than it actually will. We're fighting an ever-replicating ideology, not individuals; we need to spread certain kinds of education, not death.
> 
> [And just for the record, I don't think bin Laden's state as a figurehead or otherwise has any impact on the immorality of his actions.]


Good luck in your quest to try and "educate" these Islamo-fascist fanatics who would just as soon cut off your head because you are a "heathen non-believer" as look at you.
And as a New Yorker who well remembers 9-11-01 and the continued suffering it has caused to countless numbers of my fellow New Yorkers and citizens, I say this on this monster's death--Good For Us! He had more of a chance than he gave all of his innocent victims at the WTC on that horrible day. I wish I could believe in a heaven and a hell; at least then I would hope that he could rot in the latter forever. He got what he deserved--good riddance. Now maybe--maybe--the next "martyr" who takes over from him--and I'm sure there are many waiting in line--will think twice before they perpetuate a crime of this magnitude again on this country. 
Seal Team 6--I love and respect you more than words could ever express or convey!


----------



## Almaviva

samurai said:


> Good luck in your quest to try and "educate" these Islamo-fascist fanatics who would just as soon cut off your head because you are a "heathen non-believer" as look at you.
> And as a New Yorker who well remembers 9-11-01 and the continued suffering it has caused to countless numbers of my fellow New Yorkers and citizens, I say this on this monster's death--Good For Us! He had more of a chance than he gave all of his innocent victims at the WTC on that horrible day. I wish I could believe in a heaven and a hell; at least then I would hope that he could rot in the latter forever. He got what he deserved--good riddance. Now maybe--maybe--the next "martyr" who takes over from him--and I'm sure there are many waiting in line--will think twice before they perpetuate a crime of this magnitude again on this country.
> Seal Team 6--I love and respect you more than words could ever express or convey!


I couldn't agree more. That's exactly how I feel, having lived in New York City at the time of 9-11-01, and having actually volunteered in my professional capacity to help with the recovery process, which put me in close contact with the victims' families and their pain.

This may seem a little abstract to some of you but it is very concrete to some of us.

Here's to Seal Team 6!:cheers:


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> First let me say that I didn't know you are OK with China buying off your debt - I thought it is a consequence of few decades of "not-the-wisest" policy. But anyway, relation between oil and debt might not be as direct as you might think - China getting enough oil might not result in continuing to buy US debt, but can much more likely result in opening their own internal market, consolidating currency (already work on that field) and ditching dollar (which is backed only by US military for the last few years). Without their currency having any recognition internationally (takes time for something like that) they were buying dollars like crazy, but that is coming to an end. Oil and growth that goes with it just makes Chinese ever more self-assured, and the day dollar loses reserve-status is not far away.
> 
> Anyway, there are so many variables, no one can be sure what tomorrow brings, but to think even today that oil and Iraq war are not related seems a bit naive to me. "_War is a continuation of politics by other means, politics is continuation of economy by other means_" - attributed to Carl von Clausewitz.
> 
> Best regards,
> graaf


For the record, I'm not okay with China owning so much of our debt - but it is what it is.

And I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a very clear proof that you simply can't exert the kind of control over a country that you are suggesting - let alone another country that has competing interests. Any fool who thinks they can ends up on the ash heap of history. As you mentioned, there are simply too many variables out there for anybody to control. Not to mention the fact that quite a few countries that make up OPEC don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. If they are so effective at this level of global intrigue, why can't they keep our own economy under control?

I am fully aware that there are more than a few reasons for our involvement in Iraq, but keeping oil away from China? That is just a bridge farther than I am willing to go.


----------



## Vaneyes

What a coincidence...

"The USA Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 attacks to authorize new law-enforcement and intelligence powers, is set to expire this month."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0503/After-Osama-bin-Laden-s-death-Congress-rethinks-aid-to-Pakistan

"In a rare standing vote, US senators voted unanimously on Tuesday to honor the members of the military and intelligence community who killed Osama bin Laden. It's a procedure reserved for solemn moments, such as the vote for emergency funding after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which was also unanimous."

That's touching and honorable, but so would getting the hell out of the Middle East.


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> The collapse of the Soviet Union was a very clear proof that you simply can't exert the kind of control over a country that you are suggesting - let alone another country that has competing interests. Any fool who thinks they can ends up on the ash heap of history. As you mentioned, there are simply too many variables out there for anybody to control.


You seem to think that I believe that a guy or two run everything - I suppose that is kind of stereotype of "conspiracy theorist", just showing how futile this talk is. You mention SSSR - but even Stalin had clique around him - but he had to "thin the flock" from time to time, so that nobody would replace him.

Well... I had a wall of text here which described how pretty much every society comes down to oligarchy (but as long as people can spend money they don't have they simply won't mind), but I deleted it. No matter how much I wrote it didn't seem enough.

Anyway, as I leave the thread, let me just say that _things are not known if they are not sought after _- and, naturally, they are not as long as man is comfortable - but you might want to seek for the book called "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski or, since books are _so paper_, at least click the website called "global research" - for me it is much more credible source of news and opinions than any FOX/CNN blonde.


----------



## Lipatti

Why wasn't Osama convicted in a court of law? How can they send troops to a foreign country and kill him, without proving he is guilty? Are these the American values Obama was talking about? The US Constitution, the right to defend yourself, _not_ killing non-armed suspects... What happened to those values?

Yes, I know it might seem pointless to go through all this with someone like Osama bin Laden, but in principle, it shouldn't matter. The constitution should apply equally to everyone. Why should the governments have the right to handpick who deserves to be tried in a court of law, and who doesn't?


----------



## Almaviva

Lipatti said:


> Why wasn't Osama convicted in a court of law? How can they send troops to a foreign country and kill him, without proving he is guilty? Are these the American values Obama was talking about? The US Constitution, the right to defend yourself, _not_ killing non-armed suspects... What happened to those values?
> 
> Yes, I know it might seem pointless to go through all this with someone like Osama bin Laden, but in principle, it shouldn't matter. The constitution should apply equally to everyone. Why should the governments have the right to handpick who deserves to be tried in a court of law, and who doesn't?


1. Without proving he is guilty? You seem to have missed the video in which Osama bin Laden gloated about his role in the September 11 attack. He confessed his guilt.

2. You are thinking of this as some sort of criminal investigation, but it is actually a war. You don't arrest enemy combatants in a war and take them to a court of law. You just kill them, if you can. And don't tell me it is not a war because it doesn't involve a regular army and a regular state. Just like the Internet has challenged older concepts of copyrights, privacy, etc, the modern war against terrorism has challenged older concepts of war but it is still a war. Views on this need to adapt to the new reality. Maybe you should start first by thinking how can someone send planes into buildings in a foreign country. I don't think Osama bin Laden tried to send those 3,000 people in the Twin Towers to some sort of court of law before he killed them.


----------



## Guest

Lipatti said:


> Why wasn't Osama convicted in a court of law? How can they send troops to a foreign country and kill him, without proving he is guilty? Are these the American values Obama was talking about? The US Constitution, the right to defend yourself, _not_ killing non-armed suspects... What happened to those values?
> 
> Yes, I know it might seem pointless to go through all this with someone like Osama bin Laden, but in principle, it shouldn't matter. The constitution should apply equally to everyone. Why should the governments have the right to handpick who deserves to be tried in a court of law, and who doesn't?


I agree with Alma. How can you send troops to a foreign country and kill him? Seriously? That is pretty much the definition of war. And bin Laden declared war on the U.S. long before we reciprocated.

And all this bemoaning the fate of American values is pretty ridiculous. In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended one of our most fundamental rights - habeas corpus. In WWII FDR incarcerated American citizens who had done nothing more than be of Japanese ancestry. And in spite of these violations of our American values, the country still managed to survive, if not prosper. And that was against actual American citizens, not delusional holy warriors half a world away sending their minions to fly planes into our buildings.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lipatti said:


> Why wasn't Osama convicted in a court of law? How can they send troops to a foreign country and kill him, without proving he is guilty? Are these the American values Obama was talking about? The US Constitution, the right to defend yourself, _not_ killing non-armed suspects... What happened to those values?
> 
> Yes, I know it might seem pointless to go through all this with someone like Osama bin Laden, but in principle, it shouldn't matter. The constitution should apply equally to everyone. Why should the governments have the right to handpick who deserves to be tried in a court of law, and who doesn't?


Justice is done?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/If-Obama-Got-Terrorist-Bin-by-Sherwood-Ross-110502-902.html


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> You seem to think that I believe that a guy or two run everything - I suppose that is kind of stereotype of "conspiracy theorist", just showing how futile this talk is. You mention SSSR - but even Stalin had clique around him - but he had to "thin the flock" from time to time, so that nobody would replace him.
> 
> Well... I had a wall of text here which described how pretty much every society comes down to oligarchy (but as long as people can spend money they don't have they simply won't mind), but I deleted it. No matter how much I wrote it didn't seem enough.
> 
> Anyway, as I leave the thread, let me just say that _things are not known if they are not sought after _- and, naturally, they are not as long as man is comfortable - but you might want to seek for the book called "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski or, since books are _so paper_,* at least click the website called "global research" - for me it is much more credible source of news and opinions than any FOX/CNN blonde*.


Yes, but Global Research is not a news site, but an opinion site, and people like Paul Craig Roberts are not nearly as attractive as this:


----------



## Guest

I have changed my assessment of the impact of the death of bin Laden on Obama - I think this will sink his administration. Why? Have you noticed that he now has earned the praise of both Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh? Shouldn't that be a death sentence for the political future of ANY Democrat?:lol:

Is the irony apparent to anybody else, that some of Obama's biggest praisers in the wake of this are his political opponents? Don't get me wrong, it won't last. But it does give me some faint hope - no matter what party is in power, when something truly important needs to be done, the person in the White House won't hesitate to do it. Don't misunderstand - Obama had to know that this would be a PR victory the likes of which few presidents can claim. I think even Herbert Hoover could have had his reputation rehabilitated were he to have been the one to take down bin Laden.

So does anybody else doubt whether Ayman al-Zawahiri and Anwar al-Awlaki have now stepped up their own personal security and started sweating a bit more profusely?


----------



## KJohnson

Abstract thinking is often very helpful...
If you just take a look at the world map, you look at America and the countries in middle-east and pretend you don't know anything except that they're in wars and conflicts, your guesses about what's going on may be remarkably correct.

We should mind our own business. It's that simple. Solar technology is doubling every year or so... What future is there for oil? Is it worth risking so much?


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> Abstract thinking is often very helpful...
> If you just take a look at the world map, you look at America and the countries in middle-east and pretend you don't know anything accept that they're in wars and conflicts, your guesses about what's going on may be remarkably correct.
> 
> We should mind our own business. It's that simple. Solar technology is doubling every year or so... What future is there for oil? Is it worth risking so much?


Solar technology doubling? How many solar vehicles do we currently have on the road? How much of our energy infrastructure runs on solar power? How large of an area would you need for enough solar panels to power, say, California? Solar doesn't replace oil. It isn't even replacing coal. "Green technologies" have yet to prove their worth. Ask Spain how well their green energy companies are faring. Solar energy has been a pipe dream for so many decades now, it isn't even funny. And what do you do in areas where the sun doesn't shine as much? Or where the winds don't blow quite strong enough? Or where there aren't quite enough damable rivers? Especially now that nuclear power is becoming a harder sell? Purely electric cars have a range of, what, 30 miles? And then you have to charge them overnight before you can use them again? Any battery that could hold a longer charge is simply too large and too cost-prohibitive.

And the question is what future does oil have? They are finding new sources all the time - outside of the Middle East - but nobody will let them harvest. There would be a great future for oil - if they could only access it.


----------



## Vaneyes

Justice has been done?

US President Barack Obama gets precious few opportunities to announce a victory. So it's no wonder he chose grand words on Sunday night as the TV crews' spotlights shone upon him and he informed the nation about the deadly strike against Osama bin Laden. "Justice has been done," he said.

It may be that this sentence comes back to haunt him in the years to come. What is just about killing a feared terrorist in his home in the middle of Pakistan? For the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and for patriotic Americans who saw their grand nation challenged by a band of criminals, the answer might be simple. But international law experts, who have been grappling with the question of the legal status of the US-led war on terror for years, find Obama's pithy words on Sunday night more problematic. 
Claus Kress, an international law professor at the University of Cologne, argues that achieving retributive justice for crimes, difficult as that may be, is "not achieved through summary executions, but through a punishment that is meted out at the end of a trial." 

- Der Spiegel


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> Solar technology doubling?





DrMike said:


> How many solar vehicles do we currently have on the road?





DrMike said:


> Purely electric cars have a range of, what, 30 miles?


It's obvious you need to learn a few facts about emerging technologies. You seem to be passionately interested in how these things work, but I doubt you've spent enough time researching where they stand in their current capacity.



DrMike said:


> And the question is what future does oil have? They are finding new sources all the time - outside of the Middle East - but nobody will let them harvest. There would be a great future for oil - if they could only access it.


I doubt you're from Palin's "Drill Baby Drill" crowd. But you're sounding like it. I'd hate to think you also don't care about the environmental pollution.

Besides, this kind of disbelief about be power of renewable technology is striking, and when I hear it from someone like yourself who appears to be smart and intelligent, I don't know what to think of it... Austria, Sweden... Look up and see how some other countries are doing. Look at the trajectories. Sneezing at renewable technology should be embarrassing in this day and age.


----------



## Ralfy

"The killing of Osama bin Laden: Obama's 'historic moment'"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/pers-m04.shtml


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> I agree with Alma. How can you send troops to a foreign country and kill him? Seriously? That is pretty much the definition of war. And bin Laden declared war on the U.S. long before we reciprocated.
> 
> And all this bemoaning the fate of American values is pretty ridiculous. In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended one of our most fundamental rights - habeas corpus. In WWII FDR incarcerated American citizens who had done nothing more than be of Japanese ancestry. And in spite of these violations of our American values, the country still managed to survive, if not prosper. And that was against actual American citizens, not delusional holy warriors half a world away sending their minions to fly planes into our buildings.


I'm not sure, but I think the U.S. can only declare war on countries. The statement "war on terror" should not be considered literally. Finally, has the U.S. declared war on Pakistan?

Finally, your last paragraph is notable as it implicitly reveals hardly any difference between the U.S. and bin Laden.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Still the US Attorney General issued a statement saying that Bin Ladens death is considered an act of self-defence by the USA.


----------



## Guest

Ralfy said:


> I'm not sure, *but I think the U.S. can only declare war on countries*. The statement "war on terror" should not be considered literally. Finally, has the U.S. declared war on Pakistan?


The constitution does not specify against whom war can be declared. It states, "The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war" It seems the quibbling over the technical name for this is trivial at this point. After all, was World War II really a world war? Was the entire planet engaged? And ditto for World War I. 
And no, we haven't declared war on Pakistan. But was bin Laden a Pakistani citizen? I wasn't aware of an act of war against Pakistan in the raid.



> Finally, your last paragraph is notable as it implicitly reveals hardly any difference between the U.S. and bin Laden.


Really, you think that revoking habeas corpus in a time of war and the temporary incarceration of individuals who have commited no crime in a time of war is indistinguishable from sending people to pilot planes full of innocents into buildings containing civilians? Or attempting to blow up the World Trade Center? Or bombing U.S. embassies? How exactly does my paragraph implicitly reveal such an outrageous moral equivalency? Targeting innocent civilians for terroristic mass murder in your mind is on par with wrongful incarceration? Calling for the death of individuals for the sole crime of being American in your mind is right up there with other horrendous acts, such as the temporary suspension of civil rights in a time of war to protect the country from potential threats?

I wonder why I even bothered to respond to this post. The more I write, the more I think that it isn't even worth my time to dignify it with a response.


----------



## graaf

DrMike said:


> Yes, but Global Research is not a news site, but an opinion site, and people like Paul Craig Roberts are not nearly as attractive as this:
> <image of washed up fashion model (therefore undisputed expert in news *industry*)>


For news website check - DemocracyNow.Org, but it is interesting that you go into more details about websites than about constitution (not that anyone is surprised):


DrMike said:


> The constitution does not specify against whom war can be declared. It states, "The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war" It seems the quibbling over the technical name for this is trivial at this point.


----------



## Vaneyes

And what is the next shoe?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/959-jack-kenny/7338-why-are-we-celebrating-osama-bin-ladens-death


----------



## Almaviva

I find a bit incredible that so many here are faulting the United States for killing someone as despicable and murderous as Osama bin Laden. I wonder what these same people would be saying if his attacks had been aimed at their fellow citizens instead of Americans. The man was scum and the world is a better place without him.

Should we debate the semantics of whether we can say War on Terror, etc, and forget the fact that *he* unleashed what he called a holy war on America by an unprovoked act of mass murder, and *then* we fought back?

Come on, is the anti-Americanism so prevalent that you guys can't see the simple facts of this case?

A _tribunal_ to _convict him_ *if* guilty? Give me a break. He was an enemy combatant who had declared war on us, had publicly admitted to the fact that he was the mastermind of 9/11 (not to forget additional overwhelming evidence to that fact), we in our turn declared war on his ilk, and we killed him in a military operation. Period. Most of the leaders of Western countries (and many of those countries were also victims of his acts of terrorism) - that is, the leaders of your own countries - have congratulated us on the operation. Some of you may have been spared further acts of terrorism by our action (he has ordered his minions to attack, for instance, the UK and Spain) and I'd expect some solidarity and even gratitude instead of the usual knee-jerk anti-American response.

Of course just getting him won't eliminate the threat, but if we continue to be successful in getting one by one the multiple heads of this hydra called Al Qaeda and similar organizations, the world will be a safer place including for you guys who are criticizing us now.

We need a sense of proportion here. Yes, we don't execute petty criminals. We arrest them, read them their rights, offer them a lawyer if they can't afford one, take them to trial, and give them a fair chance at defending themselves and having their day in court with a jury of their peers. If found guilty, then they are sentenced.

But when a bloody terrorist like bin Laden declares war on us and kills thousands of our citizens and an even larger number of citizens of various other states, we fight back and kill him if given the opportunity, as ANY other state would have done IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.

Don't make of the bin Laden matter the equivalent to some sort of criminal investigation and prosecution that needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. What he unleashed on us was an act of war, and we waged war back on him, and got him.

Was it the traditional definition of war against states? No. But this definition was changed by him and others like him, not by us. When a multiheaded, spread-out, supranational group declares war on you and inflicts massive casualties upon your civilians, you have to wage war back on them AS A MATTER OF SELF DEFENSE, and of course, if they are supranational and spread-out, it won't be a war against nations and organized armies, but it will be war nevertheless.

We are not at war with Pakistan. For all purposes, Osama was an illegal alien in Pakistan, hiding there, in a compound that was equivalent to a command and control center, since he continued to pass messages to his underlings through the means of couriers.
In this war on terror, that command and control center and its figurehead/commander were taken out in a military operation. This has nothing to do with the criminal system.

Was it a violation of Pakistani soveranity? Yeah, maybe, although the extent of the accords between the United States and the Pakistanis is not fully understood (they do pay lip service to their citizens when some are outraged at some of our operations in their territory, but they do support and participate of similar operations, and are more or less reliable sometimes and more or less double-faced at other times, and we do fund their military and they have been half-willing partners in many ways - so it's hard to say what the Pakistani government truly thinks of this, beyond lip service).

But how would you avoid this kind of thing if the enemy like I said is multi-headed, spread-out, and supranational, and penetrates illegally (with or without local help) the territories of other countries and hides there? There is no other way, you have to go after them wherever they are. Because, see, the war on terror has no states.

What would we say instead? "Oh sorry, we can't go after bin Laden because he is inside the sovereign state of Pakistan. He killed 3,000 of our innocent citizens and countless others and will continue to do so in the future, but you know, he is in a sovereign state, so, let's wait until he gets out. Oh well, now he is in Yemen. It's another sovereign state, we can't do anything. OK, he moved to Somalia. Dang, they are a bloody messy stateless state, but they are technically a sovereign state, so we can't go after him there."

So pray tell us, where should we be allowed to attack him? Only if he ventured in international waters on the high seas? In outer space, maybe? Give me a break!


----------



## samurai

Hi Almaviva. Well said and considered indeed. Amen to everything you wrote in your last post. No matter what we--or for that matter, the rest of the world--choose to call it, this is the new "face of war" and template for the 21st century. It respects neither the sovereignity of countries nor any of their laws. As you so eloquently phrased the problem, it is a hydra headed monster with no return address. It is mobile, sophisticated and ruthless, because it--as do all fanatics of any stripe--believe that it has God on its side. 
America and the rest of our allies will have to contend with the temptation not to slip down to the level of these mass-murdering terrorists in order to at least keep them at bay. I fervently believe that our current President--as opposed to his predecessor--has already shown the world how this will be done.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Quite clearly a violation of international law."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-says-bin-laden-unarmed-killed-025309674.html


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> "Quite clearly a violation of international law."
> 
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-says-bin-laden-unarmed-killed-025309674.html


Yeah, some will say that. I wonder if they'd also add that bin Laden has violated a number of international laws when his minions flew two planes into the Twin Towers.

Anyway, others have said the opposite, in the very same article you have quoted (let's not do selective quoting):



> It was lawful to target bin Laden because he was the enemy commander in the field and the operation was conducted in a way that was consistent with U.S. laws and values, he said, adding that it was a "kill or capture mission."
> "If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should obviously have accepted that, but there was no indication that he wanted to do that and therefore his killing was appropriate," he said.


Not to forget that the person who issued the phrase you've quoted is a former official. Current officials have, instead, congratulated Obama.

And besides, if it was a violation of international law, it's because the law hasn't evolved yet to adapt to modern times of stateless war, just like watching YouTube was at first considered to be copyright violation and now the record industry itself is encouraging artists to let their videos on YouTube stand. Laws evolve when circumstances evolve.

And if people will still not recognize the above, then I'd add: sometimes it is necessary to violate international law.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> He was an enemy combatant who had declared war on us, had publicly admitted to the fact that he was the mastermind of 9/11 (not to forget additional overwhelming evidence to that fact), we in our turn declared war on his ilk, and we killed him in a military operation. Period.
> 
> But when a bloody terrorist like bin Laden declares war on us and kills thousands of our citizens and an even larger number of citizens of various other states, we fight back and kill him if given the opportunity, as ANY other state would have done IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.


I agree 100% in bin Laden's case. The question we, as a country, have yet to figure out is what to do with the other possible terrorists (i.e. detainees). If there are enemy combatants, they generally would not be put on trial. Enemy combatants are held until the war is over and then let go. If they need to be put on trial, they apparently are not combatants. I realize that terrorism has changed how we think about war and combat. We seem not to have a good way to deal with those we captured and held for almost a decade.

I think the problem is that we don't know if these people were actually involved in terrorism. We cast a large net and took what we could to make sure we weren't letting terrorists go free. We really can't treat them the same way we treat bin Laden or other known terrorists. So we have a dilemma. This is not a traditional war, and traditional methods of treating the enemy don't apply.


----------



## Vaneyes

Obama mishandling...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703849204576303431557377492.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> I agree 100% in bin Laden's case. The question we, as a country, have yet to figure out is what to do with the other possible terrorists (i.e. detainees). If there are enemy combatants, they generally would not be put on trial. Enemy combatants are held until the war is over and then let go. If they need to be put on trial, they apparently are not combatants. I realize that terrorism has changed how we think about war and combat. We seem not to have a good way to deal with those we captured and held for almost a decade.
> 
> I think the problem is that we don't know if these people were actually involved in terrorism. We cast a large net and took what we could to make sure we weren't letting terrorists go free. We really can't treat them the same way we treat bin Laden or other known terrorists. So we have a dilemma. This is not a traditional war, and traditional methods of treating the enemy don't apply.


You are right, these questions are hairy. Little by little the international community will come to terms with this new kind of war and will establish enough consensus on how to act. Meanwhile, things will fall on gray areas, and it is unfair to automatically crucify the United States for acting during these uncertain times. We can't be sitting on this situation and allowing people like bin Laden to literally get away with murder, while international consensus slowly gets established on how to handle this kind of modern warfare.

Similarly, people have not closed down YouTube in order to wait 10-20 years until the courts sort out all the implications of copyright laws that have been challenged by new media. YouTube videos continue to be posted, and while at the very beginning confused musical industry executives tried to shut down the site or take out their artists' videos from it, now the consensus is evolving that YouTube is actually a good thing for artists, and the criminalization of posting copyrighted material there is going away. Like I said before, laws evolve and adapt to changes in society. Not too long ago sodomy between two consenting adults was a crime.

The United States has made reasonable efforts to release detainees who were considered to be non-dangerous or were wrongly picked up, and has even released many who were dangerous and went right back into combat.

It's hard to know what to do because this kind of war is too new. But one day there will be a body of appropriate international law about these things. While there isn't, we need to just keep going and letting the pieces fall in their places.

What I consider wrong and unfair is to bash the United States based on laws that clearly no longer apply to the new kind of war that has developed thanks to the *terrorists'* actions.

In the past, terrorism was dealt with by police and criminal courts. Since the order of magnitude of terrorist actions has escalated several folds to the proportion of acts of wars, armies had to get involved, and conventional views on war are now outdated.

See, let's suppose that the Brits got intelligence to the effect that a terrorist cell had taken possession of a couple of highly powerful portable and compact nuclear weapons and intended to blow up London, which would result in the killing of 10 million British citizens, and the turning of the entire metropolitan area into a radioactive desert for the next 200 years. Would the appropriate response to this threat be at the level of some unarmed London police officers and some local courts???? I'm quite sure that the British armed forces would try to locate and destroy the terrorists before they could anhilate London, and would strike wherever they were found, including inside another sovereign European Union country. Lets suppose that the Brits got enough evidence that the terrorist cell was located in a ghetto in Marseille, France. Upon gathering the intelligence, there were hints that tipping off the French authorities might result in wasting the opportunity to get the terrorists, since a couple of them seemed to have had successfully infiltrated some French agencies and there was a concern about leaks (or else, the terrorists, seeing that defeat was certain, could just set off the bombs in Marseille instead). The Brits had to act fast and secretely in order to prevent the attack which was imminent. Then, let's say that they dispatched some commandos in a couple of helicopters from Gibraltar, and killed the terrorists (including a couple of French citizens who were helping the terrorists) and disarmed the nuclear bombs.

Would then everybody yell foul and say that the British were in violation of international law?

Well, my friend, if so, then international law needs to be urgently changed.

I believe that much the opposite, Sarkozy would call Cameron and congratulate him for the swift action. Would the British action represent a violation of French air space and sovereignty? You bet, but then, I believe that even the French would say that it was understandable and for a good cause.

I know that Osama bin Laden didn't have nuclear weapons in his compound. I'm talking about the future, and how this clash of civilizations is likely to become more and more dangerous if not efficiently thwarted. My scenario above is not a far fetched one. It is actually a quite possible one, and should be within the realm of reality in a few years.

Western nations need to prepare themselves to face these risks, and need to update international consensus on how to deal with large scale, war-like attacks from stateless, supranational groups.


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> Obama mishandling...
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703849204576303431557377492.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


I agree with what the professor said. There were pros and cons in burying him at sea within 24 hours. The administration thought that the pros outweighed the cons. I feel that it was a mistake, based on the very arguments in the article that you have quoted.
But it is a small mistake as compared to the much bigger and much more significant fact that they got the job done. The aftermath of the killing will be controversial. It would have been controversial no matter what. But the essential fact is that this terrorist is no more. Give me a huge victory over terror with some mistakes any day over no mistakes but no victory.

Edit - as a matter of fact, after reading another article on the Shrine thread, I am again convinced that the pros and cons even out and are sort of equivalent, so either handling the body as this Harvard professor suggests or burying him at sea would both have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Guest

graaf said:


> For news website check - DemocracyNow.Org, but it is interesting that you go into more details about websites than about constitution (not that anyone is surprised):


That is what the constitution says. Sorry, did you feel there was some more detail in the constitution regarding the declaration of war that I omitted? That elusive "The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war (but only against sovereign nations, and nothing else!)" clause?
As to the news website you cited, I visited it, and really found no significant difference in the actual news. I suspect what you don't like is opinion pieces that you disagree with. And that is fine - so long as when you cite your own, you acknowledge that they are opinion, and not news. But it seems that the actual news, regardless of the website, all seems to come from the same sources. I found no shocking new revelations in the news section of Democracynow.org that I hadn't already read on Foxnews.com or Cnn.com. I suspect you wouldn't, either (and remember to only look at the news pieces, not the opinion pieces).


----------



## Guest

For all those here who contend that it would have been much better to apprehend and try bin Laden rather than take him down in a military operation, I have this question for you: What if he were to be acquitted?

Come on now, what if? Do you really doubt his guilt? Do you not believe his own admissions? Putting someone on trial allows for the possibility that they will be acquitted. If you assert that there is no way he could possibly be acquitted, then you are already assuming he is guilty, and so what is the point of the trial?

And why couldn't he be acquitted? Perhaps an insanity defense? Maybe they could get the case thrown out on a technicality - perhaps a poor translation of his video confessions? Or if we go the strict legal route, and if it is so important that he be brought before a court of law and granted all the rights of the accused, then certainly we would need to follow other laws, such as requesting Pakistan arrest and extradite him to the USA. And if they refuse? Or if they agree, but take just a little too much time, allowing him to once more slip away? Would all the critics then go about criticizing Obama for letting bin Laden slip away, as they accused Bush of letting him slip away when he was supposedly in our grasp in Tora Bora? Remember? We allowed the Afghanis to go after him, and they lost him? How would it be better to let the Pakistanis go after him and "lose" him?

Or is the desire to have seen bin Laden have his day in court more a desire to see the American military and government put on trial for all the world to see? To see top secret information paraded for the world to see - because you would have to grant bin Laden access to whatever was necessary for a proper defense. Information regarding informants that led to his capture? Assets on the ground that need their identities protected?


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> For all those here who contend that it would have been much better to apprehend and try bin Laden rather than take him down in a military operation, I have this question for you: What if he were to be acquitted?
> 
> Come on now, what if? Do you really doubt his guilt? Do you not believe his own admissions? Putting someone on trial allows for the possibility that they will be acquitted. If you assert that there is no way he could possibly be acquitted, then you are already assuming he is guilty, and so what is the point of the trial?
> 
> And why couldn't he be acquitted? Perhaps an insanity defense? Maybe they could get the case thrown out on a technicality - perhaps a poor translation of his video confessions? Or if we go the strict legal route, and if it is so important that he be brought before a court of law and granted all the rights of the accused, then certainly we would need to follow other laws, such as requesting Pakistan arrest and extradite him to the USA. And if they refuse? Or if they agree, but take just a little too much time, allowing him to once more slip away? Would all the critics then go about criticizing Obama for letting bin Laden slip away, as they accused Bush of letting him slip away when he was supposedly in our grasp in Tora Bora? Remember? We allowed the Afghanis to go after him, and they lost him? How would it be better to let the Pakistanis go after him and "lose" him?


I find it disturbing that Americans are willing to throw both national and international law and their justice system out the window when the suspect is considered evil enough to be unworthy of it. This is precisely how the terrorist leaders recruited suicide bombers in the first place: convince them that Americans are "evil" enough that outright killing them is justified, no further questions please because _they are just so evil._ No trial needed - just eradication.

Now your post sets an insane precedent. The same logic could be applied to any criminal. Say a man breaks into your house and murders a loved one before your very eyes. Are you justified to seek him out and put a bullet in his face on the grounds that he might get acquitted if you leave it to trial?

And be wary of the "new kind of terror" justification - this has already been used to deprive Americans of many of their freedoms, you're really going to let it annihilate your justice system as well?


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> I find it disturbing that Americans are willing to throw both national and international law and their justice system out the window when the suspect is considered evil enough to be unworthy of it. This is precisely how the terrorist leaders recruited suicide bombers in the first place: convince them that Americans are "evil" enough that outright killing them is justified, no further questions please because _they are just so evil._ No trial needed - just eradication.
> 
> Now your post sets an insane precedent. The same logic could be applied to any criminal. Say a man breaks into your house and murders a loved one before your very eyes. Are you justified to seek him out and put a bullet in his face on the grounds that he might get acquitted if you leave it to trial?
> 
> And be wary of the "new kind of terror" justification - this has already been used to deprive Americans of many of their freedoms, you're really going to let it annihilate your justice system as well?


The world, including international law, has long understood that there are differences between military actions in a time of war and normal crimes. In war, it is generally understood that the objective is to seek out and destroy the enemy. Secretive missions are nothing new to this conflict. Is every ambush, every night mission, every unseen attack to be viewed through the prism of a criminal action? Should every military maneuver first be preceded by an attempt to merely arrest your opponents?

In general, when we are not at war, we do not send special forces in to kill a foreign leader that we find distasteful - the continued existence of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Jong-il are proof of that. But we are actually at war against al Qaeda and its leaders. Bin Laden was behind an attack on our country that killed thousands, not to mention the other attacks prior to 9/11 that his al Qaeda group instigated. So we didn't just kill bin Laden because we thought he was evil. Remember the other countries described as the "Axis of Evil?" How many of their leaders are now dead at our hands? Oh, right, these terrorists wouldn't swarm to the cause to kill Americans if we wouldn't kill their leaders? Which of their leaders had we killed that instigated 9/11? Or the '93 attack on the World Trade Center? Or the bombing of our embassies in Africa? Transferral of guilt away from the terrorists is a tired argument.

How many bombs were dropped on Berlin in WWII? Or on Japan? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the Allied leaders were hoping that one of those bombs might land on Hitler? Or Tojo? Or Hirohito? Would anybody have been too upset had one of the assassination attempts on Hitler's life been effective? Had the conspirators depicted in the movie "Valkyrie" been successful, would the world have hailed them as heroes, or chastised them for subverting the rule of law?

The rules of law do not apply in times of war. For all intents and purposes, bin Laden was just as dangerous to us as a person holding a gun to our head. He had ordered attacks on us before - that killed thousands. He had warned of further attacks - we had no reason to doubt that he would make good on those threats if given the opportunity. He called on others to kill Americans. He had declared war on us. He showed no sign of seeking peace, of ending hostilities. In the past, we had shrugged off attacks by his group, and that only resulted in further attacks.

I'm glad you think that the killing of this madman is going to culminate in the complete collapse of American values and our justice system. I just think that conclusion is false. Because we killed bin Laden, I think it is a stretch to think that we will now have a wave of vigilantism sweeping the country. I doubt the "bin Laden assassination" defense will be heard in court - "your Honor, I had to kill that man, because he killed those people, and since the U.S. military went and killed bin Laden, I thought I was justified in killing him." Right. I expect we will see a huge wave of such violence, similar in magnitude to the predicted tidal wave of violence against Muslims anticipated in the wake of 9/11 - which ended up being, at most, a tiny ripple in a pond. Luckily, Americans always seem to greatly exceed the pitifully low expectations that others predict after these types of events.


----------



## jhar26

Vaneyes said:


> Too many holes in another government's storyline. The gullible and/or partyliners are easily led.


If it's all just a scam why...

1) ....doesn't bin Laden release a "bad luck sucker, but I'm still alive and kicking" type of video message? And even if he doesn't, why would Obama take the risk of telling us he's dead and leave himself open to bin Laden doing something like that? It would mean the end of Obama and bin Laden would become a hero of superhuman proportions to every extremist Muslim fruitcake with bad intentions.
2) If the sources you mention know that this is a scam, than the political world definitely knows that this is a scam. Why don't the republicans take advantage of this and expose Obama as a cheat? They could impeach him or their candidate could win the 2012 election with the biggest landslide in history.
3) If it's a scam, why do it now? It seems to me that tactically it would be much better for Obama to set it up one or two weeks before the 2012 elections.
4) If it's a scam, why don't the leaders of Pakistan say it is? Now they are caught with their pants down at their ankles. What's more, they risk a multitude of terrorist attacks on their home soil for something you claim isn't true. Covering up the truth seems like a big price to pay just to do Obama a favor.


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> If it's all just a scam why...
> 
> 1) ....doesn't bin Laden release a "bad luck sucker, but I'm still alive and kicking" type of video message? And even if he doesn't, why would Obama take the risk of telling us he's dead and leave himself open to bin Laden doing something like that? It would mean the end of Obama and bin Laden would become a hero of superhuman proportions to every extremist Muslim fruitcake with bad intentions.
> 2) If the sources you mention know that this is a scam, than the political world definitely knows that this is a scam. Why don't the republicans take advantage of this and expose Obama as a cheat? They could impeach him or their candidate could win the 2012 election with the biggest landslide in history.
> 3) If it's a scam, why do it now? It seems to me that tactically it would be much better for Obama to set it up one or two weeks before the 2012 elections.
> 4) If it's a scam, why don't the leaders of Pakistan say it is? Now they are caught with their pants down at their ankles. What's more, they risk a multitude of terrorist attacks on their home soil for something you claim isn't true. Covering up the truth seems like a big price to pay just to do Obama a favor.


No, don't you understand? All of those points you make just PROVE that you are drinking the Kool-aid. Because you believe the government story, you must be a willing dupe! They want you to believe all those things. They don't want you to know that really this is a big multinational conspiracy to boost Obama's prestige and help him win the election! Why, I bet the Pakistanis even provided some convenient dead bodies at the scene to make it look real! I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole "Pakistani" compound wasn't just some elaborate sound stage in Hollywood - maybe they borrowed it from some upcoming Die Hard sequel. Don't you understand? Because there have been some problems with the release of information, that is absolute proof that this is all a sham!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Seriously, I am with you. In fact, all the mistakes made in the release of the official story give me even more faith that this is real. The government never does anything perfectly - if we were to be given a perfect story of an operation that went off without a hitch and completely ended once and for all any doubt of the death of bin Laden, then I would have doubts.


----------



## Vaneyes

Two advocates for illegal war fight over the spoils.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383860/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-George-Bush-angry-Obama-does-Ground-Zero-victory-lap.html


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Two advocates for illegal war fight over the spoils.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383860/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-George-Bush-angry-Obama-does-Ground-Zero-victory-lap.html


Wow, that is a skewed interpretation of that news story.

First of all, notice that the part of the story about Bush isn't actually Bush quotes, but rather some highly placed insider. Bush may be making comments, but he is not putting them out there himself. Right or wrong, he is not exactly hogging the spotlight here and fighting "over the spoils." As for Pres. Obama - what else is he expected to do here? Of course he is going to go to Ground Zero after the death of the man who orchestrated the attack. Now, his comments may in truth be a bit egotistical in not acknowledging the efforts of others who ultimately made the attack he authorized possible, but this speech and visit to Ground Zero are totally appropriate.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> For all those here who contend that it would have been much better to apprehend and try bin Laden rather than take him down in a military operation, I have this question for you: What if he were to be acquitted?
> 
> Come on now, what if? Do you really doubt his guilt? Do you not believe his own admissions? Putting someone on trial allows for the possibility that they will be acquitted. If you assert that there is no way he could possibly be acquitted, then you are already assuming he is guilty, and so what is the point of the trial?
> 
> And why couldn't he be acquitted? Perhaps an insanity defense? Maybe they could get the case thrown out on a technicality - perhaps a poor translation of his video confessions? Or if we go the strict legal route, and if it is so important that he be brought before a court of law and granted all the rights of the accused, then certainly we would need to follow other laws, such as requesting Pakistan arrest and extradite him to the USA. And if they refuse? Or if they agree, but take just a little too much time, allowing him to once more slip away? Would all the critics then go about criticizing Obama for letting bin Laden slip away, as they accused Bush of letting him slip away when he was supposedly in our grasp in Tora Bora? Remember? We allowed the Afghanis to go after him, and they lost him? How would it be better to let the Pakistanis go after him and "lose" him?
> 
> Or is the desire to have seen bin Laden have his day in court more a desire to see the American military and government put on trial for all the world to see? To see top secret information paraded for the world to see - because you would have to grant bin Laden access to whatever was necessary for a proper defense. Information regarding informants that led to his capture? Assets on the ground that need their identities protected?


While I agree with mostly everything else you said, here is the part I don't agree with:



> If you assert that there is no way he could possibly be acquitted, then you are already assuming he is guilty, and so what is the point of the trial?


Due process and the rule of law establish that even when we seem to be 100% convinced of someone's guilt, they still have the right to a trial and to have presumed innocence be dismantled in a court of law.

What you said in my opinion is not the reason to deny bin Laden the possibility of an arrest and a trial.

What has denied him this possibility is the fact that he was an enemy combatant - not a common criminal - who was the object of a military action in the context of a war, and who did not surrender when confronted.

If he were a serial rapist/killer, for instance, with overwhelming DNA left in his victim's bodies to establish with 100% certainty that he was guilty, he should still have his day in court. If we don't abide by this kind of principle, then we are indeed subverting the basis of our judicial system.

I repeat, he didn't have his day in court because he was an enemy combatant who was taken down in a military war operation, and for no other reason.

If you say anything different to justify his not beeing sent to trial, then you open the door to what couchie said when he commented upon your post.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> The world, including international law, has long understood that there are differences between military actions in a time of war and normal crimes. In war, it is generally understood that the objective is to seek out and destroy the enemy. Secretive missions are nothing new to this conflict. Is every ambush, every night mission, every unseen attack to be viewed through the prism of a criminal action? Should every military maneuver first be preceded by an attempt to merely arrest your opponents?
> 
> In general, when we are not at war, we do not send special forces in to kill a foreign leader that we find distasteful - the continued existence of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Kim Jong-il are proof of that. But we are actually at war against al Qaeda and its leaders. Bin Laden was behind an attack on our country that killed thousands, not to mention the other attacks prior to 9/11 that his al Qaeda group instigated. So we didn't just kill bin Laden because we thought he was evil. Remember the other countries described as the "Axis of Evil?" How many of their leaders are now dead at our hands? Oh, right, these terrorists wouldn't swarm to the cause to kill Americans if we wouldn't kill their leaders? Which of their leaders had we killed that instigated 9/11? Or the '93 attack on the World Trade Center? Or the bombing of our embassies in Africa? Transferral of guilt away from the terrorists is a tired argument.
> 
> How many bombs were dropped on Berlin in WWII? Or on Japan? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the Allied leaders were hoping that one of those bombs might land on Hitler? Or Tojo? Or Hirohito? Would anybody have been too upset had one of the assassination attempts on Hitler's life been effective? Had the conspirators depicted in the movie "Valkyrie" been successful, would the world have hailed them as heroes, or chastised them for subverting the rule of law?
> 
> The rules of law do not apply in times of war. For all intents and purposes, bin Laden was just as dangerous to us as a person holding a gun to our head. He had ordered attacks on us before - that killed thousands. He had warned of further attacks - we had no reason to doubt that he would make good on those threats if given the opportunity. He called on others to kill Americans. He had declared war on us. He showed no sign of seeking peace, of ending hostilities. In the past, we had shrugged off attacks by his group, and that only resulted in further attacks.
> 
> I'm glad you think that the killing of this madman is going to culminate in the complete collapse of American values and our justice system. I just think that conclusion is false. Because we killed bin Laden, I think it is a stretch to think that we will now have a wave of vigilantism sweeping the country. I doubt the "bin Laden assassination" defense will be heard in court - "your Honor, I had to kill that man, because he killed those people, and since the U.S. military went and killed bin Laden, I thought I was justified in killing him." Right. I expect we will see a huge wave of such violence, similar in magnitude to the predicted tidal wave of violence against Muslims anticipated in the wake of 9/11 - which ended up being, at most, a tiny ripple in a pond. Luckily, Americans always seem to greatly exceed the pitifully low expectations that others predict after these types of events.


First off, I am sorry that you perceived my post to be so abrasive that it set you off on this mostly irrelevant diatribe. That was not my intention.

It is sometimes necessary to kill in war - that much is obvious, and is not being debated here. Germany failed to surrender Berlin, which made it a legitimate bombing target. After Japan surrendered, we stopped bombing it.

What you have stated however is that it is at any time A-OK to kill your enemies declared in war. You went on to state that Osama does not deserve a trial. This amounts to apparently permitting the outright execution of captured enemies.

Myself, and the US-signed international conventions declare that this is not acceptable treatment of captured enemy parties in war. One of the things heavily debated in this aftermath is the conditions under which Osama was taken down. Was he aggressive, not an immediate threat, or did he surrender? Instead of allowing for any forensic analysis or autopsy, as is usually performed on deceased bodies, the body was immediately removed from the scene and essentially destroyed, and any pictures taken the government refuses to release. The US government really can't expect this to not raise any eyebrows. I find it disturbing that some people don't care as long as he's good and dead.


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> No, don't you understand? All of those points you make just PROVE that you are drinking the Kool-aid. Because you believe the government story, you must be a willing dupe! They want you to believe all those things. They don't want you to know that really this is a big multinational conspiracy to boost Obama's prestige and help him win the election! Why, I bet the Pakistanis even provided some convenient dead bodies at the scene to make it look real! I wouldn't even be surprised if the whole "Pakistani" compound wasn't just some elaborate sound stage in Hollywood - maybe they borrowed it from some upcoming Die Hard sequel. Don't you understand? Because there have been some problems with the release of information, that is absolute proof that this is all a sham!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Don't forget the Illuminati and Lady Gaga.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> While I agree with mostly everything else you said, here is the part I don't agree with:
> 
> Due process and the rule of law establish that even when we seem to be 100% convinced of someone's guilt, they still have the right to a trial and to have presumed innocent be dismantled in a court of law.
> 
> What you said in my opinion is not the reason to deny bin Laden the possibility of an arrest and a trial.
> 
> What has denied him this possibility is the fact that he was an enemy combatant - not a common criminal - who was the object of a military action in the context of a war, and who did not surrender when confronted.
> 
> If he were a serial rapist/killer, for instance, with overwhelming DNA left in his victim's bodies to establish with 100% certainty that he was guilty, he should still have his day in court. If we don't abide by this kind of principle, then we are indeed subverting the basis of our judicial system.
> 
> I repeat, he didn't have his day in court because he was an enemy combatant who was taken down in a military war operation, and for no other reason.
> 
> If you say anything different to justify his not beeing sent to trial, then you open the door to what couchie said when he commented upon your post.


I agree with what you said (wow, I'm feeling really weird right now!) - and I think the point I was trying to make got mixed up with how I said it. I agree that there is no justification for this idea that he should be brought to trial. I suspect, though, that much of this drive to push for one is fueled by ideas that are still out there suggesting that bin Laden and al Qaeda were not even behind 9/11. Not saying that Couchie specifically thinks so, but I think that this notion is definitely fueled by those kinds of ideas, or that 9/11 was somehow the logical outcome of U.S. foreign policy, and that we are to blame for what happened. I suspect that those who would have preferred a trial aren't particularly concerned ultimately with bin Laden's fate, so much as a perverse sense of pleasure at the prospect of dragging the government over the coals in open court.

I also think it is rather absurd that people think Americans are debasing themselves with celebrating the death of a dangerous terrorist at war with us. The fact that people the world over can voice their opinions about this already proves the absurdity of it. They know that there is no logical reason to generally fear that the U.S. will come hunt them down and kill them. However distasteful they find this action, they know there is a logic and a justification in it. This wasn't some random individual targeted. To be sure, we have proven that we have this capability, but nobody fears that we will use it indiscriminately. Does Angela Merkel lie awake at night fearing Seal Team 6 will come storming her room and kill her? Or Vladimir Putin? Or even Hugo Chavez? No. They know that they can say and do whatever they want to the United States, and can continue to do so so long as they want, provided their actions don't involve the killing of innocent American citizens. For all the complaints of how unilateral and war-mongering we are, it usually takes an awful lot to get our blood boiling enough to provoke action. How long did it take us to get into either of the World Wars?

General Sherman said it best - war IS hell. There is nothing glorious or enriching about it. There is nothing uplifting. War steals a little more of our humanity from us. People are put into a position where they have to act contrary to their better natures. We take boys who, for the most part, were raised with the notion that you shouldn't hit others, and put a gun in their hand and tell them to go shoot that person over there you have never met before. But the sad fact is that sometimes it is necessary. In spite of the hellishness of war, there are some things that are worse. In my opinion, the prospect of a terrorist leader, who very likely has been at least attempting to procure nuclear weapons as well, remaining at large to plan and carry out attacks on innocent civilians on their home soil without provocation is worse. Will the death of bin Laden end this war? I doubt it. But if his death brings us that much closer to the end, then it is justified. Let's not forget who initiated this war. Anybody who enters into a war has to know that, unless they are the victor, there is a real chance that their exit from it may very well be in their death. Soldiers are not police men.


----------



## Couchie

Also Dr. Mike and a few others seem to conflate criticizing the US government with attacking America - don't think for a second that I at least am doing such a thing. Governments should be congratulated for achievements such as Osama's defeat, but that isn't just cause to overlook all the missteps. Governments should be held to a standard of utter perfection and then lambasted for failures in order to keep them accountable - what is the risk of doing otherwise, besides hurting their feelings? And it is perhaps the most important function of democracy that citizens criticize their _own_ government, even the one they voted for, as history shows the most dire injustices committed against humanity are usually those of governments against their own people.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> First off, I am sorry that you perceived my post to be so abrasive that it set you off on this mostly irrelevant diatribe. That was not my intention.
> 
> It is sometimes necessary to kill in war - that much is obvious, and is not being debated here. Germany failed to surrender Berlin, which made it a legitimate bombing target. After Japan surrendered, we stopped bombing it.
> 
> What you have stated however is that it is at any time A-OK to kill your enemies declared in war. You went on to state that Osama does not deserve a trial. This amounts to apparently permitting the outright execution of captured enemies.
> 
> Myself, and the US-signed international conventions declare that this is not acceptable treatment of captured enemy parties in war. One of the things heavily debated in this aftermath is the conditions under which Osama was taken down. Was he aggressive, not an immediate threat, or did he surrender? Instead of allowing for any forensic analysis or autopsy, as is usually performed on deceased bodies, the body was immediately removed from the scene and essentially destroyed, and any pictures taken the government refuses to release. The US government really can't expect this to not raise any eyebrows. I find it disturbing that some people don't care as long as he's good and dead.


No, you now misconstrue what I have said. How many captured terrorists have we summarily executed? I believe we are still debating what to do with KSM. But bin Laden didn't surrender. Maybe we don't know the entire story of what went down when he was killed, but there isn't a lot of precedent to suggest that these guys like to go quietly. Did he have a gun, didn't he have a gun, did he make a threatening move, or didn't he? I don't know. I do know that combat is an extremely stressful situation, and that you are often required to make snap decisions with little or not time to evaluate. Those people dropped into a very dangerous situation. I'm not going to second guess their actions. Were they ordered to kill on sight? I don't know. But I will not lose much sleep over it. But I suspect that, were bin Laden to have found out about the raid but not have time to escape, and were he to walk out into the middle of the compound, lay on the ground and keep his hands in plain sight to show he surrendered, he would still be alive. He had every opportunity up until now to surrender himself up into custody. He could have even surrendered to a somewhat friendly regime and fight extradition.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> But bin Laden didn't surrender. Maybe we don't know the entire story of what went down when he was killed, but there isn't a lot of precedent to suggest that these guys like to go quietly. Did he have a gun, didn't he have a gun, did he make a threatening move, or didn't he? I don't know. I do know that combat is an extremely stressful situation, and that you are often required to make snap decisions with little or not time to evaluate. Those people dropped into a very dangerous situation. I'm not going to second guess their actions. Were they ordered to kill on sight? I don't know. But I will not lose much sleep over it. But I suspect that, were bin Laden to have found out about the raid but not have time to escape, and were he to walk out into the middle of the compound, lay on the ground and keep his hands in plain sight to show he surrendered, he would still be alive. He had every opportunity up until now to surrender himself up into custody. He could have even surrendered to a somewhat friendly regime and fight extradition.


The problem is that Obama denied the public this transparency with his not only unacceptable but outright stupid handling of the body and aftermath. You think he would have learned when Bush totally mishandled the 9/11 investigations which led to heaviest conspiracy furor since the JFK assassination.


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> The constitution does not specify against whom war can be declared. It states, "The Congress shall have power . . . To declare war" It seems the quibbling over the technical name for this is trivial at this point. After all, was World War II really a world war? Was the entire planet engaged? And ditto for World War I.
> And no, we haven't declared war on Pakistan. But was bin Laden a Pakistani citizen? I wasn't aware of an act of war against Pakistan in the raid.


From what I know, the Congress declares war against a country. Also, such a raid is usually conducted with approval from the government of the country (in this case, Pakistan) regardless of the nationality of the person attacked. I'm not sure, but I think Pakistan was not informed of this.



> Really, you think that revoking habeas corpus in a time of war and the temporary incarceration of individuals who have commited no crime in a time of war is indistinguishable from sending people to pilot planes full of innocents into buildings containing civilians? Or attempting to blow up the World Trade Center? Or bombing U.S. embassies? How exactly does my paragraph implicitly reveal such an outrageous moral equivalency? Targeting innocent civilians for terroristic mass murder in your mind is on par with wrongful incarceration? Calling for the death of individuals for the sole crime of being American in your mind is right up there with other horrendous acts, such as the temporary suspension of civil rights in a time of war to protect the country from potential threats?
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how you claim that we should not be "quibbling" over what term to use and yet you still refer to "a time of war." What makes matters worse is that you now refer to 9-11, for which numerous questions have not yet been addressed by the same U.S. government. For example, from what I know, bin Laden was wanted not for 9-11 but for an earlier attack and hardly anyone has been arrested for this crime. I also read that the location of several co-conspirators are known by the U.S., and yet I cannot recall any extradition requests to Saudi Arabia for them. In fact, I think even various members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the U.S. right after the attack, with no one questioned regarding Osama bin Laden. I think one journalists enumerates over 50 questions unanswered, including unusual stock activity reported by the WSJ on the day before 9-11, and which the authorities are still investigating.
> 
> Given that, all I can say is that your response is conventional, something that the U.S. government wants and expects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why I even bothered to respond to this post. The more I write, the more I think that it isn't even worth my time to dignify it with a response.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be the other way round.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> I find a bit incredible that so many here are faulting the United States for killing someone as despicable and murderous as Osama bin Laden. I wonder what these same people would be saying if his attacks had been aimed at their fellow citizens instead of Americans. The man was scum and the world is a better place without him.
> 
> Should we debate the semantics of whether we can say War on Terror, etc, and forget the fact that *he* unleashed what he called a holy war on America by an unprovoked act of mass murder, and *then* we fought back?
> 
> Come on, is the anti-Americanism so prevalent that you guys can't see the simple facts of this case?
> 
> A _tribunal_ to _convict him_ *if* guilty? Give me a break. He was an enemy combatant who had declared war on us, had publicly admitted to the fact that he was the mastermind of 9/11 (not to forget additional overwhelming evidence to that fact), we in our turn declared war on his ilk, and we killed him in a military operation. Period. Most of the leaders of Western countries (and many of those countries were also victims of his acts of terrorism) - that is, the leaders of your own countries - have congratulated us on the operation. Some of you may have been spared further acts of terrorism by our action (he has ordered his minions to attack, for instance, the UK and Spain) and I'd expect some solidarity and even gratitude instead of the usual knee-jerk anti-American response.
> 
> Of course just getting him won't eliminate the threat, but if we continue to be successful in getting one by one the multiple heads of this hydra called Al Qaeda and similar organizations, the world will be a safer place including for you guys who are criticizing us now.
> 
> We need a sense of proportion here. Yes, we don't execute petty criminals. We arrest them, read them their rights, offer them a lawyer if they can't afford one, take them to trial, and give them a fair chance at defending themselves and having their day in court with a jury of their peers. If found guilty, then they are sentenced.
> 
> But when a bloody terrorist like bin Laden declares war on us and kills thousands of our citizens and an even larger number of citizens of various other states, we fight back and kill him if given the opportunity, as ANY other state would have done IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
> 
> Don't make of the bin Laden matter the equivalent to some sort of criminal investigation and prosecution that needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. What he unleashed on us was an act of war, and we waged war back on him, and got him.
> 
> Was it the traditional definition of war against states? No. But this definition was changed by him and others like him, not by us. When a multiheaded, spread-out, supranational group declares war on you and inflicts massive casualties upon your civilians, you have to wage war back on them AS A MATTER OF SELF DEFENSE, and of course, if they are supranational and spread-out, it won't be a war against nations and organized armies, but it will be war nevertheless.
> 
> We are not at war with Pakistan. For all purposes, Osama was an illegal alien in Pakistan, hiding there, in a compound that was equivalent to a command and control center, since he continued to pass messages to his underlings through the means of couriers.
> In this war on terror, that command and control center and its figurehead/commander were taken out in a military operation. This has nothing to do with the criminal system.
> 
> Was it a violation of Pakistani soveranity? Yeah, maybe, although the extent of the accords between the United States and the Pakistanis is not fully understood (they do pay lip service to their citizens when some are outraged at some of our operations in their territory, but they do support and participate of similar operations, and are more or less reliable sometimes and more or less double-faced at other times, and we do fund their military and they have been half-willing partners in many ways - so it's hard to say what the Pakistani government truly thinks of this, beyond lip service).
> 
> But how would you avoid this kind of thing if the enemy like I said is multi-headed, spread-out, and supranational, and penetrates illegally (with or without local help) the territories of other countries and hides there? There is no other way, you have to go after them wherever they are. Because, see, the war on terror has no states.
> 
> What would we say instead? "Oh sorry, we can't go after bin Laden because he is inside the sovereign state of Pakistan. He killed 3,000 of our innocent citizens and countless others and will continue to do so in the future, but you know, he is in a sovereign state, so, let's wait until he gets out. Oh well, now he is in Yemen. It's another sovereign state, we can't do anything. OK, he moved to Somalia. Dang, they are a bloody messy stateless state, but they are technically a sovereign state, so we can't go after him there."
> 
> So pray tell us, where should we be allowed to attack him? Only if he ventured in international waters on the high seas? In outer space, maybe? Give me a break!


My understanding is that Osama bin Laden and other mujahedeen were recruited by Saudi Arabia, financed by the U.S., and trained by Pakistan. The Pakistani ISI itself received support from the U.S. And when the Taliban took over Afghanistan and controlled it for several years, the U.S. hardly acted.

Then came 9-11. From what I remember, the terrorists and bin Laden are Saudi nationals, but hardly any action was taken by the U.S. to get support from Saudi Arabia in investigating this matter. Bin Laden's relatives allowed to leave the day after the attack, Osama wanted not for 9-11 but for the '93 attack, hardly anyone arrested (I think several of bin Laden's co-conspirators are living in Saudi Arabia and calls for extradition have been made), the scrap metal from the buildings suddenly taken away and sold for scrap to China, and more questionable actions.

Then, the "war on terror," replete with claims of WMDs that have not been found and jokes stemming from it:






Now, with a major crime still unsolved, thousands of soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians dead, corporations profiting from wars, and ironically war costs passed on to U.S. citizens, I do not understand why people still believe the U.S. government and its corporate masters.


----------



## Vaneyes

Surely in the running for Laugh of the Day, after illegal war advocates Bush & Obama have given his country $20.7 billion in military and economic aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06react.html?hp

Obama's 2012 budget for this illegal War on Terror will bring the total to $1.415 trillion. As 1 in every 7 Americans must use food stamps.


----------



## mmsbls

Vaneyes said:


> Obama's 2012 budget for his illegal War on Terror is $1.415 trillion. As 1 in every 7 Americans must use food stamps.


I hate how much this country spends on the military. I think there are many other MUCH more important ways to spend federal dollars.

Having said that, the above quote makes me feel like ignoring your posts in the future. You state that the budget for the *illegal* War on Terror is $1.415 trillion. I assume you got that number from the Wikipedia entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States.

The $1.415 trillion number is broken down as:
DOD spending $707.5 billion 
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion 
International Affairs $5.6-$63.0 billion 
Energy Department
(defense-related) $21.8 billion 
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion 
Homeland Security $46.9 billion 
NASA, satellites $3.5-$8.7 billion 
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion 
Other defense-related 
mandatory spending $8.2 billion 
Interest on debt incurred 
in past wars $109.1-$431.5 billion

The $1.415 Trillion is the sum of all of these taking the highest values where there is a spread (i.e. using $431.5 Billion for interest).

First there are several line items that have ranges. Why do you assume the highest value? The article explicitly does not.

Second the vast majority of this is obviously not spent on terrorism. For example, all Veterans Affairs and pensions spending is not terrorism related. The interest on he debt from past wars is not terrorism related. Certainly a significant amount of the DOD spending is not terrorism related. The internal affairs, research, and NASA satellites budgets are likely not all terrorism spending.

Finally, you explicitly state that you are referring to the *illegal* War on Terror spending. One could say that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal and related to the war on terror. I'm not sure anyone has questioned other defense spending as illegal (problematic, unwarranted, even stupid, but not illegal). The 2012 overseas contingency budget (i.e. for the wars) is $117.8 Billion.

I can see saying that $117.8 Billion is for an illegal War on Terror. But you stated that $1.415 Trillion is budgeted for that illegal war. You seem to be off by about a factor of 12. You might quibble with some of my assessment, but you'd still be roughly a factor of 10 off.


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy said:


> My understanding is that Osama bin Laden and other mujahedeen were recruited by Saudi Arabia, financed by the U.S., and trained by Pakistan. The Pakistani ISI itself received support from the U.S. And when the Taliban took over Afghanistan and controlled it for several years, the U.S. hardly acted.
> 
> Then came 9-11. From what I remember, the terrorists and bin Laden are Saudi nationals, but hardly any action was taken by the U.S. to get support from Saudi Arabia in investigating this matter. Bin Laden's relatives allowed to leave the day after the attack, Osama wanted not for 9-11 but for the '93 attack, hardly anyone arrested (I think several of bin Laden's co-conspirators are living in Saudi Arabia and calls for extradition have been made), the scrap metal from the buildings suddenly taken away and sold for scrap to China, and more questionable actions.
> 
> Then, the "war on terror," replete with claims of WMDs that have not been found and jokes stemming from it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, with a major crime still unsolved, thousands of soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians dead, corporations profiting from wars, and ironically war costs passed on to U.S. citizens, I do not understand why people still believe the U.S. government and its corporate masters.


So what you're saying is that 9-11 was an inside job, part of a vast conspiracy with the major players being the US government and corporations? Seriously? There are jokes about WMD, you say? Because there are jokes about conspiracy theories as well, you know?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I agree with what you said (wow, I'm feeling really weird right now!)


Am I that difficult to agree with?:lol:
Because you have even sent some "likes" my way.

Yes, we have had wicked fights (in the good sense) in the recent past, but I actually respect you as a worthy intellectual opponent.

The fact that we profoundly disagree on the economy, taxation and benefits, and domestic politics doesn't mean we need to disagree as well when it's a matter of defending our homeland.


----------



## George Vreeland Hill

*Bin Laden Killed ... May he rot in hell.*

Osama bin Laden was a coward. 
He was responsible for killing thousands of people and then hid. 
Cowards do that. 
They hide. 
It was a matter of time before they got him. 
The world is a better place with him dead. 
If there is a hell, then bin Laden is there. 
May he rot forever.

George Vreeland Hill


----------



## Vaneyes

ABC News promo...

Watch "KILL SHOT: THE STORY BEHIND BIN LADEN'S DEATH," a special "20/20" Friday at 10 p.m. ET.


----------



## Vaneyes

mmsbls said:


> I hate how much this country spends on the military. I think there are many other MUCH more important ways to spend federal dollars.
> 
> Having said that, the above quote makes me feel like ignoring your posts in the future. You state that the budget for the *illegal* War on Terror is $1.415 trillion.....


Corrected.


----------



## Serge

George Vreeland Hill said:


> Osama bin Laden was a coward.
> He was responsible for killing thousands of people and then hid.
> Cowards do that.
> They hide.
> It was a matter of time before they got him.
> The world is a better place with him dead.
> If there is a hell, then bin Laden is there.
> May he rot forever.
> 
> George Vreeland Hill


Cowards don't fight superpowers. Get a grip. And your whole congregation ought to be ashamed of you for questioning the existence of hell.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Al Qaeda has confirmed his death


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Al Qaeda has confirmed his death


That's just what the media wants you to believe!!!!

:devil:


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Cowards don't fight superpowers. Get a grip. And your whole congregation ought to be ashamed of you for questioning the existence of hell.


Bin Laden didn't fight. He let others do that for him. He sent people to their deaths. And he was responsible for killing thousands of innocents. That is not quite the same as fighting superpowers.


----------



## Vaneyes

The White House baby food is still flowing.

Post double-tap, The Department of Homeland Security rhetoric has begun.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/osama-bin-laden-intelligence-us-rail-threat

Keep vigil. NTAS has replaced the color-coded warning system.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/05/03/bloomberg1376-LKOEE06JIJVB01-5VMUU4RS8EG521TP51D6H7U7Q5.DTL


----------



## emiellucifuge

Vaneyes, either you come and tell us in concrete terms why we should not believe the US government, or stop the vague *****.


----------



## Vaneyes

emiellucifuge said:


> Vaneyes, either you come and tell us in concrete terms why we should not believe the US government, or stop the vague ****.


That sounds threatening. Moderator take note.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Vaneyes, either you come and tell us in concrete terms why we should not believe the US government, or stop the vague ****.


But he enjoys it too much. I learned a little while ago to ignore his postings, because he has already ignored my requests to make some sense of his random postings.

It reminds me a lot of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" as John Nash descends further into his delusions, posting various news clippings to walls and imaging webs of conspiracy connecting them all. It makes for good entertainment, but there is little of substantive value.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> That sounds threatening. Moderator take note.


No it doesn't - a tad bit heated, but he hasn't threatened you. He says expain yourself or stop these postings. How is that threatening?


----------



## Vaneyes

Once again the US Government's "wild west" bravado gets them in human rights hot water. Cause for concern, the similarities of Obama and "W" administrations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384301/Osama-Bin-Laden-death-UN-investigator-judge-US-broke-human-rights-law.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## Serge

DrMike said:


> That's just what the media wants you to believe!!!!
> 
> :devil:


That's a good one... White House too: The Holy Trinity at work!


----------



## emiellucifuge

I didnt mean to threaten you. I just want clarification, and your vague allusive language is getting on my nerves.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Once again the US Government's "wild west" bravado gets them in human rights hot water. Cause for concern, the similarities of Obama and "W" administrations.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384301/Osama-Bin-Laden-death-UN-investigator-judge-US-broke-human-rights-law.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


Wow, the UN "Human Rights" Council took some time off of their busy schedule of hurling criticism at Israel while remaining silent about any other reports of human rights violations to weign in on this? And since when should the norm be to treat terrorists as criminals? Bin Laden declared war against the US in 1998. By his own admission, he was at war with us, so that would make his actions acts of war, rather than criminal acts. Once again, the UN proves itself irrelevant in the world.


----------



## Serge

DrMike said:


> Bin Laden didn't fight. He let others do that for him. He sent people to their deaths. And he was responsible for killing thousands of innocents. That is not quite the same as fighting superpowers.


Oh really? But isn't that what commanders conventionally do when they send their troops to battle? And didn't he use to be a renowned freedom fighter when he was killing your ideological enemies, my compatriots btw, with American weapons and American help? So, when exactly did he go so bad that his fighter status was totally reversed? When he turned around and bit you in the back? But isn't that what mad dogs do? Overall, this is nothing but a modern day Frankenstein story with a new twist. (But I doubt that this is the end of it. Not to mention that already his once master, the mad scientist is no longer doing that well either.) America herself created a monster and ain't even honest enough to admit that much. Which figures. And did your imbecile commander-in-chief consider that tens and tens of thousands of innocent people would die when he unleashed his hell on Iraq under a false pretence? (And not only America elected that caricature of a man to its main office, but it also re-elected him! Oh brother…) I am trying to stay as far from politics as I possibly can, and somehow I knew that there were no MWD there. They were pulling the UN inspection teams (who sniffed every corner there and didn't find anything) in a hurry so that they could strike, for Christ sake. Remember? And are your drone operators all such brave and honorable men striking wrong parties from thousands of miles away? What do they say afterwards: Sorry? Do they even feel sorry? Saying - probably yes, feeling - most likely not, both distinctive American traits, as this is the land of the hypocrites.

Here, 61 percent of American believe the Osama Bin Laden has gone to hell:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/cnn-poll-majority-in-u-s-say-bin-laden-in-hell/

Are these nuts completely off their rockers? Are these the same folks who brought the imbecile to the office and loved their little bush so much? (Well, duh!) Am I really supposed to respect any of their opinions and beliefs? I am afraid this is difficult for me to do now, no matter how hard I might try…


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Oh really? But isn't that what commanders conventionally do when they send their troops to battle? And didn't he use to be a renowned freedom fighter when he was killing your ideological enemies, my compatriots btw, with American weapons and American help? So, when exactly did he go so bad that his fighter status was totally reversed? When he turned around and bit you in the back? But isn't that what mad dogs do? Overall, this is nothing but a modern day Frankenstein story with a new twist. (But I doubt that this is the end of it. Not to mention that already his once master, the mad scientist is no longer doing that well either.) America herself created a monster and ain't even honest enough to admit that much. Which figures. And did your imbecile commander-in-chief consider that tens and tens of thousands of innocent people would die when he unleashed his hell on Iraq under a false pretence? (And not only America elected that caricature of a man to its main office, but it also re-elected him! Oh brother…) I am trying to stay as far from politics as I possibly can, and somehow I knew that there were no MWD there. They were pulling the UN inspection teams (who sniffed every corner there and didn't find anything) in a hurry so that they could strike, for Christ sake. Remember? And are your drone operators all such brave and honorable men striking wrong parties from thousands of miles away? What do they say afterwards: Sorry? Do they even feel sorry? Saying - probably yes, feeling - most likely not, both distinctive American traits, as this is the land of the hypocrites.
> 
> Here, 61 percent of American believe the Osama Bin Laden has gone to hell:
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/cnn-poll-majority-in-u-s-say-bin-laden-in-hell/
> 
> Are these nuts completely off their rockers? Are these the same folks who brought the imbecile to the office and loved their little bush so much? (Well, duh!) Am I really supposed to respect any of their opinions and beliefs? I am afraid this is difficult for me to do now, no matter how hard I might try…


Good Lord, I'm not going to debate the Iraq war in this thread. I have neither the time, nor the patience. Regarding bin Laden and Afghanistan, correct me if I'm wrong, but at that time, he was fighting alongside Afghanis to repulse the Russian military, which had invaded Afghanistan. That seems a little bit different than recruiting young Muslims to go train in the USA on how to fly planes so that they could fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and who knows where else - purposely targeting American civilians, and not American military? Explain to me how that is similar to attacking an invading army, and then we can talk.


----------



## Serge

What else is there to explain? Are you suggesting that he was two different men, one a defiant fighter and the other one not all of that? I Or did it depend on what particular side of the bed he happened to wake up on a given day?


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> That sounds threatening. Moderator take note.


I don't think it is threatening. He is asking you to substantiate your position in concrete terms, he believes that the terms you are using are vague. Isn't it a valid point in a discussion? I will, however, remove the more offensive term.


----------



## Almaviva

Serge said:


> Oh really? But isn't that what commanders conventionally do when they send their troops to battle? And didn't he use to be a renowned freedom fighter when he was killing your ideological enemies, my compatriots btw, with American weapons and American help? So, when exactly did he go so bad that his fighter status was totally reversed? When he turned around and bit you in the back? But isn't that what mad dogs do? Overall, this is nothing but a modern day Frankenstein story with a new twist. (But I doubt that this is the end of it. Not to mention that already his once master, the mad scientist is no longer doing that well either.) America herself created a monster and ain't even honest enough to admit that much. Which figures. And did your imbecile commander-in-chief consider that tens and tens of thousands of innocent people would die when he unleashed his hell on Iraq under a false pretence? (And not only America elected that caricature of a man to its main office, but it also re-elected him! Oh brother…) I am trying to stay as far from politics as I possibly can, and somehow I knew that there were no MWD there. They were pulling the UN inspection teams (who sniffed every corner there and didn't find anything) in a hurry so that they could strike, for Christ sake. Remember? And are your drone operators all such brave and honorable men striking wrong parties from thousands of miles away? What do they say afterwards: Sorry? Do they even feel sorry? Saying - probably yes, feeling - most likely not, both distinctive American traits, as this is the land of the hypocrites.
> 
> Here, 61 percent of American believe the Osama Bin Laden has gone to hell:
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/cnn-poll-majority-in-u-s-say-bin-laden-in-hell/
> 
> Are these nuts completely off their rockers? Are these the same folks who brought the imbecile to the office and loved their little bush so much? (Well, duh!) Am I really supposed to respect any of their opinions and beliefs? I am afraid this is difficult for me to do now, no matter how hard I might try…


Serge, it is possible to have a more nuanced view, and many Americans do. Many of us don't approve of the Iraq war and have never voted for George W. Bush. Many of the same people do approve of military action against bin Laden and his group.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> What else is there to explain? Are you suggesting that he was two different men, one a defiant fighter and the other one not all of that? I Or did it depend on what particular side of the bed he happened to wake up on a given day?


Absolutely we are talking about two different behaviors. Adolf Hitler fought in WWI in the German lines, and nothing in his behavior then distinguished him as the maniacal leader that would later seek out the genocide of European Jews.

Whether bin Laden had the same ideology during the Afghan war is irrelevant. He was not carrying out terrorist activities against the Russian civilians. He joined forces with the Afghans to fight against and repel the invading Russian army that was waging a war that included the razing of villages and destruction of livestock and crops. His actions there were justified. He was openly at war. He was targeting military targets and troops, not civilians. And had the Russians killed him in that conflict in a military action, it would have been justified. Nobody knew at the time that bin Laden would go on to do what he eventually did. How many others fought against the Russians for religious reasons? And how many of them went on to form international terrorist organizations? We also supported native Afghan mujahideen - many of which joined forces with us later in expelling the Taliban. So apparently funding by the US to fight the Russian military does not guarantee future hatred against the US and terrorist activities.

I'm sorry that the Russians got their butts handed to them in Afghanistan, but then the difference is that when bin Laden was trying to kill you, it was in Afghanistan, while you were in the process of invading and occupying the country. When he attacked the U.S., it was with planes flying into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of civilians that were not engaged in invading or occupying countries.

Tell me, in the Moscow theatre hostage crisis in 2002, was there consideration given to bring the terrorist hostage takers in alive when they pumped the gas into the building that killed over 100 of the hostages as well as the terrorists?


----------



## Vaneyes

"Osama Bin Laden Is Dead, But Will the Patriot Act Live On?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-swartz/patriot-act-renewal-_b_858018.html


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> So what you're saying is that 9-11 was an inside job, part of a vast conspiracy with the major players being the US government and corporations? Seriously? There are jokes about WMD, you say? Because there are jokes about conspiracy theories as well, you know?


I didn't say that 9-11 is an inside job, but what you thought I said says a lot, doesn't it?

And your second point doesn't make sense at all, unless you're implying that Dubya is no different from conspiracy theorists.

One should also consider works like Johnson's _Blowback_ and declassified government documents found in NS Archive and other sources.


----------



## Almaviva

*Osama bin-Laden is dead*

This thread had to suffer repairs due to software issues and was temporarily closed; it is now reopen.


----------



## Guest

Ralfy said:


> I didn't say that 9-11 is an inside job, but what you thought I said says a lot, doesn't it?
> 
> And your second point doesn't make sense at all, unless you're implying that Dubya is no different from conspiracy theorists.
> 
> One should also consider works like Johnson's _Blowback_ and declassified government documents found in NS Archive and other sources.


Johnson's hypotheses always seemed too simplistic to me - too much simplistic cause and effect. Because we have a military base here, group X will attack us. Futhermore, I think he mistakes cause with effect. He compares our posting soldiers in military bases around the world with some kind of military empirism. But I disagree with that assessment. Consider other great empires - the British Empire, the Roman Empire. Why did they have military stationed in various areas? Because they had conquered them and were maintaining their colonial possessions. In contrast, where we have bases are places that, rather than having conquered, in most we had helped overthrow some other invading force, or were helping to prevent an invading force. Have we overstayed our welcome in some? I'm willing to entertain that assessment. But to count those as some kind of American empire seems a bit absurd. What claims have we made on Europe, for all the military bases we have there, which served as a protection against further encroachments of the Iron Curtain? And while the South Koreans may now resent our presence there, is there any confusion as to why we are there in the first place? We did have a brief stint as a colonial power in the Phillipines, but we abandoned that post WWII. In fact, to make his claims, Johnson even has to redefine what is meant by "empire" to have the US fit his model.


----------



## Polednice

I haven't caught up with the thread yet, as I've been away, but here's a quote from Gary Younge in the Guardian, which I think is the most eloquent description of how I view the matter - while there are some issues with it, I largely don't have a problem with the American _action_; what I find unsettling is the public _reaction_:

"But to suggest that "justice has been done", as President Obama did on Sunday night, seems perverse. This was not justice, it was an extra-judicial execution. If you shoot a man twice in the head you do not find him guilty. You find him dead. This was revenge. And it was served very cold indeed.

Given the nature of the 9/11 attacks a popular desire for vengeance in the US is a perfectly understandable and legitimate emotional response. It is not, however, a foreign policy. And if vengeance is a comprehensible human emotion then empathy is no less so.

Americans have a right to grieve and remember those who died on 9/11. But they have no monopoly on memory, grief or anger. Hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistanis have been murdered as a result of America's response to 9/11. If it's righteous vengeance they're after, Americans would not be first in line. Fortunately it is not a competition, and there is enough misery to go around.

But those who chant "We killed Bin Laden" cannot display their identification with American power so completely and then expect others to understand it as partial. The American military has done many things in this region. Killing Bin Laden is just one of them.

If "they" killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad then "they" also bombed a large number of wedding parties in Afghanistan, "they" murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and "they" gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah. If "they" don't want to be associated with the atrocities then "they" need to find more to celebrate than an assassination. Vengeance is, in no small part, what got us here. It won't get us out."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I would like to express remembrance on the savage destruction of the 1,500 years old Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan about ten years ago in March 2001 by the Talibans, who are no doubt linked and supported by bin Laden's mob, Al-Qaeda. Both mobs are a bunch of farking savages.

These were magnificant giant statues of Buddha built by early Buddhists and always had a turbulent history when Islam proclaimed the land, and essentially deemed these statues as idolatry worship of a different kind.

Even though I am an atheist, I have respect and appreciation for cultural and indeed artistic aspects of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> I haven't caught up with the thread yet, as I've been away, but here's a quote from Gary Younge in the Guardian, which I think is the most eloquent description of how I view the matter - while there are some issues with it, I largely don't have a problem with the American _action_; what I find unsettling is the public _reaction_:
> 
> "But to suggest that "justice has been done", as President Obama did on Sunday night, seems perverse. This was not justice, it was an extra-judicial execution. If you shoot a man twice in the head you do not find him guilty. You find him dead. This was revenge. And it was served very cold indeed.
> 
> Given the nature of the 9/11 attacks a popular desire for vengeance in the US is a perfectly understandable and legitimate emotional response. It is not, however, a foreign policy. And if vengeance is a comprehensible human emotion then empathy is no less so.
> 
> Americans have a right to grieve and remember those who died on 9/11. But they have no monopoly on memory, grief or anger. Hundreds and thousands of innocent Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistanis have been murdered as a result of America's response to 9/11. If it's righteous vengeance they're after, Americans would not be first in line. Fortunately it is not a competition, and there is enough misery to go around.
> 
> But those who chant "We killed Bin Laden" cannot display their identification with American power so completely and then expect others to understand it as partial. The American military has done many things in this region. Killing Bin Laden is just one of them.
> 
> If "they" killed Bin Laden in Abbottabad then "they" also bombed a large number of wedding parties in Afghanistan, "they" murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha and "they" gang-raped a 14-year-old before murdering her, her six-year-old sister and their parents near Mahmudiyah. If "they" don't want to be associated with the atrocities then "they" need to find more to celebrate than an assassination. Vengeance is, in no small part, what got us here. It won't get us out."


Yep, war is ugly, but we haven't started it (OK, I do make an exception for Iraq in what I'm saying, but you get my point).


----------



## emiellucifuge

No answer?

And Vaneyes wonders why we dont believe him...


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> Yep, war is ugly, but we haven't started it (OK, I do make an exception for Iraq in what I'm saying, but you get my point).


I still haven't had chance to read the rest of this thread, and as I'm only replying to your one-liner please forgive me if I simplify your opinion, as this is a point that is still valid in response to other people: this whole 'bin Laden started it' thing is really _no_ excuse at all for _any_ of the atrocities that our forces have committed. War is indeed ugly, and our opponents should expect no respect or mercy, but through it all we must always strive to rise above the barbaric standards of our enemies and show ourselves to be civilised and, therefore, lawful.


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> I still haven't had chance to read the rest of this thread, and as I'm only replying to your one-liner please forgive me if I simplify your opinion, as this is a point that is still valid in response to other people: this whole 'bin Laden started it' thing is really _no_ excuse at all for _any_ of the atrocities that our forces have committed. War is indeed ugly, and our opponents should expect no respect or mercy, but through it all we must always strive to rise above the barbaric standards of our enemies and show ourselves to be civilised and, therefore, lawful.


While I agree with you generally speaking, I don't agree at all with any need to get bin Laden in a "lawful" way. Lawful arrest, Miranda rights, trial by jury are devices to be used in the context of regular crime, NOT in any way shape or form in a war operation. How many of our soldiers in WWI, WWII, Afghanistan (IEDs, someone?) were blown to pieces by enemy combatants with no questions asked, even if they were trying to surrender? Do you think that every combat operation in war goes like this - "uh, please excuse me if you would be so kind to hear me out Sir, but I'm a soldier from the side of your enemies and I have you in the line of sight of my weapon, I may very well shoot you, but please answer me first, would you by any chance care to surrender instead? No? You sure? Oh well, then, sorry Sir, I hope you don't mind but I'll have to kill you." Or else: "uh, please excuse me... etc.,... you are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent.... etc., etc." No buddy, I've never been a soldier myself, but I've talked to many, and I firmly believe that most soldiers shoot first and ask questions later, in the fraction of seconds that may make the difference between prevailing over the enemy or having the enemy kill you.

So, this whole - pardon my words, they are not directed specifically at you - hysteria about whether bin Laden's killing was lawful or not is, in my opinion, utterly and completely misguided. It's been lavishly demonstrated that his compound was a command and control center, that he remained in much tighter control of at least one branch of Al Qaeda than previously suspected, and that the was engaged in planning further attacks on the USA. The commander of an enemy force was killed in a war operation, and while maybe - *maybe* - the Navy Seals might have had an opportunity to get him to surrender, it's hard to second guess these men in such dire circumstances, inside tight quarters in a hostile environment. What if they had left the compound with an alive bin Laden and his minions had engaged them in a counter-attack resulting in bin Laden escaping again? Do you think they should have taken their eyes off the ball like Bush and Rumsfeld did in Tora Bora? No, the mission was to get bin Laden dead or alive; they got him dead; fine with me, and I thank them for their service, their courage, and expertise.

You said you haven't read the whole thread and you were replying to my one-liner. Fine, I have no problem with that whatsoever (by the way, I have no problem with anybody else here, we've just been expressing our opinions on a controversial and heated topic which is just fine as long as we respect each other while doing so). But what I've been saying in other posts that you may have not read, is that if this operation was in any way contrary to International law, then International law needs to be updated to adapt to the new times. War used to be between regular armies of regular states. This modern war on terror is stateless, spread-out, non geographical, therefore older concepts need to be revised. Was the operation carried out inside the territory of a sovereign state? Yes, sure, but you wouldn't expect bin Laden to be hiding in the United States, would you? Therefore, anywhere else on Earth except for the high seas and outer space - not even in Antarctica - he'd be anyway inside the territory of some sovereign state. We had to go get him wherever he was. International law from now on should adapt to the fact that actions in the context of stateless wars ought to be lawful regardless of the states that happen to involuntarily or voluntarily be the theater of operations. This is a global war. Bin Laden was an illegal alien in Pakistan. We located him there. There was strong evidence that at least some elements in the Pakistani nation might tip him off if we warned Pakistan of the approaching operation. So we went in under cloak and got the job done, without harming any Pakistanis except for the two brothers who were protecting the enemy commander (one of whom opened fired on our soldiers). We killed a Saudi enemy commander, his Saudi son (who also fought back) and one of his Saudi wives, and wounded another one who is from Yemen (it's unfortunate that the wives got wounded and killed, but again, with bullets flying all over the place in a small closed space, it happens). (I'm stressing nationality not in the sense of any ethnic prejudice, but to underline the fact that these were illegal aliens in Pakistan, and our war is not against the state of Pakistan - it just happened that the theater of operations was inside Pakistan thanks to bin Laden's choice, not ours).

In my opinion this operation was exactly what it needed to be and was executed perfectly. I am very grateful to our commander-in-chief who ordered the operation (unlike two of his predecessors who hesitated too much and let bin Laden escape), and to our field commanders and soldiers who carried it out.

Like others here have said, it actually took us years to be this decisive. We're not as gung-ho as the stereotypical view of Americans would make you believe (with the exception of the Iraq war which I don't endorse - it took us a while to engage in both World Wars, etc). Clinton failed to get bin Laden in Al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan before 9-11 thanks to considerations about not upsetting sovereign Afghanistan (then ruled by the Taliban, mind you). Bush and Rumsfeld sent only 2,000 American soldiers to Tora Bora trying to wage war on the cheap, and relied on 20,000 notoriously iffy local soldiers to get bin Laden, instead of using our boys and their expertise - result, bin Laden got away. Well, Obama didn't beat around the bush (pun intended) and got the job done. Hail to the Chief, well done, Mr. President!

Now, regarding the war in Iraq, Abu-Graib, attacks on civilians, rape, etc., you're right, it is all completely and utterly disgraceful. But like I said, in war - I hesitate to use foul language, I'll use a substitute word but you'll know what I mean - excrement happens. I don't endorse much of what happened in the previous administration (beginning with the entire war in Iraq to start with) but I'm quite sure that no Commander-in-Chief, not even Bush and his minions (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) would approve of a bunch of US soldiers raping a girl and killing her. Sometimes the people who enlist in the Army are not the nicest people around. Sometimes they are, though, and are quite the heros (I was listening on the radio today about this soldier - I just caught his first name, Henry - who was killed in combat by spontaneously jumping on top of an enemy grenade that was about to explode thus saving the lives of several of his fellow soldiers. The president was delivering to his family a medal of honor. I'm quite sure that Henry would not have raped a girl during war). So yes, all misconduct during war is despicable, be it ordered by the higher-ups, or committed by soldiers on the field. But nobody can expect that war will ever be waged in an entirely clean manner. Atrocities have always happened during wars, and no army on this planet has ever behaved impeccably during war.

Look for instance at the war in former Yugoslavia. Westerners got used to believing that the Serbs were the ones committing atrocities and ethnic cleansing, and the Croatians were the victims. The Serbs sure did commit many atrocities, including widespread rape of Croatian women. But then one of these days two Croatian generals out of three (one was acquitted) were convicted of war crimes by the International Court, and it became clear that their soldiers had also killed unarmed Serb civilians in cold blood (including children) and had raped Serb women.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Do I approve of any of these war atrocities? Not at all. But do I have any qualms about the lawfulness of bin Laden's killing? Not at all. This is my opinion. I hope it helps, in terms of clarifying it.


----------



## Guest

You'll forgive (or not) my abbrasive nature in this post, but then when am I not. Understand that I am not attacking anybody in particular, so while I understand that you might dislike my opinions, know that I am attacking ideas, not the individuals who state them. 

I don't understand the moral preening that goes on about abuses, real or exaggerated, that have occurred in the various military endeavors related to the ongoing "War on Terror." As has been stated already, when have abuses not occurred in war? How many surrendering Germans were "accidentally" shot after surrendering during WWII? How many civilians were fire-bombed? Does that excuse such actions? No, in terms of our overall humanity. We should never be comfortable with the unfortunate death of others. But the very act of war by nature deadens the moral sensibilities of people. There is a dehumanizing aspect of it all - I don't think that it is a natural thing for a normal person to aim a gun at another and fire. Extremes can push us to do those things when necessary.

There is no such thing as a clean war. We have come a long way from our past. We no longer summarily execute the vanquished. We don't, as a rule, rape, pillage, and plunder. Soldiers are increasingly involved in endeavors where they are referred to as "peacekeepers." And while the U.S. military has no doubt been guilty of some stomach-turning activities in its history, when you consider the size of the military, the number of military operations it has been involved in, and compare all that to the claims of abuse, I would ask you whether we are even talking about rates that approach what occurs in the general population. Yes, they should be held to a higher standard. But let us not hold them to a higher standard than humanity in general, and unfairly balance such abuses against the vast majority of instances where they acquit themselves quite heroically.

I am reminded of the story of the Mahdi who ran amock in the Sudan in the late 19th century - the last time a Muslim extremist garnered quite as much attention as bin Laden has. The British fought him, but I believe it was natural (or at least not military) causes that brought him down. Not content with that, it was said that Lord Kitchener dug up the Mahdi's body and had it destroyed and scattered, but keeping the head for himself - as the story goes, he kept the skull as a paperweight. Quite a nasty story. Did it diminish the standing of the British? I doubt it.

The sad fact is that an enemy that will hide amongst the population, sometimes with the population acting as willing accomplices, is going to draw innocents into their battles, and innocents will be killed. I find this more of an indictment on the enemy than the armies trying to stop them.


----------



## Polednice

Alma, I actually think we largely agree on the issue - when I mentioned the word 'lawful', I didn't mean it in reference to bin Laden's death (I don't have a problem with the way in which he was killed), but rather to the other "despicable" actions committed by Western forces in this 'war', which we both clearly condemn.

DrMike, as for 'moral preening', I hope you don't think that people condemn the atrocities of war in order to set themselves as superior people. Bad things happen, that's for sure - and especially in war - but just because bad things happen, that doesn't mean we should be complacent and ignore them; rather we should condemn them in no unclear terms and seek justice. Of course _everybody_ knows that certain crimes committed by our soldiers are unquestionably vile, but we can't just brush it under the carpet of 'collateral damage'. My main problem here is with people who relish in the thought of the bullet going through bin Laden's head, and yet care _not one bit_ for all the misery we have caused too.


----------



## Almaviva

@ Polednice - good that we agree, but see, I was reacting to this quote that you chose to post - it contained *both* some statements about bin Laden as if his search-and-neutralize (dead or alive) operation was supposed to be a judicial matter of guilt/no guilt and a fair trial, *and* words about atrocities commited by our soldiers. I issued the one liner, you further replied to my one liner, then I fully explained my position.

See, look at what you chose to quote - I know you didn't say it yourself, but quote choices are significant in a debate:

""But to suggest that "justice has been done", as President Obama did on Sunday night, seems perverse. *This was not justice*, it was an* extra-judicial execution*. If you shoot a man twice in the head *you do not find him guilty*. You find him dead. This was revenge. And it was served very cold indeed."

I believe that this opinion is utterly, profoundly, completely, unbelievably misguided.

I repeat, there is no need to think of the judicial system and guilt or no guilt. There is no need to talk about execution. It was a war operation, for Pete's sake, and we killed the commander of an enemy force! Like I said, the judicial system has *zero* to say about this. It's a war operation carried out by our armed forces.

Look at what President Obama said today to NBC 60 minutes:

That he didn't lose any sleep over the possibility that bin Laden might be killed in the raid. And he added: "Anyone who questions whether the terrorist mastermind didn't deserve his fate needs to have their head examined."

Well said, Mr. President. This means that Mr. Gary Younge from The Guardian needs to have his head examined.

See, Polednice, you say you don't agree with this, but then, why did you quote it so prominently, without any comments to put in doubt what Mr. Younge was saying?

And about revenge - well, there is certainly an element of this; after all, we are all human, and he did kill thousands of our innocent citizens. But the motivation for military action is much deeper than that, and to call it cold-served revenge is another misguided simplification. First, it is important to establish that if someone attacks us, we won't forget and forgive, we won't desist, we will go after them until we get them, if we can (and if we can't, we'll keep trying). This has an important aspect of deterrence. Second, he was actively plotting to attack us again. I have *no doubt* that by eliminating him (and getting all the hard drives, CDs, etc, found in his compound), we have saved many lives of innocent citizens of our country and of other countries, by getting the means to prevent further attacks. Third, our extremely gifted military commanders and intelligence officers will always have a strategy of disabling the enemy by destroying command-and-control centers and trying to cut off the planning heads.

Rest assured that if the enemy had an opportunity to kill President Obama or General Petraeus, they'd do it in the blink of an eye, and wouldn't stop to consider eventual surrender or to make sure that they were using criminal justice-kind of "lawful" procedures.

About the other points - atrocities - we've talked as well, and sure, nobody is advocating for not investigating and responding to atrocities if our soldiers commit them. Actually many of our soldiers have been convicted of war atrocities in court martials and are serving prison sentences.

I still believe that like Dr. Mike said, our armed forces behave much better than most (see my example of the war in Yugoslavia). But it is certainly not made of 100% of angels, and no army in no war has ever behaved with 100% ethical standards.

But of course, given our prominence in world affairs (which generates jealousy and hatred), any time one of ours strays, people will cry out loud and try to depict us as monsters, when in fact, the episodes of bad behavior have been relatively rare given the size of our military and the number of our engagements. But saints? No, we aren't.

This said, I'm not saying *any* of this as an attack on your person, but rather, on the ideas that you have quoted in your post (I said the ideas were misguided, not you, and I focused on the person who issued the statements that you have quoted). You, personally, I actually quite like, and I apologize if anything I said may have seemed to you like an attack on you, something I'd never do, sincerely.

@Dr. Mike - you said "You'll forgive (*or not*) my *abbrasive* nature in this post." To whom were you addressing these words? Polednice? Me? You may have just used the generic "you." But in any case, if I'm one of the addressees, I'd like to tell you that I didn't see anything abbrasive in your post. This is a heated topic, and I think that your post is entirely appropriate (and you know that I wouldn't say it, if I didn't sincerely thought so). We happen to agree on most of what we've been saying regarding the topic of this thread, but I'm not saying it because we agree, I'd be saying it as well if we disagreed.


----------



## KJohnson

The best way to have an objective perspective on this assassination is to read the reports in the foreign papers. Fortunately, a lot of them are online and have English-language pages. It's really refreshing - the ultimate mind-exercise. Things look different depending on the side of the river you're looking from.


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> The best way to have an objective perspective on this assassination is to read the reports in the foreign papers. Fortunately, a lot of them are online and have English-language pages. It's really refreshing - the ultimate mind-exercise. Things look different depending on the side of the river you're looking from.


Right - because the rest of the world has such an objective and unbiased opinion of the U.S. Yes, why don't we poll Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, or Syria. Or maybe we could poll Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark. What does any of it matter? If they like to be cowed by terrorists and retreat when attacked (as, for example, Spain did after the train bombing), then that is up to them to decide. I much prefer our method - make any person who dares strike at us with terrorism fear for their very life everywhere they turn. Make them fear two bullets fired with deadly accuracy at their heads.

@Polednice - I think you mistake the joy that is coming out of all this. Are people really so thrilled about the gory nature of bin Laden's death? No. I suspect they are thrilled that a man that was such a threat to the safety of American citizens has been permanently eliminated as a threat. There is a certain exhilaration at that thought. Do we view the death of the wicked witch of the West and the celebration of her minions (Ding Dong the Witch is Dead) in the Wizard of Oz as a shocking scene? I know it is fiction. But there is an excitement that comes from knowing that one who has been the cause of so much suffering has been stopped with the utmost finality.

And I'm sorry, but war goes hand in hand with misery. Show me a happy war.


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> Johnson's hypotheses always seemed too simplistic to me - too much simplistic cause and effect. Because we have a military base here, group X will attack us. Futhermore, I think he mistakes cause with effect. He compares our posting soldiers in military bases around the world with some kind of military empirism. But I disagree with that assessment. Consider other great empires - the British Empire, the Roman Empire. Why did they have military stationed in various areas? Because they had conquered them and were maintaining their colonial possessions. In contrast, where we have bases are places that, rather than having conquered, in most we had helped overthrow some other invading force, or were helping to prevent an invading force. Have we overstayed our welcome in some? I'm willing to entertain that assessment. But to count those as some kind of American empire seems a bit absurd. What claims have we made on Europe, for all the military bases we have there, which served as a protection against further encroachments of the Iron Curtain? And while the South Koreans may now resent our presence there, is there any confusion as to why we are there in the first place? We did have a brief stint as a colonial power in the Phillipines, but we abandoned that post WWII. In fact, to make his claims, Johnson even has to redefine what is meant by "empire" to have the US fit his model.


Hypotheses? You've to do a bit of catching up on that. And the need to give a definition of "empire" is irrelevant. Over-reach for the U.S. is painfully clear, as now seen in its debt-ridden economy. It's now just a matter of time, except for the sheeple who will constantly bleat in unison, insisting that government and big business will take care of them.


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> You'll forgive (or not) my abbrasive nature in this post, but then when am I not. Understand that I am not attacking anybody in particular, so while I understand that you might dislike my opinions, know that I am attacking ideas, not the individuals who state them.
> 
> I don't understand the moral preening that goes on about abuses, real or exaggerated, that have occurred in the various military endeavors related to the ongoing "War on Terror." As has been stated already, when have abuses not occurred in war? How many surrendering Germans were "accidentally" shot after surrendering during WWII? How many civilians were fire-bombed? Does that excuse such actions? No, in terms of our overall humanity. We should never be comfortable with the unfortunate death of others. But the very act of war by nature deadens the moral sensibilities of people. There is a dehumanizing aspect of it all - I don't think that it is a natural thing for a normal person to aim a gun at another and fire. Extremes can push us to do those things when necessary.
> 
> There is no such thing as a clean war. We have come a long way from our past. We no longer summarily execute the vanquished. We don't, as a rule, rape, pillage, and plunder. Soldiers are increasingly involved in endeavors where they are referred to as "peacekeepers." And while the U.S. military has no doubt been guilty of some stomach-turning activities in its history, when you consider the size of the military, the number of military operations it has been involved in, and compare all that to the claims of abuse, I would ask you whether we are even talking about rates that approach what occurs in the general population. Yes, they should be held to a higher standard. But let us not hold them to a higher standard than humanity in general, and unfairly balance such abuses against the vast majority of instances where they acquit themselves quite heroically.
> 
> I am reminded of the story of the Mahdi who ran amock in the Sudan in the late 19th century - the last time a Muslim extremist garnered quite as much attention as bin Laden has. The British fought him, but I believe it was natural (or at least not military) causes that brought him down. Not content with that, it was said that Lord Kitchener dug up the Mahdi's body and had it destroyed and scattered, but keeping the head for himself - as the story goes, he kept the skull as a paperweight. Quite a nasty story. Did it diminish the standing of the British? I doubt it.
> 
> The sad fact is that an enemy that will hide amongst the population, sometimes with the population acting as willing accomplices, is going to draw innocents into their battles, and innocents will be killed. I find this more of an indictment on the enemy than the armies trying to stop them.


Your arguments contradict each other. Your messages imply that this is "war" and that there should be no "moral preening," and yet the end of your message contains precisely such "moral preening."


----------



## Guest

Ralfy said:


> Your arguments contradict each other. Your messages imply that this is "war" and that there should be no "moral preening," and yet the end of your message contains precisely such "moral preening."


No, I never said that we should completely ignore any possible abuses that may attend war. Far from it. But if they remain the rare exception to an otherwise "humane" war (whatever that means), then there is no need to paint the entire operation as some violation of our morals due to the sins of a few. Treat abuses for what they are, punish any wrongdoing if necessary, but so long as they remain exceptions, we shouldn't tout them as reasons to condemn the entire operation. It is not the intention of the U.S. military to needlessly target unarmed civilians. Unfortunately, our enemy now shuns any formal military attire and hides himself among the normal populace, using them as human shields when he does seek armed engagement. The result is that, sadly, in this type of conflict perhaps a higher proportion of noncombatants will be killed. It is for that reason that I applaud the sending in of a Special forces group to get bin Laden - a bomb may have killed others uninvolved, whereas this attack could very easily be limited to the compound itself.


----------



## Guest

Ralfy said:


> Hypotheses? You've to do a bit of catching up on that. And the need to give a definition of "empire" is irrelevant. Over-reach for the U.S. is painfully clear, as now seen in its debt-ridden economy. It's now just a matter of time, except for the sheeple who will constantly bleat in unison, insisting that government and big business will take care of them.


Have you read Johnson, because I tried to give a detailed explanation of my rejection of his ideas, while you seemed to just brush off my concerns. Yes, they are hypotheses. Could you please show me where his ideas have been proven? He has given his view of the situation, from an (acknowledged by him) Asian bias, as that is his area of expertise. And what do the economic issues you raised have to do with his contention that America with its military bases strewn across the globe represent an American empire? Any as to our debt problems, there are multiple factors at play there, including the rising cost of entitlement programs. So how does that enter into this particular discussion? If anything, there is now a growing tide of people who are no longer content with an overreach of government. I think that argument doesn't fly here in this context. I think even the most strident laissez faire pre-WWII isolationist Republican president would have acted to take out bin Laden in a similar situation.


----------



## Vaneyes

KJohnson said:


> The best way to have an objective perspective on this assassination is to read the reports in the foreign papers. Fortunately, a lot of them are online and have English-language pages. It's really refreshing - the ultimate mind-exercise. Things look different depending on the side of the river you're looking from.


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> Right - because the rest of the world has such an objective and unbiased opinion of the U.S. Yes, why don't we poll Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea, or Venezuela, or Syria. Or maybe we could poll Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark. What does any of it matter? If they like to be cowed by terrorists and retreat when attacked (as, for example, Spain did after the train bombing), then that is up to them to decide. I much prefer our method - make any person who dares strike at us with terrorism fear for their very life everywhere they turn. Make them fear two bullets fired with deadly accuracy at their heads.


You must really stop and think about what you're saying here. Just imagine a Russian saying that 20 years ago... "Why would I bother reading anything other than Pravda and other papers of my country? Are the U.S. and Europe going to have an objective and unbiased opinion of the USSR?" Think abut how you'd feel when you heard someone say that.

There's no doubt that both you and I want nothing more than the welfare and security of the country we were born and raised in. Others have their countries. They don't like to see them invaded.


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> If they like to be cowed by terrorists and retreat when attacked (*as, for example, Spain did after the train bombing*), then that is up to them to decide. I much prefer our method - make any person who dares strike at us with terrorism fear for their very life everywhere they turn.


You don't just say this sort of thing without having to account for the consequences... which would mean nothing but destruction for the whole world (our country included). That much good for your patriotism.

Suppose some Chilean organized an attack on a building in a U.S. city, as a revenge for what the U.S. has done to his country (from which they still haven't recovered.) This would certainly be a wicked and immoral act, regardless how just his grievances are. But would you agree that we should then invade Chile as a response?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Huilunsoittaja said:


> This thread had to suffer repairs due to software issues.
> What follows was originally posted by Vaneyes, and it was inserted under Huilunsoittaja's post to maintain continuity:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Story developing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Huilunsoittaja's response:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank God.


Who the heck made it that THIS was my post? All I said was 2 words!  LOL as if I started this whole discussion! Ok whatever.


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> You must really stop and think about what you're saying here. Just imagine a Russian saying that 20 years ago... "Why would I bother reading anything other than Pravda and other papers of my country? Are the U.S. and Europe going to have an objective and unbiased opinion of the USSR?" Think abut how you'd feel when you heard someone say that.
> 
> There's no doubt that both you and I want nothing more than the welfare and security of the country we were born and raised in. Others have their countries. They don't like to see them invaded.


That is what I would expect a Russian to do. I don't have to agree with their opinion, but to expect that they should care what my opinion is is being very arrogant. And so long as their opinion doesn't have negative ramifications for me, then they are welcome to it.

The role of any government is to see to its own country, regardless of the opinions of others. When we start caring too much about what others think of us, we run into the problem that so many other countries out there are biased against us? Should we care about what the UN Human Rights Council thinks of us? A panel that has some of the worst human rights abusers on it? Should we care what Middle East dictators think of us? Or a madman in North Korea? Or should we only care what Western European countries think of us? Where is the line? Or should we weigh the opinions of all countries equally?

The fact of the matter is that every single country on this planet probably has some other country or group that has a grievance against it. At some point, though, those people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop looking around for who to blame. Its really popular right now to go around and ascribe for so much of the world's problems to US intervention around the globe. Except at the time US aid was greatly sought out. We are a big safe target for all, because they know they can impugn us and not worry about any significant consequences - hell, we'd probably still send them aid if they wanted to, while they still spew bile against us. Everybody likes to spout off about how evil we are, while still enjoying the benefits of our economy and our protection. So that is why I don't care too much about what other countries think, especially when it comes to defending our country.


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> You don't just say this sort of thing without having to account for the consequences... which would mean nothing but destruction for the whole world (our country included). That much good for your patriotism.
> 
> Suppose some Chilean organized an attack on a building in a U.S. city, as a revenge for what the U.S. has done to his country (from which they still haven't recovered.) This would certainly be a wicked and immoral act, regardless how just his grievances are. But would you agree that we should then invade Chile as a response?


The sad fact is that there are far too many countries willing to go along to get along. They buy into this idea that if they appease the terrorists, they will get what they want. The terrorists wanted Spain out of the Middle East operations. So they bombed a train. And what happened? A new government was ushered in who promptly removed all troops. Voila - terrorists got what they want, and its not like they have any kind of honor that says they will keep good on their side of the bargain.

The US acts where other countries dither and hmm and haw, and convene panels to discuss, and eventually pass some non-binding resolution that has no power. How much international outrage has been raised about Iran's nuclear program? And how much has it accomplished? Or North Korea? What good did international concern do for Rwanda? What good does it now do for Darfur? Or Tibet? Who ultimately helped his country, and the world, more in the face of the threat of Nazi Germany - Chamberlain or Churchill?

If your hypothetical Chilean were to do what you postulate, then I suppose what we have done - we will first seek the Chilean governments help in apprehending the individual, and if they agree, we will not simply invade them. Remember that we first gave the Taliban the opportunity to surrender up the members of al Qaeda operating in their country. They declined, and that is when we invaded.


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> That is what I would expect a Russian to do. I don't have to agree with their opinion, but to expect that they should care what my opinion is is being very arrogant. And so long as their opinion doesn't have negative ramifications for me, then they are welcome to it.


Yes, but you do understand how useful it would have been for a Russian to read some material from the international press as well, don't you?



DrMike said:


> Should we care about what the UN Human Rights Council thinks of us? A panel that has *some of the worst human rights abusers* on it? Should we care what Middle East *dictators* think of us? Or *a madman* in North Korea? Or should we only care what Western European countries think of us? Where is the line? Or should we weigh the opinions of all countries equally?


Do you see what's wrong with your rhetoric? You don't have to care what the dictators, a madman, and human rights abusers think. But you should take into account what the *people* of these countries think, especially if they are directly affected by the policies of our government. If you don't want terrorism to hit our country, support policies that actually help reduce terrorism... Invasion never achieves that goal.

Your contempt for the UN Human Rights Council is difficult to understand. Your tone is exactly that of official Iran. It couldn't care less for the Human Rights Council... What a world we can leave behind with that sort of attitude!


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> The terrorists wanted Spain out of the Middle East operations.


What an irrational, unrealistic demand!



DrMike said:


> How much international outrage has been raised about Iran's nuclear program?


Certainly much more than about Israel's and India's...


----------



## Almaviva

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *Who the heck made it that THIS was my post?* All I said was 2 words!  LOL as if I started this whole discussion! Ok whatever.


Nobody made it so. You don't seem to have read this, have you? "This thread had to suffer repairs due to software issues.
*What follows was originally posted by Vaneyes*, and it was inserted under Huilunsoittaja's post to maintain continuity." Like I said, we ran into a software glitch that damaged the thread's line-up and the only possible corrective action was to insert the first post into the second post to repair the thread. Since it was fully and clearly explained, why would you have a problem with that???

Anyway, to make it even clearer, I did add a line to the first post explaining that you weren't the starter of this discussion. I hope this addition solves the issue for you.


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> What an irrational, unrealistic demand!
> 
> Certainly much more than about Israel's and India's...


Israel and India have not vowed to wipe any countries off the map. Can the same be said for Iran?


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> Yes, but you do understand how useful it would have been for a Russian to read some material from the international press as well, don't you?
> 
> Do you see what's wrong with your rhetoric? You don't have to care what the dictators, a madman, and human rights abusers think. But you should take into account what the *people* of these countries think, especially if they are directly affected by the policies of our government. If you don't want terrorism to hit our country, support policies that actually help reduce terrorism... Invasion never achieves that goal.
> 
> Your contempt for the UN Human Rights Council is difficult to understand. Your tone is exactly that of official Iran. It couldn't care less for the Human Rights Council... What a world we can leave behind with that sort of attitude!


How many successful terrorist attacks has al Qaeda launched against our country since we invaded Afghanistan? I think there are some real world data that would challenge your assertion.

As to the Human Rights Council, even the UN Secretary General has criticized them for their skewed bias against Israel. Consider these CURRENT members: China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba. Until recently, Libya was a member. Burkina Faso has been charged with state-sponsored violence against journalists and opposition groups. Cameroon is charged by human rights groups with arresting opposition leaders and journalists. Mauritania has been accused of torturing political opposition leaders and criminals, and female genital mutilation, along with human trafficking, are still prevalent in the country. Nigeria has too many human rights problems to even list here. Uganda is currently considering a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. So no, I don't generally give much credence to the opinions of the UN Human Rights Council.


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> Israel and India have not vowed to wipe any countries off the map. Can the same be said for Iran?


Iran has one of the world most disgusting theocratic regime. That's a fact I have no issue with, and I support doing everything within reason to prevent that dictatorship from acquiring nuclear weapons. The international outrage against the Iranian regime is justified.

That said, tell me of one occasion when one of our leaders has expressed even a half-hearted outrage against Israel having nuclear weapons. The subject of Israel's nuclear weapons is taboo in our media.


----------



## KJohnson

DrMike said:


> How many successful terrorist attacks has al Qaeda launched against our country since we invaded Afghanistan? I think there are some real world data that would challenge your assertion.


What assertion?



DrMike said:


> As to the Human Rights Council, even the UN Secretary General has criticized them for their skewed bias against Israel. Consider these CURRENT members: China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba. Until recently, Libya was a member. Burkina Faso has been charged with state-sponsored violence against journalists and opposition groups. Cameroon is charged by human rights groups with arresting opposition leaders and journalists. Mauritania has been accused of torturing political opposition leaders and criminals, and female genital mutilation, along with human trafficking, are still prevalent in the country. Nigeria has too many human rights problems to even list here. Uganda is currently considering a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. So no, I don't generally give much credence to the opinions of the UN Human Rights Council.


I don't know why you're listing the violations in these countries... Your point is taken. They have occurred and are accruing as we speak.

Each case of violation brought by them (even if they themselves have committed similar violations) should be taken on individual bases and accounted for.

Your logic here shouldn't allow a jailed rapist, for example, complain about himself being currently raped in jail because he has done it to others before.


----------



## Guest

Great article by Chris Hitchens over at Slate regarding some of the arguments in the wake of the killing of bin Laden from the left (he calls out many on the left, but the article targets, in particular, Noam Chomsky). I'm not a huge Hitchens fan when it comes to religion, or even social issues, but he and I generally see eye to eye on the war on terror.

http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/pagenum/all/


----------



## Guest

KJohnson said:


> What assertion?


This assertion: "If you don't want terrorism to hit our country, support policies that actually help reduce terrorism... Invasion never achieves that goal."



> I don't know why you're listing the violations in these countries... Your point is taken. They have occurred and are accruing as we speak.
> 
> Each case of violation brought by them (even if they themselves have committed similar violations) should be taken on individual bases and accounted for.
> 
> Your logic here shouldn't allow a jailed rapist, for example, complain about himself being currently raped in jail because he has done it to others before.


Your comparison is a faulty one. Yes, any reported violation should be considered. But this isn't some country coming forward with an allegation. These countries have been selected to evaluate the abuses of other countries. Would you put convicted rapists on a special panel to evaluate violence against women? Would you give Bernie Madoff a seat on the SEC? By your logic, such people would be exceptional choices, given their intimate knowledge of the subject matter. Why not have Slobodan Milosevic chair a panel investigating war crimes? Maybe back in the '60s we could have had Sheriff Bull Conners head up a task force to investigate civil rights violations. Shall I go on? Yes, if any of those individuals would have information of a violation in their particular field, then they should be allowed to report it. But put them in charge of an organization tasked with investigating such violations? Absurd.


----------



## KJohnson

Let me just give my final thought on this. 

There are lots of important debates that we could have discussing the importance of fighting Islamic fundamentalism (or any fundamentalism for that matter) and America's place in that fight. But what is beyond reasonable doubt is the idea that we, as the people of the world's most powerful superpower, will be wise to support the kind of foreign policy that is likely to reduce extreme fundamentalism and terrorism. 

Human sensibility for religion is closely linked to patriotism. By invading countries and supporting brutal dictators our government has increased all sorts of hatred and hostility towards us in a series of primitive cultures, where eventually some mob will find his way to a WMD.

My concern is the same as samurai's and DrMike's... I want to live in a peaceful world, just as they are. Where we disagree is how best we can achieve peace.


----------



## Almaviva

This thread was temporarily closed for "repairs." (These metaphorical repairs are not of the same nature of and are unrelated to the real repairs that coincidentally this thread had required before, due to a software glitch). 

The reason for the current "repairs" is that a part of the thread contained posts that were flirting with personal attacks (although nothing explicit and direct had actually happened) and they were removed, in the spirit of fostering global peace and for the betterment of humankind.

Just kidding. Let's say that they were removed to prevent the thread from derailing into clear violations of our terms of service.

Now I invite the discussion to resume if members are still interested - if not, then the thread will just die out on its own for lack of new posts.

If the discussion does continue, I hope members will be able to keep a civil tone and debate the ideas rather than the person issuing the ideas. If members feel a need to engage others in a more personal way, I encourage them to use PMs since other members may be uninterested in witnessing these kinds of exchanges. Please do remember that while PMs are not accessible to moderators unless they are copied or forwarded to us, terms of services do apply to PMs. 

Another good option when people don't see eye to eye and feel tempted to slide into personal attacks is to use the Ignore function instead.

The thread is now open.


----------



## Couchie

Almaviva said:


> This thread was temporarily closed for "repairs." (These metaphorical repairs are not of the same nature of and are unrelated to the real repairs that coincidentally this thread had required before, due to a software glitch).
> 
> The reason for the current "repairs" is that a part of the thread contained posts that were flirting with personal attacks (although nothing explicit and direct had actually happened) and they were removed, in the spirit of fostering global peace and for the betterment of humankind.


I blame Christopher Hitchens, who dares to be an atheistic liberal who supports Bush's war. Unlike his contemporaries Richard Dawkins and Ann Coulter who focus on pissing off just half the population, respectively the conservatives and the liberals, Hitchens asks why not **** off everybody, and his callous books and articles doing so have brought him fame and fortune while promoting recklessly intensified debates all over the internet.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Photos of brains hanging out...."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/11/congress.bin.laden.photos/index.html?hpt=T2


----------

