Well, it's now 24 hours since the Big News, and all the usual suspects have chimed in. Everything from "We finally won the war!" to "Shut up, this doesn't mean anything" has been heard round the world, a few times over. The speed of news like this is only surpassed by the saturation levels achieved by all the meaningless commentary after the fact. So in the spirit of "one good turn deserves another," here's more on the subject.
As the educated, mature, and rational among us are quick to point out that Osama bin Laden's death amounts to no more than a "symbolic" victory; that now, ten years after the attacks of 9/11, bin Laden was no more than a figurehead -- a functionally irrelevant person more important to America's ideas about terrorism, than to the operations of the various terrorist networks floating around like pond scum. They are right, of course. There are only a few things Osama still meant to anyone, and most of them were definitions given to him by us. There is some talk of his unique position as a fundraiser for Al Qaeda, but that's tenuous and it's about the best you're going to find in the way of "killing Osama makes a real difference."
But, lest these over-thinking blowhards carry the day (and all your jubilation away with it), let me remind you of a few things.
First of all, "symbolic victory" is more important than you might think. America is sliding fast down a greased slope toward a pit of historical anonymity. You can feel it in your bones, if you just admit it. The Empire's days are numbered. And while that's to be expected, and in many ways it may be deserved, it's also sad. And, if you admit it, you know that, too. News like this is rare these days, and you shouldn't let some asshole with a Ph.D. take it away from you, just because he or she knows more than you do. Bullshit. You know what I know?
I know that this...
(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/28xx/281x/2810_inside911_zero_hour-1_05320299.jpg)
was as evil an act as has ever been perpetrated against innocent people. And you can climb on the Post-American bandwagon all you want and talk about how America deserved it -- and maybe you're right, maybe we as a collective summoned this -- but it doesn't change the fact that these people didn't deserve it. It's only from the precipice of some imaginary moral high ground where it's nothing but hindsight in all directions, that one could say nearly 3,000 people lost their lives in an instant to an angry shift of fate they brought on themselves. But not from where I stand, where every last one of us dogs is as guilty as the rest.
I'm not a Republican shill, and I'm not a Democrat shill. I only wish there was a political party where I might fit in. I don't always Support the Troops™, and I'm as anti-Empire as the next guy. But at this moment, even if it means "nothing" logistically, emotionally I can say I feel better. Even if this is a "hollow, symbolic" victory, I can say fuck you, it's a victory of some kind. And it feels good. Not because I think America is now going to turn the tide of history against the forces of ignorant extremism, but because one asshole who deserved it, is dead. And I invite you to bask in the radiant glow of Justice, even when it's at the hands of a Government you know has you somewhere on its list, too. Don't let the Realists talk you out of enjoying it while you can.
Because in a century like this, you're gonna need to remember what Justice feels like.
Aside from this being a great rant, I think you make a good point. Symbolic victory =/= Pyrrhic victory.
(well, it's not the whole story, at any rate)
BOO YAH
So Osama's death is a good thing because it is a symbolic victory which will....what, exactly? Lead Americans to continuing support for the unspoken but blatantly obvious policy of jamming one's dick repeatedly into the hornet nest of Central Asian and Middle East radical politics? Yeah, that seems sound.
Oh boo fucking hoo. I'm an asshole for ruining the moment with my facts and reasoned conclusions. Why cant I just STFU and enjoy the moment without actually thinking about the consequences and reality of the situation. Right?
Wrong. I agree with you.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 04:15:02 AM
But, lest these over-thinking blowhards carry the day (and all your jubilation away with it), let me remind you of a few things.
I had totally missed this line.
"BOO YAH" retracted. What the fuck, Vex?
I think we should appreciate it, purely in that it may be the first time that the US has used its military toward something just since Korea, and it may be the last in our lifetimes.
Frankly, I get more substance from the "over-thinking blowhards" than from the "RAH RAH GO AMURRIKA" crowd.
The main sense of relief that I have that Bin Laden is dead is that it removes from the US one very convenient excuse they used to invade any country they felt like invading for political and financial gain.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 04:27:31 PM
I think we should appreciate it, purely in that it may be the first time that the US has used its military toward something just since Korea, and it may be the last in our lifetimes.
Frankly, I get more substance from the "over-thinking blowhards" than from the "RAH RAH GO AMURRIKA" crowd.
THIS!!!!
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
The main sense of relief that I have that Bin Laden is dead is that it removes from the US one very convenient excuse they used to invade any country they felt like invading for political and financial gain.
Eh, they're still going to do that. They'll just make up a new excuse for the next time....
I'll admit that I've been rather self-absorbed the past few days and the whole Obama getting Osama thing has been a bit off of my radar screen. That said, I think there is something to be said about what will likely prove to be a fairly brief point of unity among a good portion of the American public. Practically, of course terrorism will continue. This isn't some magical Return of the Jedi moment, where we are finally rid of the bad evil emperor and everything is going to be kum-ba-ya and rainbow-shitting unicorns going forward.
And if nothing else, it finally gets us off of the dumb news cycle we've been stuck in for the past couple of weeks involving Donald Trump. He shouldn't have been on the agenda to begin with because he is a clown and a joke. If it can be a catalyst to get Americans to start thinking about serious stuff again, then it will prove to be helpful and beneficial at least on that level.
But at the very least, the scumbag was long overdue to have a couple of slugs pumped into his head. Good riddance to worthless human rubbish.
Meh. I think this "unity" is most likely to result in increased acts of domestic terrorism by "patriots" toward marginalized religious and racial groups.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 05:12:16 PM
Meh. I think this "unity" is most likely to result in increased acts of domestic terrorism by "patriots" toward marginalized religious and racial groups.
Of course. It's already started in Maine.
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 05:12:16 PM
Meh. I think this "unity" is most likely to result in increased acts of domestic terrorism by "patriots" toward marginalized religious and racial groups.
Naturally. It's the "in" thing to do nowadays.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 03, 2011, 04:50:41 PM
This isn't some magical Return of the Jedi moment, where we are finally rid of the bad evil emperor and everything is going to be kum-ba-ya and rainbow-shitting unicorns going forward.
Fact: Killing Palpatine and destroying Death Star II made shit WORSE. It was only a turning point, not a victory. Ya'll better hope that Bin Laden doesn't have an Admiral Thrawn or Ysanne Isard.
-Suu
SRSLY.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
When I hear that, I want to pull a Kipling and "order the guns and kill".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
I really heard someone at CNN compare this to the Berlin Wall coming down. I switched to the comedy channel.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 03, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
I really heard someone at CNN compare this to the Berlin Wall coming down. I switched to the comedy channel.
WTF?
This is worse than I thought.
We're fucked, though. No matter what happens or who's out there or who's dead, it's going to be used as an excuse for some kind of racist bullshit.
WE TOOK THIS COUNTRY FROM THE INDIANS CUZ THEY WAS TOO LAZY TO FARM IT, WELL WE WUZ TOO BUT WE HAD SLAVES FOR THAT!!! RACISM MADE THIS CUNTRY GREAT!
/
:teabagger1:
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 03, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
I really heard someone at CNN compare this to the Berlin Wall coming down. I switched to the comedy channel.
You mean you didn't see the footage of David Hasselhoff dancing on top of the compound with a strobe-light burka?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on May 03, 2011, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 03, 2011, 05:48:22 PM
I really heard someone at CNN compare this to the Berlin Wall coming down. I switched to the comedy channel.
You mean you didn't see the footage of David Hasselhoff dancing on top of the compound with a strobe-light burka?
I have now. In my brain.
I hate you, RWHN. :argh!:
Well... I'm not really sure what other scenario we would want...
CIA: DOOD we think we found OSama!
Smiler: Let's plan a strike to take him alive or kill him.
-VS-
Smiler: Meh, it would only be a symbolic victory. Let's ignore him.
Personally, I prefer the first one.
It only makes me happy because it could keep a republitard from being elected in 2012.
I know, they're working for the same interests, and probably have been since JFK was shot and whatever took over, took over, so still a symbolic victory. I just hate having the place where I live represented by some bagger turd.
This makes no difference to anything.
Quote from: Faust on May 03, 2011, 07:42:33 PM
This makes no difference to anything.
It made me feel good.
Quote from: Cain on May 03, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
So Osama's death is a good thing because it is a symbolic victory which will....what, exactly? Lead Americans to continuing support for the unspoken but blatantly obvious policy of jamming one's dick repeatedly into the hornet nest of Central Asian and Middle East radical politics? Yeah, that seems sound.
Oh boo fucking hoo. I'm an asshole for ruining the moment with my facts and reasoned conclusions. Why cant I just STFU and enjoy the moment without actually thinking about the consequences and reality of the situation. Right?
Let's not ignore the cache of information they found in the compound. Who knows what was in there.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on May 03, 2011, 08:23:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 03, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
So Osama's death is a good thing because it is a symbolic victory which will....what, exactly? Lead Americans to continuing support for the unspoken but blatantly obvious policy of jamming one's dick repeatedly into the hornet nest of Central Asian and Middle East radical politics? Yeah, that seems sound.
Oh boo fucking hoo. I'm an asshole for ruining the moment with my facts and reasoned conclusions. Why cant I just STFU and enjoy the moment without actually thinking about the consequences and reality of the situation. Right?
Let's not ignore the cache of information they found in the compound. Who knows what was in there.
I'm guessing mad libs and word search puzzles.... :|
Sometimes, I am amazed at the absolute commitment of people to downplay and bury every single thing that causes the gut reaction instinct to feel good about something.
Look, I get that nobody's going to be any safer because of this. I get that nothing's going to change, except more "terror alerts" and tighter restrictions on travel. And I know I'm being ignorant by giving in to the mainstream, feel-good bullshit that says HOORAY WE GOT HIM when I know it makes no real difference.
But I think that's only half the equation. It's balanced by the history of the moment, even if it's bullshit, even if it's nothing but symbolic. It's balanced by the psychological boost given to people who are weary of seeing an endless war fought for questionable goals by people we have no business trusting with the lives of the next generation. It's a morale boost, when we've been worn down by years of recession, bad news, empty promises and surprise political buttsecks.
It'll drive us to more violence and stronger nationalism in spite of our shrinking world and the growing irrelevance of nation states. It will spur more bullshit jingoism and bumper stickers, and whether it helps Obama get reelected or not, we can be assured that the next presidential term will be carried out by an Establishment puppet bent on the Status Quo (or worse).
But then, I'm not talking about implications or progress. I'm not at the moment concerned with the Big Picture, the macro-economics of revenge, the Story of Human History, or with rising above my gut instincts. I am concerned simply with the fact that the mastermind of a terrorist act that killed 3,000 people and destroyed the lives of countless others is dead.
Yeah, it's pase'. It's so mainstream, man. We hear so much about the fact that 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 that we're desensitized to the fact that it happened. Besides, it's what They want us to worry about. Fuck those 3,000 people, right? They don't deserve revenge. Those assholes had it coming. They should have stayed at home that day. The fact that the guy who planned, organized, and financed their demise is dead? Eh, who cares, it's just a political show.
Not like anybody misses those people. Not like anybody cares. Right?
Quote from: Khara on May 03, 2011, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on May 03, 2011, 08:23:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 03, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
So Osama's death is a good thing because it is a symbolic victory which will....what, exactly? Lead Americans to continuing support for the unspoken but blatantly obvious policy of jamming one's dick repeatedly into the hornet nest of Central Asian and Middle East radical politics? Yeah, that seems sound.
Oh boo fucking hoo. I'm an asshole for ruining the moment with my facts and reasoned conclusions. Why cant I just STFU and enjoy the moment without actually thinking about the consequences and reality of the situation. Right?
Let's not ignore the cache of information they found in the compound. Who knows what was in there.
I'm guessing mad libs and word search puzzles.... :|
I'm guessing there was valuable information, not that we'll know for sure any time soon.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:25:15 PM
Sometimes, I am amazed at the absolute commitment of people to downplay and bury every single thing that causes the gut reaction instinct to feel good about something.
Actually, I was on board til I realized you called Cain a "blowhard".
Oh, so you're saying that people whose automatic gut reaction to Bin Laden's death was apprehension, along the lines of "Shit went down, what's going to happen now", are wrong? Or that they don't exist?
Or that those of us who are wary that the energy of jubilation over his death will be too easily transmogrified into domestic terrorism in the form of attacks on Muslims in the US? Or that it will escalate a rift between American Muslims and Christians?
Yeah, I guess that if my first emotion was apprehension, I'm not really American. And HOW DARE anyone talk about it and risk dampening the joy of the people dancing in the street.
I must be a BadAmerican™ because my first thought was "Too Little, Too Late."
No.
In fact, I never mentioned Cain and in fact he was the farthest thing from my mind when I said it. It was referring to the shit that get said on TV in a similar vain. I know Cain isn't a blowhard. This will not serve to discourage anyone from assuming they know what was in my head better than I do, of course.
But my point still stands, which originally garnered a BOO YAH from the good Reverend until he found a reason to take issue with it, that people shouldn't get all intellectual about it, just because there are valid intellectual concerns, to the point of forfeiting what feeling of victory they might, however temporarily or illogically, feel in connection to this event.
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
What have they DONE to you, LMNO?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:33:42 PM
I must be a BadAmerican™ because my first thought was "Too Little, Too Late."
Of course it's too little, too late. Everything would be too little too late, including a precise excision of every last extremist of every kind from the human gene pool. Nothing can erase what has happened, in this country or in any other country as a result of it. It's
all too little, too late. It's a big festering sore and nobody's doing anything to clean it out, I got it.
All I am saying is, fuck yeah, that asshole deserved it.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:42:53 PM
No.
In fact, I never mentioned Cain and in fact he was the farthest thing from my mind when I said it. It was referring to the shit that get said on TV in a similar vain. I know Cain isn't a blowhard. This will not serve to discourage anyone from assuming they know what was in my head better than I do, of course.
But my point still stands, which originally garnered a BOO YAH from the good Reverend until he found a reason to take issue with it, that people shouldn't get all intellectual about it, just because there are valid intellectual concerns, to the point of forfeiting what feeling of victory they might, however temporarily or illogically, feel in connection to this event.
1. Pretty sure Cain's pretty upset about it. Maybe you should explain that to him.
2. I'm glad he's dead. That's no excuse for not thinking, though.
Any victory I felt was so overshadowed by other thoughts. I still feel this is a smoke screen, I'm just not sure what it could be screening. I know this is not a popular opinion, but I honestly am racking my brains on why they took so long. I have never said I'm not glad he's dead because I am.
I'm also very bothered by the muslim bashing which we are already seeing but which will, I feel, escalate and end up being a very bad thing.
Not to mention, as Roger has said elsewhere, we can expect an attempt at some type of major destructive event to happen within the next 90 days. They almost have to retaliate, someone has to step to the front as a leader now that Bin Laden is dead.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:46:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:33:42 PM
I must be a BadAmerican™ because my first thought was "Too Little, Too Late."
Of course it's too little, too late. Everything would be too little too late, including a precise excision of every last extremist of every kind from the human gene pool. Nothing can erase what has happened, in this country or in any other country as a result of it. It's all too little, too late. It's a big festering sore and nobody's doing anything to clean it out, I got it.
All I am saying is, fuck yeah, that asshole deserved it.
I agree with this sentiment.
Killing some asshole won't change anything, except there's now one less asshole. I can enjoy that. Is Obama obviously spinning this for his own gain? Of course. Will some Americans act like ass hats, of course. Will terrorists use it as another excuse to do bad shit? Sure.
However, the US had the choice of going in to get him, or leaving him to continue whatever the hell he was doing. Out of the two options, I approve of the former.
Quote from: Khara on May 03, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
I know this is not a popular opinion, but I honestly am racking my brains on why they took so long.
Because he's one man out of 700 Bn? They STILL haven't found DB Cooper or the Zodiac killer.
Quote from: Khara on May 03, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
Not to mention, as Roger has said elsewhere, we can expect an attempt at some type of major destructive event to happen within the next 90 days. They almost have to retaliate, someone has to step to the front as a leader now that Bin Laden is dead.
My guess is they'll rush it and fuck it up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
What have they DONE to you, LMNO?
It was the first half that concerns me more. To ignore everything except the body in the arena. To disregard the waste of life, the desecration of liberty, and the massive debts that led us to the killing of one man. To feel that shooting him in the head is a proper definition of "justice". To wallow in his death which, as far as most of the discussions on this board indicate, he simply ceases to exist, no eternal hellfires or final judgements.
Damn. I told myself I wasn't going to go there, on behalf of those personally affected by WTC. Which is why I backed off yesterday.
Sorry, everyone.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:52:06 PM
Quote from: Khara on May 03, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
I know this is not a popular opinion, but I honestly am racking my brains on why they took so long.
Because he's one man out of 700 Bn? They STILL haven't found DB Cooper or the Zodiac killer.
Quote from: Khara on May 03, 2011, 08:49:34 PM
Not to mention, as Roger has said elsewhere, we can expect an attempt at some type of major destructive event to happen within the next 90 days. They almost have to retaliate, someone has to step to the front as a leader now that Bin Laden is dead.
My guess is they'll rush it and fuck it up.
No I meant if they've known he was there for damn near a year now......
And yes, I agree, they are going to rush it and make a huge mess of the whole thing. Which is actually a good thing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
What have they DONE to you, LMNO?
It was the first half that concerns me more. To ignore everything except the body in the arena. To disregard the waste of life, the desecration of liberty, and the massive debts that led us to the killing of one man. To feel that shooting him in the head is a proper definition of "justice". To wallow in his death which, as far as most of the discussions on this board indicate, he simply ceases to exist, no eternal hellfires or final judgements.
Damn. I told myself I wasn't going to go there, on behalf of those personally affected by WTC. Which is why I backed off yesterday.
Sorry, everyone.
It was the way you spelled "vengeance" that concerns me. you've been hanging out with those MBAs too much.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:55:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
What have they DONE to you, LMNO?
It was the first half that concerns me more. To ignore everything except the body in the arena. To disregard the waste of life, the desecration of liberty, and the massive debts that led us to the killing of one man. To feel that shooting him in the head is a proper definition of "justice". To wallow in his death which, as far as most of the discussions on this board indicate, he simply ceases to exist, no eternal hellfires or final judgements.
Damn. I told myself I wasn't going to go there, on behalf of those personally affected by WTC. Which is why I backed off yesterday.
Sorry, everyone.
It was the way you spelled "vengeance" that concerns me. you've been hanging out with those MBAs too much.
:lol:
LMNO
-emo much?
Oh. I don't have a functional TV, so I (I think reasonably) assumed you were talking about the rational and cynical discussions that are happening on this board.
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 08:59:33 PM
Oh. I don't have a functional TV, so I (I think reasonably) assumed you were talking about the rational and cynical discussions that are happening on this board.
Also, there's one person here who is actually educated in this field, who was in opposition to my (and Vex's) little fit of avatism, and I'd have taken it personally if I were him. If I'm not very much mistaken, he has.
I enjoyed my moment of screeching and chest beating, and now it's back to reality. None of what the "blowhards" said kept me from grinning in a nasty way for 24 solid hours, and I still smile a bit.
But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagreed with my vengeancegasm is a gloomy, over-thinking blowhard.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
Yes, and that is yet another school of study in the field of Horrorology.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't think ANYBODY argues that it's not a just end for him. NOBODY HAS EVEN VAGUELY HINTED AT THAT. That is not what this is about.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't think ANYBODY argues that it's not a just end for him. NOBODY HAS EVEN VAGUELY HINTED AT THAT. That is not what this is about.
LMNO said that it wasn't justice. I pointed out that I felt it was justified and just (and certainly in some sense, justice).
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Well, the short and skinny about Osama is this: He got tired of playing triple A ball with the likes of Hamas and the Huttarree Militia, and decided to try for the gold. Call him a criminal, call him the leader of a foreign army, call him whatever you like. All I can say is "Welcome to the Big Leagues, you bastard."
America may be rotten to the core, but it's still the biggest military power on Earth. Fucking with it had one eventual outcome, and that outcome occurred, regular as clockwork. I'd have a bit of sympathy if he had restricted his attacks to military and/or government targets, but he chose to make his little statement on a couple of buildings full of regular Joes who were just trying to put in a day at work.
So, yeah, I had a damn good feeling when he finally got what was coming to him, after 9.5 years of living like a trapped rat. This may mean that I am not a Buddha. I can live with that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Well, the short and skinny about Osama is this: He got tired of playing triple A ball with the likes of Hamas and the Huttarree Militia, and decided to try for the gold. Call him a criminal, call him the leader of a foreign army, call him whatever you like. All I can say is "Welcome to the Big Leagues, you bastard."
America may be rotten to the core, but it's still the biggest military power on Earth. Fucking with it had one eventual outcome, and that outcome occurred, regular as clockwork. I'd have a bit of sympathy if he had restricted his attacks to military and/or government targets, but he chose to make his little statement on a couple of buildings full of regular Joes who were just trying to put in a day at work.
So, yeah, I had a damn good feeling when he finally got what was coming to him, after 9.5 years of living like a trapped rat. This may mean that I am not a Buddha. I can live with that.
In all honesty, the whole past ten years seems like its been Eris' game... so maybe you're an Erisian Buddah.
:D
I mean hell, this decade makes Troy look like Gulf War 1
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Well, the short and skinny about Osama is this: He got tired of playing triple A ball with the likes of Hamas and the Huttarree Militia, and decided to try for the gold. Call him a criminal, call him the leader of a foreign army, call him whatever you like. All I can say is "Welcome to the Big Leagues, you bastard."
America may be rotten to the core, but it's still the biggest military power on Earth. Fucking with it had one eventual outcome, and that outcome occurred, regular as clockwork. I'd have a bit of sympathy if he had restricted his attacks to military and/or government targets, but he chose to make his little statement on a couple of buildings full of regular Joes who were just trying to put in a day at work.
So, yeah, I had a damn good feeling when he finally got what was coming to him, after 9.5 years of living like a trapped rat. This may mean that I am not a Buddha. I can live with that.
In all honesty, the whole past ten years seems like its been Eris' game... so maybe you're an Erisian Buddah.
:D
I mean hell, this decade makes Troy look like Gulf War 1
Naw. We didn't drag Zarqawi's body around Fallujah a dozen times.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Well, the short and skinny about Osama is this: He got tired of playing triple A ball with the likes of Hamas and the Huttarree Militia, and decided to try for the gold. Call him a criminal, call him the leader of a foreign army, call him whatever you like. All I can say is "Welcome to the Big Leagues, you bastard."
America may be rotten to the core, but it's still the biggest military power on Earth. Fucking with it had one eventual outcome, and that outcome occurred, regular as clockwork. I'd have a bit of sympathy if he had restricted his attacks to military and/or government targets, but he chose to make his little statement on a couple of buildings full of regular Joes who were just trying to put in a day at work.
So, yeah, I had a damn good feeling when he finally got what was coming to him, after 9.5 years of living like a trapped rat. This may mean that I am not a Buddha. I can live with that.
In all honesty, the whole past ten years seems like its been Eris' game... so maybe you're an Erisian Buddah.
:D
I mean hell, this decade makes Troy look like Gulf War 1
Naw. We didn't drag Zarqawi's body around Fallujah a dozen times.
Which may be why nobody but a few freak historians will know his name in a decade. Hector, on the other hand...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:06:09 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't actually feel any need to justify it. He was a butcher, and he got what was coming to him.
Unfortunately, the same can't and won't be said about our very own butchers.
This.
How many civilians have our guys killed in the "war on terror"? I can guarantee you that it's an unacceptable number by ANY standards.
Well, the short and skinny about Osama is this: He got tired of playing triple A ball with the likes of Hamas and the Huttarree Militia, and decided to try for the gold. Call him a criminal, call him the leader of a foreign army, call him whatever you like. All I can say is "Welcome to the Big Leagues, you bastard."
America may be rotten to the core, but it's still the biggest military power on Earth. Fucking with it had one eventual outcome, and that outcome occurred, regular as clockwork. I'd have a bit of sympathy if he had restricted his attacks to military and/or government targets, but he chose to make his little statement on a couple of buildings full of regular Joes who were just trying to put in a day at work.
So, yeah, I had a damn good feeling when he finally got what was coming to him, after 9.5 years of living like a trapped rat. This may mean that I am not a Buddha. I can live with that.
In all honesty, the whole past ten years seems like its been Eris' game... so maybe you're an Erisian Buddah.
:D
I mean hell, this decade makes Troy look like Gulf War 1
Naw. We didn't drag Zarqawi's body around Fallujah a dozen times.
:lulz:
No but we did accidentally a whole load of random civilians.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:34:41 PM
No but we did accidentally a whole load of random civilians.
Civilians always take it in the shorts, and always have.
We accidentally an entirely unrelated country, though, which ought to be worth at least a footnote...But it won't be. This war will be remembered exactly as much as the Phillipine-American War, and for the same reasons. It will never be taught.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 09:37:16 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:34:41 PM
No but we did accidentally a whole load of random civilians.
Civilians always take it in the shorts, and always have.
We accidentally an entirely unrelated country, though, which ought to be worth at least a footnote...But it won't be. This war will be remembered exactly as much as the Phillipine-American War, and for the same reasons. It will never be taught.
:lulz:
Troof
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:44:11 PM
Ah. I see. Stop thinking, and revel in the vengance.
What have they DONE to you, LMNO?
It was the first half that concerns me more. To ignore everything except the body in the arena. To disregard the waste of life, the desecration of liberty, and the massive debts that led us to the killing of one man. To feel that shooting him in the head is a proper definition of "justice". To wallow in his death which, as far as most of the discussions on this board indicate, he simply ceases to exist, no eternal hellfires or final judgements.
Damn. I told myself I wasn't going to go there, on behalf of those personally affected by WTC. Which is why I backed off yesterday.
Sorry, everyone.
My very first thought was "How can I trust that the government is telling me the truth?"
Then I shifted to Trillions of dollars and thousands of US soldiers have either lost their lives, been mangled physically and even worse mentally.
Then I shifted to all the years spent chasing one man across three countries.
Then I was W00T! THE BASTARD IS DEAD!
From there on out I suffered severe confusion about exactly what I should be feeling.
One of the thoughts that I had was that the crowds of people chanting USA were singing a familiar song, but forgetting the "death to the..." part and the flag burning part. I guess I had the same feeling that Nigel and LMNO had.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:18:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't think ANYBODY argues that it's not a just end for him. NOBODY HAS EVEN VAGUELY HINTED AT THAT. That is not what this is about.
LMNO said that it wasn't justice. I pointed out that I felt it was justified and just (and certainly in some sense, justice).
That is a gross and vile oversimplification of what he actually said... I'm disappointed in you.
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 07:23:32 PM
Well... I'm not really sure what other scenario we would want...
CIA: DOOD we think we found OSama!
Smiler: Let's plan a strike to take him alive or kill him.
-VS-
Smiler: Meh, it would only be a symbolic victory. Let's ignore him.
Personally, I prefer the first one.
Oh, so we're going with the "yeah, what is your plan?" defence so soon? Never mind no-one actually said "well Obama should have done nothing". Nice strawman there, I'll throw them on the pile with the rest of the bullshit I've had to put up with for the past week.
Quote from: Faust on May 03, 2011, 07:42:33 PM
This makes no difference to anything.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on May 03, 2011, 08:23:50 PM
Let's not ignore the cache of information they found in the compound. Who knows what was in there.
I would actually say that is far more significant than Bin Laden's death.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:25:15 PM
Yeah, it's pase'. It's so mainstream, man. We hear so much about the fact that 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 that we're desensitized to the fact that it happened. Besides, it's what They want us to worry about. Fuck those 3,000 people, right? They don't deserve revenge. Those assholes had it coming. They should have stayed at home that day. The fact that the guy who planned, organized, and financed their demise is dead? Eh, who cares, it's just a political show.
Not like anybody misses those people. Not like anybody cares. Right?
No, fuck you for implying that it my position. You have no fucking idea what I have been through or what I think. How dare you use the deaths of innocent people as a prop for attacking others in an internet argument. How fucking
low are you?
You're scum. Pure and simple.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 08:30:41 PM
Oh, so you're saying that people whose automatic gut reaction to Bin Laden's death was apprehension, along the lines of "Shit went down, what's going to happen now", are wrong? Or that they don't exist?
Or that those of us who are wary that the energy of jubilation over his death will be too easily transmogrified into domestic terrorism in the form of attacks on Muslims in the US? Or that it will escalate a rift between American Muslims and Christians?
Yeah, I guess that if my first emotion was apprehension, I'm not really American. And HOW DARE anyone talk about it and risk dampening the joy of the people dancing in the street.
Not only that, we're apparently desecrating the dead, too.
Vex, of course, intimately knowing all of the victims of terrorism of the Al-Qaeda network and being in a position to speak on their behalf.
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:42:53 PM
No.
In fact, I never mentioned Cain and in fact he was the farthest thing from my mind when I said it.
Bullshit. You didn't have to name me - you just described my reaction then followed it up with ad hominem attacks
QuoteAs the educated, mature, and rational among us are quick to point out that Osama bin Laden's death amounts to no more than a "symbolic" victory...
But, lest these over-thinking blowhards carry the day
QuoteNews like this is rare these days, and you shouldn't let some asshole with a Ph.D. take it away from you, just because he or she knows more than you do. Bullshit. You know what I know?
QuoteEven if this is a "hollow, symbolic" victory, I can say fuck you, it's a victory of some kind....Don't let the Realists talk you out of enjoying it while you can.
Are you really suggesting none of these were references to me at all? Apparently the only reason I haven't been given shit so far is that as a non-American I am "excused"....never mind Bin Laden's attacks on Australians and Britons. Maybe they just don't count?
QuoteIt was referring to the shit that get said on TV in a similar vain. I know Cain isn't a blowhard.
No, apparently I just say stuff in a similar
vein to them. Which presumably makes me a demi-blowhard, or something similar. Save your hairsplitting for someone who gives a shit, you backpedalling liar.
QuoteBut my point still stands, which originally garnered a BOO YAH from the good Reverend until he found a reason to take issue with it, that people shouldn't get all intellectual about it, just because there are valid intellectual concerns, to the point of forfeiting what feeling of victory they might, however temporarily or illogically, feel in connection to this event.
What victory? Go on, explain this
victory. Oh, wait, you already said, it's "symbolic", right? Sorry. I live in a world where material capabilities trump
peoples feelings every day of the week.
You are so full of shit it is unbelievable.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 08:51:51 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on May 03, 2011, 08:46:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 08:33:42 PM
I must be a BadAmerican™ because my first thought was "Too Little, Too Late."
Of course it's too little, too late. Everything would be too little too late, including a precise excision of every last extremist of every kind from the human gene pool. Nothing can erase what has happened, in this country or in any other country as a result of it. It's all too little, too late. It's a big festering sore and nobody's doing anything to clean it out, I got it.
All I am saying is, fuck yeah, that asshole deserved it.
I agree with this sentiment.
Killing some asshole won't change anything, except there's now one less asshole. I can enjoy that. Is Obama obviously spinning this for his own gain? Of course. Will some Americans act like ass hats, of course. Will terrorists use it as another excuse to do bad shit? Sure.
However, the US had the choice of going in to get him, or leaving him to continue whatever the hell he was doing. Out of the two options, I approve of the former.
Stop dryhumping that strawman, for the love of God. Or at least get a room.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a
criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried
all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 11:36:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:18:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 03, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
I don't think ANYBODY argues that it's not a just end for him. NOBODY HAS EVEN VAGUELY HINTED AT THAT. That is not what this is about.
LMNO said that it wasn't justice. I pointed out that I felt it was justified and just (and certainly in some sense, justice).
That is a gross and vile oversimplification of what he actually said... I'm disappointed in you.
Ratatosk has been grossly simplifying everyone who disagrees with him since this started.
But he's still better than Vex.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
I just got barstooled by Cain, even though he was responding to Rat. Surprisingly, it's a good feeling.
I had totally forgotten that after 9/11, a strong argument was made to treat it like a criminal act, rather than a declaration of war, for precisely the reasons Cain mentioned. I suppose that after ten years of repetition that we're "at war with Terror", I had unknowingly realigned to follow that narrative.
Many thanks to Cain, for reminding me of this simple fact: Bin Laden was a criminal, not a head of state.
:barstool:
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Anyone under 15 seems to have pretty much no clue. I teach 11, 12 year olds and some knew he 'flew a plane into a building' but that was about it.
That said, obviously Australia cares less, somewhat.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 03, 2011, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
When I hear that, I want to pull a Kipling and "order the guns and kill".
HAHAHAHAHA
Sorry. I fucking loved this so much... Just, yeah, YEAH! couldn't let this pass without ":mittens:".
Carry on.
Alright, everything else aside, I liked the part where the bullets hit him in the dome, that was classic.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
Reading this stuff is like watching prime-quality whupass.
:pwned:
Quote from: Placid Dingo on May 05, 2011, 01:59:18 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Anyone under 15 seems to have pretty much no clue. I teach 11, 12 year olds and some knew he 'flew a plane into a building' but that was about it.
That said, obviously Australia cares less, somewhat.
I would chalk that up to the fact that we immediately jumped to Iraq and once again made Saddam THE bad guy America wanted to get. So kids probably didn't really hear a lot about Osama except for that fairly brief window of time between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War.
Most kids under 15 probably think Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the President of Iran, Gadaffi, Stalin and Hitler are all the same person.
This is why we dont allow them to drink, drive cars or vote.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 03:54:13 PM
Most kids under 15 probably think Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the President of Iran, Gadaffi, Stalin and Hitler are all the same person.
This is why we dont allow them to drink, drive cars or vote.
I still suspect that in 50 yrs time these same kids will be reminiscing about Obama Van Leyden and how he drew anti-christian cartoons in Holland.
Quote from: MMIX on May 05, 2011, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 03:54:13 PM
Most kids under 15 probably think Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the President of Iran, Gadaffi, Stalin and Hitler are all the same person.
This is why we dont allow them to drink, drive cars or vote.
I still suspect that in 50 yrs time these same kids will be reminiscing about Obama Van Leyden and how he drew anti-christian cartoons in Holland. picking through the ruins, looking for old canned food and rats.
Fixed that for ya.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Those kids are so trollin'. The dead giveaway was the "was he in a band too?" guy. The sad thing is that the people at the Washington Post are so out of the loop that they don't get it.
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 06:04:56 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Those kids are so trollin'. The dead giveaway was the "was he in a band too?" guy. The sad thing is that the people at the Washington Post are so out of the loop that they don't get it.
Bin Ladin and the One Way Pilots.
They're too underground for you.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 06:08:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 06:04:56 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: MMIX on May 03, 2011, 05:42:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
I have been trying assiduously to avoid the coverage. Not actually hard but I accidentaly saw a bit on a web site yesterday. The thing which struck me forcibly was that the whoop de doop /ding dong the witch is dead crowd were almost uniformly too young to have been out of grade school when 9/11 happened. I wonder what effect this vicarious victory is going to have on their "americanness". Luckily I will be long dead by then but I should be very interested to see what that impact is longterm on American policy and pride in say, 50 yrs. For what its worth I don't anticipate it will be a terribly good thing in the long term.
Apparently, lots of kids don't know who Bin Laden is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-kids-are-not-all-right/2011/05/03/AFIQHLnF_blog.html
Or a bunch of kids just trolled the WaPo via Twitter, which is the interpretation I'm leaning towards.
Those kids are so trollin'. The dead giveaway was the "was he in a band too?" guy. The sad thing is that the people at the Washington Post are so out of the loop that they don't get it.
Bin Ladin and the One Way Pilots.
They're too underground for you.
Who could forget their number 1 hit "I put a Vest on you."
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 05, 2011, 06:12:44 PM
Who could forget their number 1 hit "I put a Vest on you."
Or "I'm Leaving on a Jet Plane".
Or "Burkhaville".
Or "Hummusburger in Paradise".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 05, 2011, 06:12:44 PM
Who could forget their number 1 hit "I put a Vest on you."
Or "I'm Leaving on a Jet Plane".
Or "Burkhaville".
Or "Hummusburger in Paradise".
"I Explode to Pieces."
They covered Elton John's And the House Came Down, right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 05, 2011, 06:21:06 PM
They covered Elton John's And the House Came Down, right?
And, of course, "
Hit Me With Your Best Shot."
It is so comforting to realize on a regular basis that I am surround by fuckers as sick as me.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 05, 2011, 06:24:26 PM
It is so comforting to realize on a regular basis that I am surround by fuckers as sick as me.
Thanks... I think... :lol:
And of course, on that fateful day in September, they reached the Number 1 spot with....
.....
...Wait for it....
"It's Raining Men"
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 06:04:56 PM
Those kids are so trollin'. The dead giveaway was the "was he in a band too?" guy. The sad thing is that the people at the Washington Post are so out of the loop that they don't get it.
Ezra Klein is not so hip with the internets. In fact, the best words to describe him would be "dry policy wonk who probably irons his socks and alphabetically arranges his favourite Star Trek episodes".
What is more astounding is that the rest of the internet is aware of this, yet pretending not to be and nodded their heads Seriously while pontificating about how bad this is, because Ezra Klein is a Serious Liberal Journalist.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
I'm so glad you're back, Cain.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 06:30:00 PM
And of course, on that fateful day in September, they reached the Number 1 spot with....
.....
...Wait for it....
"It's Raining Men"
:spittake: :potd:
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
So because the US successfully captured one guy, its not just that they successfully killed another?
If they had captured OBL and made him stand trial, I wouldn't have had a problem with that... though in fact if they had shot the drug cartel leader in the head, I wouldn't have had a problem with that.
Justice by the courts is preferable, but it is not the only form of justice, or justified response, in my opinion.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 05, 2011, 09:39:09 PM
So because the US successfully captured one guy, its not just that they successfully killed another?
If they had captured OBL and made him stand trial, I wouldn't have had a problem with that... though in fact if they had shot the drug cartel leader in the head, I wouldn't have had a problem with that.
Justice by the courts is preferable, but it is not the only form of justice, or justified response, in my opinion.
Like was pointed out, he is a criminal. What would be the prupose of bringing him to court? To put him up as some warlord or enemy general? It would only be a circus. The moral grand-standing and lip service paid to justice and so forth by the US is so old. That Osama was just executed on the spot was a massive relief... a relief i didnt know i would feel in that the rotting, festering mask of lies and hypocrisy slipped, even if only for the convenience of the government.
Quote from: Nigel on May 05, 2011, 06:37:33 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2011, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 03, 2011, 09:02:22 PM
If this guy was a common criminal and could have been taken alive, then yeah... shooting in the head is not justice.
However, this is a person who raised/inspired an army and declared war on a sovereign nation. Further, had he been captured alive, his followers may have done all sorts of terrible things to try to get him freed. Finally, assuming that the orders from the President clearly said 'surrender or die'... then I think it is a just and justifiable end for him.
Of course, I would have preferred to see this happen 10 years ago without the loss of blood and treasure. It didn't happen that way though.
Oh look, it's an entire platoon of strawmen!
Just after Bin Laden was killed, the Mexican drug cartel leader Benjamin Arrellano Felix was extradited to the US to stand trial. He ran a large, well organized cartel in Tijuana which brings the drugs over the border into the states. He has ordered children raped and killed in front of their parents, and people to be skinned and their bodies dumped in the streets. He's richer than Bin Laden, probably just as well connected and has fought Mexican soldiers and paramilitaries, the armed forces of an allied government of the United States.
And yet, he was caught alive. And he faces a civilian trial. Why? Because he's a criminal. Just like Bin Laden.
His followers may attempt to free him. Those fighting on the side of the Cartels in Mexico include highly trained former SWAT team members and Special Forces who have swapped sides - people far more skilled than the average Al-Qaeda terrorist.
Yet he is still on trial.
To say "Bin Laden" declared war on the USA is nonsense. Only countries can decare war. Bin Laden isn't a country. And he doesn't control one. In fact, even the weakest and most despised government is far more powerful than anything Bin Laden can bring to bear. And war criminals get tried all the time.
Come back with some better strawmen. These ones are looking weak.
I'm so glad you're back, Cain.
Ditto, I missed Cain and all his glorious takes on politics and other things. :)
There would be one MAJOR problem with bringing Osama to trial.
Where the fuck would you find a venue where his lawyer couldn't argue that there's no way he could get a fair trial?
Singapore?
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 06, 2011, 12:15:54 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 05, 2011, 09:39:09 PM
So because the US successfully captured one guy, its not just that they successfully killed another?
If they had captured OBL and made him stand trial, I wouldn't have had a problem with that... though in fact if they had shot the drug cartel leader in the head, I wouldn't have had a problem with that.
Justice by the courts is preferable, but it is not the only form of justice, or justified response, in my opinion.
Like was pointed out, he is a criminal. What would be the prupose of bringing him to court? To put him up as some warlord or enemy general? It would only be a circus. The moral grand-standing and lip service paid to justice and so forth by the US is so old. That Osama was just executed on the spot was a massive relief... a relief i didnt know i would feel in that the rotting, festering mask of lies and hypocrisy slipped, even if only for the convenience of the government.
Osama Bin Ladin was a mad dog. I cannot justify an outright assassination (as this was), but in this one case, I really don't care. This is a strange feeling for me, as I practically worship the rule of law.
But there it is, right? He's dead, and I'm glad. I'd have given the order myself, and then slept like a baby.
A trail would have at least realistically let you control your own propaganda rather then leave it to fate. I'm beginning to see it wouldn't have been popular stateside but it would have meant more for your international standing, especially in places where it matters.
As for Blackfoots comment - They put Nazis on trial.
Except the ones that killed themselves to avoid it. Perhaps trial is a worse punishment.
So if this is an assassination, we've went to putting perpetrators of genocide on trail to outright assassination in a foreign country.
Yes I know the trails there where a circus and many of the allies had down things just as bad or worse in the case of Stalin, and no Im not going to cry over Osama
But that is not all.
Think of all the drone attacks, the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, the wars, the executions, and all the nastiness done to get to this point, and that will continue on pass this and probably just escalate. The mythology being build here is far darker then just the killing of the money man for a terrorist organization. Maybe that is what really is not sitting well with me. The killing seems like putting a picture frame on a bloody wall.
I'm starting to feel like Marlow looking down the river.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 06, 2011, 05:11:58 AM
A trail would have at least realistically let you control your own propaganda rather then leave it to fate. I'm beginning to see it wouldn't have been popular stateside but it would have meant more for your international standing, especially in places where it matters.
As for Blackfoots comment - They put Nazis on trial.
Except the ones that killed themselves to avoid it. Perhaps trial is a worse punishment.
So if this is an assassination, we've went to putting perpetrators of genocide on trail to outright assassination in a foreign country.
Yes I know the trails there where a circus and many of the allies had down things just as bad or worse in the case of Stalin, and no Im not going to cry over Osama
But that is not all.
Think of all the drone attacks, the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, the wars, the executions, and all the nastiness done to get to this point, and that will continue on pass this and probably just escalate. The mythology being build here is far darker then just the killing of the money man for a terrorist organization. Maybe that is what really is not sitting well with me. The killing seems like putting a picture frame on a bloody wall.
I'm starting to feel like Marlow looking down the river.
Fair points, I think. And this outcome is just as much of a circus as a trial would have been. Look at the reaction it got.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on May 06, 2011, 05:11:58 AM
A trail would have at least realistically let you control your own propaganda rather then leave it to fate. I'm beginning to see it wouldn't have been popular stateside but it would have meant more for your international standing, especially in places where it matters.
As for Blackfoots comment - They put Nazis on trial.
Except the ones that killed themselves to avoid it. Perhaps trial is a worse punishment.
So if this is an assassination, we've went to putting perpetrators of genocide on trail to outright assassination in a foreign country.
Yes I know the trails there where a circus and many of the allies had down things just as bad or worse in the case of Stalin, and no Im not going to cry over Osama
But that is not all.
Think of all the drone attacks, the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, the wars, the executions, and all the nastiness done to get to this point, and that will continue on pass this and probably just escalate. The mythology being build here is far darker then just the killing of the money man for a terrorist organization. Maybe that is what really is not sitting well with me. The killing seems like putting a picture frame on a bloody wall.
I'm starting to feel like Marlow looking down the river.
It is for these very feelings you are having that a trial is NOT what is ideal for the international standing of the United States. It raises several questions such as; On what authority does the US do whatever the fuck it wants? How does a nation of laws and values endorse assassination and the much shadier behavior leading up to Bin Laden's death (or hypothetical trial)? Not to mention the severe costs you mentioned above. Not to mention the world's eye on a trial with one possible verdict-Death- and the corresponding mockery it makes of a fair trial system. The endless detention without official charges that would ensue as lawyers prepare a "case" while the fanatic is bled dry of any information he may have, by ethically dubious means. Certainly, the issue will transform into how we treat the man and the millions of other things while his actions and involvement are laid to the wayside.
I know Cain or others more politically savvy can imagine a host of other issues i havent considered within 30 seconds in recepit of your post. It never ends
I know it sounds like the ramblings of a crazy woman, but there was once a time when it was a point of pride that America was a nation that would give flagrantly self-confessed war criminals a fair trial.
But that America is long dead.
Not that it didn't also engage in quiet little assassinations... I mean, don't ask what my father did for a living... but that was at least done with clandestine dignity and would all be properly denied after the politically important figure and his family was reported found dead in their home. We never had ANYTHING to do with that sort of thing... that blood was too dirty for our hands.
But that was back then. Now we scream for it in the streets.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/03/228235/Leaked-Doc-May-Have-Forced-US-To-Speed-Up-Bin-Laden-Raid
Assassination in a foreign country does raise questions in such places? but trials do?
Frankly that doesn't make any sense.
As for the questions I raised - they would never be raised because people don't wanna know the answers. So there wouldn't be any questions raised.
Of course I'm going of the assumption now that it was an assassination. I don't want to make that assumptions. I didn't see the raid. I have some questions, but that is about it.
And that again I'm not crying over the man here either, and also I completely understand peoples joyousness of the event. Besides I have not known anyone that had died in 9/11 or in the later conflicts and if I would have defiantly have different emotions. Right now my natural curiosity of what is going on here is taking over
Quote from: Luna on May 06, 2011, 03:24:25 AM
There would be one MAJOR problem with bringing Osama to trial.
Where the fuck would you find a venue where his lawyer couldn't argue that there's no way he could get a fair trial?
That's what war tribunals like the one in The Hague are for. They got experience with that.
He'd have to be tried by a third party. Of course America would have never allowed that. Especially not when it's one of those sissy European war tribunals that don't deal out death penalties.
The point of all that would of course be to show you're in fact morally
better than those you're judging. You've neutralized the threat--insofar as Osama Bin Laden posed one--and then you handle the case in a civil manner.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 06, 2011, 05:25:59 AM
Fair points, I think. And this outcome is just as much of a circus as a trial would have been. Look at the reaction it got.
How can you say? It's been less than 4 days. No I'm pretty sure that a trial would have a much more, longer and world-wide media circus around it. Unless something exciting new happens, within a week or two, the world will be "meh" and move on. It'll last longer in the USA, of course. Probably at least until September.
When does killing a charismatic leader and spokesperson for a rebel group hobble it's ability to inspire and organize?
I tend to agree that this is a fairly symbolic "victory," in that the US still is trying to jam its dick inside the Middle East which pisses off a lot of people, but that question has been bugging me.
I don't know enough about the complexities of Mid-East culture to even remotely pull an answer out of my ass. I tried comparing it to well known assassinations (Malcolm X, MLK, JFK) but those are all far less radical and domestic agents, so the comparison just seems faulty.
Ethically, I agree that assassinating bin Laden was the low road, but on the practical side I'm not entirely convinced that this will not damage Al-Qaeda's ability to carry out further attacks. Even though there might be tons of furious jihadists itching to replace bin Laden, that doesn't mean his vision, experience and charisma are readily interchangeable.
That probably comes off like I've made up my mind, but I haven't. I don't really know and am still trying to make sense of it.
The other thing about putting OBL on trial is... What do you charge him with? Funding terrorism?
As Cain pointed out, KSM could justifiably be called the "real" mastermind behind 9/11. All OBL did (it could be argued) was give money and make videos.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 02:24:21 PM
The other thing about putting OBL on trial is... What do you charge him with? Funding terrorism?
As Cain pointed out, KSM could justifiably be called the "real" mastermind behind 9/11. All OBL did (it could be argued) was give money and make videos.
Conspiracy to commit and accessory to thousands of homicides. Try him and sentence the fucker to each one individually.
Quote from: Nigel on May 06, 2011, 06:09:33 AM
I know it sounds like the ramblings of a crazy woman, but there was once a time when it was a point of pride that America was a nation that would give flagrantly self-confessed war criminals a fair trial.
But that America is long dead.
I think that lasted all of 10 years, start to finish.
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
:lol:
nice.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
He was still British at that point.
I'm also reminded that a number of Native Americans were executed without trial, and we were pretty big on tar & feathering people (often, but not always, fatal...And a REALLY bad way to go, as it took days to kill you) who were suspected of having the wrong values.
The Phillipine/American war also comes to mind. "Kill everyone over the age of 10." - General Smith.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 03:18:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
He was still British at that point.
I'm also reminded that a number of Native Americans were executed without trial, and we were pretty big on tar & feathering people (often, but not always, fatal...And a REALLY bad way to go, as it took days to kill you) who were suspected of having the wrong values.
The Phillipine/American war also comes to mind. "Kill everyone over the age of 10." - General Smith.
"Nits make lice."
- General Sheridan
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 06, 2011, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 03:18:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
He was still British at that point.
I'm also reminded that a number of Native Americans were executed without trial, and we were pretty big on tar & feathering people (often, but not always, fatal...And a REALLY bad way to go, as it took days to kill you) who were suspected of having the wrong values.
The Phillipine/American war also comes to mind. "Kill everyone over the age of 10." - General Smith.
"Nits make lice."
- General Sheridan
No, that was John Brown.
Sheridan said things like "War is hell."
It was a close quarter live fire situation. I doubt they had time to make a nice pretty arrest with a bow and Miranda rights around it. I am sure reinforcements showing up was another potential threat. They were also aware that a helicopter was down and some may have to find another ride home.
In short, unless you've been there, done that.........
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 04:46:57 PM
In short, unless you've been there, done that.........
I have never agreed with that.
A better way of saying that is "It's really easy to second-guess the guy on the ground, after the fact."
I guess, for me, in the end it will boil down to what the President's order was... if it was "Capture alive if possible... otherwise kill" then I have 0 issues. If it was "Assasianate the motherfucker" I'm far less comfortable with that kind of command... but in the end, I'm still OK with him being dead.
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
I guess I've seen the Rule of Law abused or ignored far too often to think its really the basis for civilization.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
Your optimism surprises me some. Kill orders are nothing new at all. Damn, maybe I'm just that fucking jaded.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:01:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
I guess I've seen the Rule of Law abused or ignored far too often to think its really the basis for civilization.
You can't abuse the rule of law. You can only do OTHER shit, and CALL it the rule of law.
And there are 3 things that hold civilization together:
1. The rule of law. Without it, you get Somalia, EVERY TIME.
2. Beer. Beer is probably responsible for civilization starting in the first place.
3. Contracts for pouring concrete.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
Your optimism surprises me some. Kill orders are nothing new at all. Damn, maybe I'm just that fucking jaded.
At what point did I call kill orders new? In fact, a page or so ago, I was pointing out that they have been the norm for most of our history.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
Your optimism surprises me some. Kill orders are nothing new at all. Damn, maybe I'm just that fucking jaded.
At what point did I call kill orders new? In fact, a page or so ago, I was pointing out that they have been the norm for most of our history.
Sorry about that, still a little fuzzy headed today.
PILLZ HERE
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:01:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
The Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in.
I guess I've seen the Rule of Law abused or ignored far too often to think its really the basis for civilization.
You can't abuse the rule of law. You can only do OTHER shit, and CALL it the rule of law.
And there are 3 things that hold civilization together:
1. The rule of law. Without it, you get Somalia, EVERY TIME.
2. Beer. Beer is probably responsible for civilization starting in the first place.
3. Contracts for pouring concrete.
Well, I guess thats the thing... how much of our Rule of Law is rule of law vs the American bastardized version? If its not always and consistently applied, I can't think of a more appropriate incident to have it misapplied in.
Besides, I'm still not sure that assassination shouldn't be an option. Had we gone that route 10 years ago, maybe we would be 10 years into a war nor short a few thousand soldiers and lots of money.
Also, I think you're right on 2 and 3 :lulz:
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
So then what is it that we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past several years?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
So then what is it that we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past several years?
I refuse to be dragged into semantics here. You know very well what I meant.
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
So then what is it that we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past several years?
I refuse to be dragged into semantics here. You know very well what I meant.
I don't think it's a question of semantics, Charley, just a question of
scale.
One death is shocking. A hundred thousand deaths is a statistic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
So then what is it that we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past several years?
I refuse to be dragged into semantics here. You know very well what I meant.
I don't think it's a question of semantics, Charley, just a question of scale.
One death is shocking. A hundred thousand deaths is a statistic.
I suppose you are right. Some days I forget that the US is now one of the bad guys.
Actually if we look at it head on all this country is has come from war, from the beginning, including the western expansion, Mexico, hell, we even found a reason to fight each other when no one else was around.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 05, 2011, 06:30:00 PM
And of course, on that fateful day in September, they reached the Number 1 spot with....
.....
...Wait for it....
"It's Raining Men"
In an unprecedented feat, they also simultaneously had the number 2 spot on the charts with their cover of the classic Public Enemy song "9-1-1 is a Joke".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 06, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
There is an obvious very real issue with sanctioned murder.
So then what is it that we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past several years?
I refuse to be dragged into semantics here. You know very well what I meant.
I don't think it's a question of semantics, Charley, just a question of scale.
One death is shocking. A hundred thousand deaths is a statistic.
Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean really, the drone attacks, the door to door firefights, the bombings... its all sanctioned murder. We just call it war so we can feel better about it.
As far as I can tell, sanctioned murder has existed as long as the Rule of Law in every civilization (Maybe there are some exceptions, I dunno). I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', he argued that every individual is completely responsible for their actions. The man who pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, be he a soldier or a gangster. following 'orders' doesn't change the fact.
Indeed, as far as I can tell the biggest difference between the thousands of 'sanctioned murders' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 'sanctioned murder' of Bin Laden is that in the case of Bin Lade, we didn't really have innocent casualties.
What's better, killing a specific bad guy, or killing a bunch of bad guys and a bunch of innocent people? I mean, neither sit real comfortable with me, but in terms of human life it seems kinda clear...
Also, if the police chased down some wanted murderer, busted into his house and he refused to surrender (and had weapons nearby), how many people would be outraged when the cops killed him?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 06:05:39 PM
I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress',
Oops. Stopped right there.
Anyway, he was our enemy, and we killed him.
I fail to see any lack of precedent, here.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PMI guess, for me, in the end it will boil down to what the President's order was... if it was "Capture alive if possible... otherwise kill" then I have 0 issues.
I think the same thing. If they tried to capture alive, it can probably be argued it was better to fail in the "alive" part than fail in the "capture" part.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 05:00:17 PMQuote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 04:59:02 PMThe Rule of Law is great, but the Rule of Reality sometimes overrides.
Balls.
That's why I'm so uncomfortable with all of this. I'm glad he's dead, but the rule of law IS, or it ISN'T, and if it isn't, then you have no civilization worth living in
Rog, I wondered about this for the past couple of days. What if the same thing had happened to Saddam Hussein? (As in, really bad guy that didn't have much to do with 9/11)
This is not a gotcha-question, I'm asking cause I'm not entirely certain about my opinion as well. And I'm asking
you cause you got principles like a fucking rock, and got a good grasp on them to explain them.
If you don't know or don't want to answer, that's fine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 06:14:06 PM
Anyway, he was our enemy, and we killed him.
I fail to see any lack of precedent, here.
... or maybe you answered my question right as I posted.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 06, 2011, 06:21:19 PM
Rog, I wondered about this for the past couple of days. What if the same thing had happened to Saddam Hussein? (As in, really bad guy that didn't have much to do with 9/11)
This is not a gotcha-question, I'm asking cause I'm not entirely certain about my opinion as well. And I'm asking you cause you got principles like a fucking rock, and got a good grasp on them to explain them.
If you don't know or don't want to answer, that's fine.
I think Saddam was someone else's problem. We had precisely zero business getting involved in Iraq. He wasn't our enemy (at least not in any meaningful way), and there was no justification that stands to reason for any part of that whole mess.
Aside from the oil. Notice we haven't invaded (or assembled a NATO coalition to drop bombs on) Yemen, which in theory is a much more fertile breeding ground for actual terrorists and therefore should be a higher strategic priority given publicly stated reasons for why we do this sort of thing.
I think the Yemeni risk has been overstated, personally. Last estimates I heard was that there was roughly 200 Al-Qaeda members in the country, most unable to find their backsides with both hands. What happens is the CIA send in Predator drones, who predictably fail to hit anything other than weddings and other public celebrations, the government of Yemen says it was responsible for the attack, people get pissed off and express it in that delightfully Yemeni fashion (killing the nearest government official), the Yemeni government then cries about "Al-Qaeda" and keeps getting US arms and special forces training at a discount price. Meanwhile, the real Yemeni AQ send retards with bombs they don't know how to detonate, or disassembled bombs, via airplanes, presumably in some kind of bizarre attempt to troll themselves and Western intelligence agencies at the same time.
As always, Pakistan is the elephant in the room. That is the breeding ground, due in no small part to the heroin trade and semi-state backing such groups get. Oh, and the schools. Never forget the schools. And because of Pakistan's strategic relationship with China, and nuclear weapons, it will never suffer invasion like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 06, 2011, 06:41:23 PM
Aside from the oil. Notice we haven't invaded (or assembled a NATO coalition to drop bombs on) Yemen, which in theory is a much more fertile breeding ground for actual terrorists and therefore should be a higher strategic priority given publicly stated reasons for why we do this sort of thing.
Naw. It's cheaper to buy oil. As far as I can tell, the war happened so that we could transfer large portions of the US treasury to certain corporations, via no-bid contracts. The Iraq war was won by Halliburton, KB&R, and Blackwater, much as the Spanish-American war was won by United Fruit (now Del Monte).
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 06, 2011, 06:03:04 PM
In an unprecedented feat, they also simultaneously had the number 2 spot on the charts with their cover of the classic Public Enemy song "9-1-1 is a Joke".
ZANG!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 06, 2011, 06:41:23 PM
Aside from the oil. Notice we haven't invaded (or assembled a NATO coalition to drop bombs on) Yemen, which in theory is a much more fertile breeding ground for actual terrorists and therefore should be a higher strategic priority given publicly stated reasons for why we do this sort of thing.
Naw. It's cheaper to buy oil. As far as I can tell, the war happened so that we could transfer large portions of the US treasury to certain corporations, via no-bid contracts. The Iraq war was won by Halliburton, KB&R, and Blackwater, much as the Spanish-American war was won by United Fruit (now Del Monte).
There are some talking heads in the energy industry who feel that it's likely that non-OPEC oil either has peaked or is about to peak, and either way there's no doubt that the North Sea and Caspian fields have reached a point where extraction costs are close to making it impractical to continue selling that oil on the world market. Our ability to continually use more and more energy is absolutely vital to the maintenance of our current economic system, and the easiest and most certain way to achieve that in the eyes of many of the people in our national policy circles is to ensure access to oil that is now controlled by OPEC.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 06, 2011, 06:56:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 06, 2011, 06:41:23 PM
Aside from the oil. Notice we haven't invaded (or assembled a NATO coalition to drop bombs on) Yemen, which in theory is a much more fertile breeding ground for actual terrorists and therefore should be a higher strategic priority given publicly stated reasons for why we do this sort of thing.
Naw. It's cheaper to buy oil. As far as I can tell, the war happened so that we could transfer large portions of the US treasury to certain corporations, via no-bid contracts. The Iraq war was won by Halliburton, KB&R, and Blackwater, much as the Spanish-American war was won by United Fruit (now Del Monte).
There are some talking heads in the energy industry who feel that it's likely that non-OPEC oil either has peaked or is about to peak, and either way there's no doubt that the North Sea and Caspian fields have reached a point where extraction costs are close to making it impractical to continue selling that oil on the world market. Our ability to continually use more and more energy is absolutely vital to the maintenance of our current economic system, and the easiest and most certain way to achieve that in the eyes of many of the people in our national policy circles is to ensure access to oil that is now controlled by OPEC.
I don't think PNAC can think that far ahead, to be honest. They're all corporate tards, and they think in terms of quarters.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 06:05:39 PM
I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress',
Oops. Stopped right there.
Ah, yeah forgot about your visceral hatred of that particular author.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 06:23:42 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 06, 2011, 06:21:19 PM
Rog, I wondered about this for the past couple of days. What if the same thing had happened to Saddam Hussein? (As in, really bad guy that didn't have much to do with 9/11)
This is not a gotcha-question, I'm asking cause I'm not entirely certain about my opinion as well. And I'm asking you cause you got principles like a fucking rock, and got a good grasp on them to explain them.
If you don't know or don't want to answer, that's fine.
I think Saddam was someone else's problem. We had precisely zero business getting involved in Iraq. He wasn't our enemy (at least not in any meaningful way), and there was no justification that stands to reason for any part of that whole mess.
Agreed 123%
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 07:22:48 PM
Ah, yeah forgot about your visceral hatred of that particular author.
Ayn Rand with spaceships and extra bigotry.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 06, 2011, 04:22:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 03:18:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 03:02:33 PM
I'm reminded that John Adams defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
Truly, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Unfortunately, we're now taking massive dumps on their heads.
He was still British at that point.
I'm also reminded that a number of Native Americans were executed without trial, and we were pretty big on tar & feathering people (often, but not always, fatal...And a REALLY bad way to go, as it took days to kill you) who were suspected of having the wrong values.
The Phillipine/American war also comes to mind. "Kill everyone over the age of 10." - General Smith.
"Nits make lice."
- General Sheridan
No, that was John Brown.
Sheridan said things like "War is hell."
It was Col. Chivington.
Sheridan said "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." I mixed the quotes up.
I stand corrected.
John Brown said "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
And then he invented calculus when a plantation owner fell out of a tree onto his head.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 08:15:55 PM
I stand corrected.
John Brown said "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
And then he invented calculus when a plantation owner fell out of a tree onto his head.
:lol:
Oh, it's gonna be like that, is it?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 08:17:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 08:15:55 PM
I stand corrected.
John Brown said "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
And then he invented calculus when a plantation owner fell out of a tree onto his head.
:lol:
Oh, it's gonna be like that, is it?
"It's like that, and that's the way it is."
- Douglas MacArthur.
"All I wanna do is zooma-zoom-zoom, and a-boom boom."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 08:19:57 PM
"All I wanna do is zooma-zoom-zoom, and a-boom boom."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And he became president. This only furthers my argument that presidents should occasionally act like actual humans, instead of detached robots. I mean, fuck's sake, JFK fucked Monika Lewinski in the White House pool, and he's adored to this day.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 08:22:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 08:19:57 PM
"All I wanna do is zooma-zoom-zoom, and a-boom boom."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And he became president. This only furthers my argument that presidents should occasionally act like actual humans, instead of detached robots. I mean, fuck's sake, JFK fucked Monika Lewinski in the White House pool, and he's adored to this day.
:spittake:
:mittens: :fuckmittens: :mittens:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 08:19:57 PM
"All I wanna do is zooma-zoom-zoom, and a-boom boom."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
He went on to say "and do what you like." He added that sometimes he bites.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:13:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 06, 2011, 08:19:57 PM
"All I wanna do is zooma-zoom-zoom, and a-boom boom."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
He went on to say "and do what you like." He added that sometimes he bites.
And had a penchant for sexual relations in fast food restaurant bathrooms.
That guy was an animal, and makes me proud to be an American™.
Mrs. Eisenhower was fond of shaking her rump, by the way.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 08:15:55 PM
I stand corrected.
John Brown said "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
And then he invented calculus when a plantation owner fell out of a tree onto his head.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
His troof is marching on.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:18:13 PM
Mrs. Eisenhower was fond of shaking her rump, by the way.
And she was known for shoop-oop-a-dooping. It was quite the scandal.
Yeah they were much cooler than President Johnson, he just had that weird hot wax fetish....
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 09:20:31 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:18:13 PM
Mrs. Eisenhower was fond of shaking her rump, by the way.
And she was known for shoop-oop-a-dooping. It was quite the scandal.
Not to mention all the lazors she charged. So shameful! :eek:
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:18:13 PM
Mrs. Eisenhower was fond of shaking her rump, by the way.
Sir Mix-A-Lot wrote a song about her. That's her in the video.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:24:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2011, 09:20:31 PM
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on May 06, 2011, 09:18:13 PM
Mrs. Eisenhower was fond of shaking her rump, by the way.
And she was known for shoop-oop-a-dooping. It was quite the scandal.
Not to mention all the lazors she charged. So shameful! :eek:
Salt-N-Peppa never mentioned that part in their biography of her. :?
This thread is suddenly :mittens:
:lulz:
I have no idea what the FUCK this is, but I like it. Carry on my good gentlespags.
alas, RWHN will never see that pun now...
I dun geddit. :?
well I think this guy answered all my questions.
Sometimes the simple answer is one right in front of yours face
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/05/journal-ding-dong-osamas-dead.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FrzYD+%28Global+Guerrillas%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
QuoteToo little too late. A couple of trillion $$ and ten years late. Too little in that we got a corpse instead of a captive, when there was an opportunity to take him alive (or "mostly dead" if you get the reference). In all, we got more of a PR stunt than an actual historical event. Why? A trial could be cathartic and that is dangerous. It would reveal the gap between demonization and reality. It would also deflate the fear bubble. Fear was/is so useful in making the defense and homeland security dollars flow (at levels beyond reason) and perpetuating the government's emergency powers.
Hey, "symbolic victory" tards. The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves. Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.
This is what we call a "material failure". It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.
Quote from: Cain on May 07, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Hey, "symbolic victory" tards. The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves. Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.
This is what we call a "material failure". It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 06:05:39 PM
Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean really, the drone attacks, the door to door firefights, the bombings... its all sanctioned murder. We just call it war so we can feel better about it.
As far as I can tell, sanctioned murder has existed as long as the Rule of Law in every civilization (Maybe there are some exceptions, I dunno). I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', he argued that every individual is completely responsible for their actions. The man who pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, be he a soldier or a gangster. following 'orders' doesn't change the fact.
Indeed, as far as I can tell the biggest difference between the thousands of 'sanctioned murders' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 'sanctioned murder' of Bin Laden is that in the case of Bin Lade, we didn't really have innocent casualties.
What's better, killing a specific bad guy, or killing a bunch of bad guys and a bunch of innocent people? I mean, neither sit real comfortable with me, but in terms of human life it seems kinda clear...
Also, if the police chased down some wanted murderer, busted into his house and he refused to surrender (and had weapons nearby), how many people would be outraged when the cops killed him?
Reading this, the question that comes to mind is "Is use of mass force
never justified?"
I'm not trying to pick an arguement on the subject. I totally respect that position. Just curious if that is ultimately your stance. Perhaps I am misreading your conclusions.
Cain, I was more or less going to ask you the same thing, although I was going to say, "What would you say to the "Clash of Civilisations" opined tools?" or "What Would Hegel Do?"
Quote from: Cain on May 07, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Hey, "symbolic victory" tards. The Taliban just advanced on Kandahar today, probably wiped out the city's internal security agency and have the Governors compound surrounded, while people are fleeing the city in droves. Rockets are being fired into the streets, the local police station has been demolished and snipers have already had to take out two suicide bombers.
This is what we call a "material failure". It trumps symbolic victory through the property of existing in reality.
:popcorn:
You have to remember, Cain, that I don't have the human species' best interests at heart.
Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"
and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims
but I am super tired and I lost the link. :(
Quote from: Nigel on May 08, 2011, 06:03:00 AM
Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"
and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims
but I am super tired and I lost the link. :(
you probably mean this one
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/airline-pilot-refuses-to-fly-with-muslim-men-on-board.php?ref=dcblt
Quote from: Slyph on May 08, 2011, 12:45:35 AM
Cain, I was more or less going to ask you the same thing, although I was going to say, "What would you say to the "Clash of Civilisations" opined tools?" or "What Would Hegel Do?"
Well, firstly, most people never read Huntingdon that well. His argument was retarded, but not as retarded as some people made out. He was arguing that the civilizational level had replaced the state level of analysis in international affairs - an attempt to explain the outbreak of intra-state violence in the post-Cold War world that most Realists never even bothered to try and give reasons for. His reasoning is faulty, but that is due to the limits of Realist thinking and his own prejudices (see: Huntingdon's ranting about Latinos Catholicizing the USA shortly before he died, for example).
Secondly, I'd point out his coding for the various different civilizations is totally whacked. Apparently Israel is part of "Judeo-Christian" Western Culture, despite the large influx of Jews descended from those who lived in Eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and the Russian Empire/Soviet Union. If anything, Israel derives more from those cultures than, say, America or France. And has gone even more in that direction as Russians with dubious or questionable Jewish ancestery fled to Israel and bought passports with their fortunes. That is just one example off the top of my head.
The coding is even worse when it comes to most of Africa. African conflicts can be seen through an Islamic/Christian lense...but that is because Colonial powers, namely Britain and France, spread Christianity to tribes living near the coast or major river trade routes, whereas Islam spread among inland tribes, who sent their own missionaries through territory they knew better than the invaders. As such, most conflicts in Africa are between different, if related, tribes. The recent Ivory Coast conflict is a perfect example of this - it was widely explained in the American press as a "Muslim North vs Christian South" conflict, whereas religious affiliation is more linked to tribal affiliation than true conviction - more the Balkans or Northern Ireland than the Clash of the Civilizations (I was going to say Afghanistan there, as the contrasting example, but most Afghans are the same kind of Muslim, while belonging to different ethnic groups, and so properly belong alongside Northern Ireland and the Balkans, even taking into account the Taliban. After all, Croatia had the Ustashe).
This seems to hold generally for post-Cold War conflicts. The Clash of the Civilizations is terrible for explaining state on state or international state on sub-state group violence. America involves itself in the Middle East not because it is a Christian power threatened by Muslim powers, but because the Middle East has no military power which can compare with it, and so it can generate easy military victories there against mostly phantom threats and justify keeping its military spending high and its profitable alliances in place. Most conflicts around the world take place between genetically closely related people fighting for control over resources, to secede or to ethnically cleanse territory as a prelude to state-building. Some of these conflicts take place on what Huntingdon considers religious-civilizational fault lines, but ethno-resource fault lines would almost certainly prove a better predictive model.
Quote from: MMIX on May 08, 2011, 02:40:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 08, 2011, 06:03:00 AM
Oh shit, I was gonna say something about those two Imams who were removed from a plane after the pilot refused to fly it citing the claim that "some of the passengers might be uncomfortable"
and the irony that the Imams were on their way to a conference about bigotry against Muslims
but I am super tired and I lost the link. :(
you probably mean this one
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/airline-pilot-refuses-to-fly-with-muslim-men-on-board.php?ref=dcblt
Thanks, yes. :)
Quote from: The Commander on May 08, 2011, 12:32:10 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 06, 2011, 06:05:39 PM
Yeah, that was kinda my point. I mean really, the drone attacks, the door to door firefights, the bombings... its all sanctioned murder. We just call it war so we can feel better about it.
As far as I can tell, sanctioned murder has existed as long as the Rule of Law in every civilization (Maybe there are some exceptions, I dunno). I am reminded of Prof La Paz from the book 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', he argued that every individual is completely responsible for their actions. The man who pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, be he a soldier or a gangster. following 'orders' doesn't change the fact.
Indeed, as far as I can tell the biggest difference between the thousands of 'sanctioned murders' in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 'sanctioned murder' of Bin Laden is that in the case of Bin Lade, we didn't really have innocent casualties.
What's better, killing a specific bad guy, or killing a bunch of bad guys and a bunch of innocent people? I mean, neither sit real comfortable with me, but in terms of human life it seems kinda clear...
Also, if the police chased down some wanted murderer, busted into his house and he refused to surrender (and had weapons nearby), how many people would be outraged when the cops killed him?
Reading this, the question that comes to mind is "Is use of mass force never justified?"
I'm not trying to pick an argument on the subject. I totally respect that position. Just curious if that is ultimately your stance. Perhaps I am misreading your conclusions.
I am not a pacifist, sometimes force can be justified. However, I'm saying that mass force doesn't get a discount on murder in bulk. Its just a lot of individuals murdering individuals and each of those murders will have to be justified by the people responsible for that murder, from the solider to the top leader.
I prefer the path of fewest murders, whenever such a thing is possible.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 08, 2011, 04:59:05 PM
I am not a pacifist, sometimes force can be justified. However, I'm saying that mass force doesn't get a discount on murder in bulk. Its just a lot of individuals murdering individuals and each of those murders will have to be justified by the people responsible for that murder, from the solider to the top leader.
I prefer the path of fewest murders, whenever such a thing is possible.
I see. So, if the individuals involved in a group action are aware that their actions lead to the murder of others, but they can justify it, it is not so bad as when the individuals are not aware that their actions lead to the murder of others or when they cannot justify the murders.
Am I reading you correctly?
Quote from: The Commander on May 09, 2011, 01:24:52 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 08, 2011, 04:59:05 PM
I am not a pacifist, sometimes force can be justified. However, I'm saying that mass force doesn't get a discount on murder in bulk. Its just a lot of individuals murdering individuals and each of those murders will have to be justified by the people responsible for that murder, from the solider to the top leader.
I prefer the path of fewest murders, whenever such a thing is possible.
I see. So, if the individuals involved in a group action are aware that their actions lead to the murder of others, but they can justify it, it is not so bad as when the individuals are not aware that their actions lead to the murder of others or when they cannot justify the murders.
Am I reading you correctly?
Assuming, of course, that the humans doing the justification have a reasonable system of ethics :)
From Max on Terminal Lance.
Quote from: Maximilian Uriarte
I feel that the President did a fine job of summing it up by saying:
"His demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity."
Hey, if it's good enough for a Nobel Peace Prize winner, it's good enough for me.
Is the idea of celebrating someone's death a little bit morbid? Yes, but this isn't someone. This is America's most prolific enemy in a very long time. This is the man responsible for September 11th, 2001–and all of the devastation that followed for the next ten years. He was an enemy to the American people in the most lucid sense of the word, and his death is a great victory for our nation on all accounts. Will it change anything in the short run? No, of course not. The war is not over, the enemy still exists and will continue to fight; and probably more importantly, we will continue to fight them.
I typically pride myself on my civility, as it's something I believe all humans should embrace (even us Neanderthal sub-humans). I truly believe that the human race can only move forward through absolute pacifism on a global scale. Our species as a whole would do a great deed to themselves by throwing their weapons down and moving forward in the many fields of sciences, such as astrophysics, biology and medicine. I would love to fire every Marine and put that money into the space program where the vast expanses of space and everything in between would be ours for the exploring. New planets, civilizations, theories, worlds and technologie await us in this utopian future.
Unfortunately, this future is a long way off, and I am a member of our imperfect, barbaric society along with the rest of you. It is thus, that I decree, we embrace the brutality of this situation that has arisen. Thousands gathered in the streets last night chanting into the darkness the glory of the United States, all over the death–or more correctly, the assassination–of one man.
Does he speak for all Marines? Of course not, but he's in touch with the life for the junior enlisted and the realities of the USMC.
tl:dr
There is symbolic value in killing Osama, but terror isnt over. One day we'll be beyond war, right now we're not.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 09, 2011, 05:59:11 AM
Quote from: The Commander on May 09, 2011, 01:24:52 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 08, 2011, 04:59:05 PM
I am not a pacifist, sometimes force can be justified. However, I'm saying that mass force doesn't get a discount on murder in bulk. Its just a lot of individuals murdering individuals and each of those murders will have to be justified by the people responsible for that murder, from the solider to the top leader.
I prefer the path of fewest murders, whenever such a thing is possible.
I see. So, if the individuals involved in a group action are aware that their actions lead to the murder of others, but they can justify it, it is not so bad as when the individuals are not aware that their actions lead to the murder of others or when they cannot justify the murders.
Am I reading you correctly?
Assuming, of course, that the humans doing the justification have a reasonable system of ethics :)
I'm thinking that if they think of what they are doing as murder, then they are at least half-way there.
That seems like a fairly reasonable way of looking at things. It allows for the concept of a "Just War" while requiring that those involved have a realistic view of just what the consequences of going to war would be.
Did someone say something about "Osama found jacking off to gay porn while living in luxury" or something to that effect, for the sake of demoralizing AQ?
well... they're doing the porn thing at least:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-pornography-found-bin-laden-hideout-officials-162214194.html
Quote from: Iptuous on May 14, 2011, 03:06:04 AM
Did someone say something about "Osama found jacking off to gay porn while living in luxury" or something to that effect, for the sake of demoralizing AQ?
well... they're doing the porn thing at least:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-pornography-found-bin-laden-hideout-officials-162214194.html
Yeah, I called it either the day of the assassination or the day after.
I am Jack's complete lack of suprise. Shit, there was a time the US led the world in propaganda techniques. This stuff is weaksauce. No wonder Psy-Op teams in Iraq and Afghanistan fail to convince anyone to swap sides.
ok....
how about this then... does
it surprise you?
Disney Trademarks "Seal Team 6" (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689)
QuoteIn a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, The Walt Disney Company has trademarked "Seal Team 6," which also happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama Bin Laden.
The trademark applications came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed Bin Laden... and two days after "Seal Team 6″ was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.
Disney's trademark applications for "Seal Team 6″ cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and "entertainment and education services," among other things.
Quote from: Iptuous on May 14, 2011, 03:11:21 AM
ok....
how about this then... does it surprise you?
Disney Trademarks "Seal Team 6" (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689)
QuoteIn a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, The Walt Disney Company has trademarked "Seal Team 6," which also happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama Bin Laden.
The trademark applications came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed Bin Laden... and two days after "Seal Team 6″ was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.
Disney's trademark applications for "Seal Team 6″ cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and "entertainment and education services," among other things.
Should be interesting.
Those guys are going to looooooove being associated with kiddie crap.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on May 14, 2011, 03:14:26 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on May 14, 2011, 03:11:21 AM
ok....
how about this then... does it surprise you?
Disney Trademarks "Seal Team 6" (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689)
QuoteIn a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, The Walt Disney Company has trademarked "Seal Team 6," which also happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama Bin Laden.
The trademark applications came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed Bin Laden... and two days after "Seal Team 6″ was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.
Disney's trademark applications for "Seal Team 6″ cover clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and "entertainment and education services," among other things.
Should be interesting.
Those guys are going to looooooove being associated with kiddie crap.
Walt is rolling over in his fucking grave.
2013 new Disney movie featuring 6 Princesses that go on a kick ass mission to save the world.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on May 14, 2011, 05:53:48 PM
2013 new Disney movie featuring 6 Princesses that go on a kick ass mission to save the world.
:horrormirth:
It would be wonderful if all of their parks fell in the ocean.
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on May 14, 2011, 05:53:48 PM
2013 new Disney movie featuring 6 Princesses that go on a kick ass mission to save the world.
:horrormirth:
:x:1fap:
PD.com should apply for a trademark of The Patriot Act.
Yeah, but I'd be apt to use it to make porn. Or make toilet seat covers, baby wipes and the like out of it.
Quote from: Jenne on May 14, 2011, 06:24:47 PM
Yeah, but I'd be apt to use it to make porn. Or make toilet seat covers, baby wipes and the like out of it.
That's the general idea....... :evil:
Quote from: Charley Brown on May 14, 2011, 06:27:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on May 14, 2011, 06:24:47 PM
Yeah, but I'd be apt to use it to make porn. Or make toilet seat covers, baby wipes and the like out of it.
That's the general idea....... :evil:
I can get behind that, then.
If we all kicked in, I wonder if we could get the rights to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E
First, I read an article about the discovery of Osama's porn collection.
Then I read an article about Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's supposed "right hand man".
Then I went :|
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 16, 2011, 04:17:45 PM
First, I read an article about the discovery of Osama's porn collection.
Then I read an article about Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's supposed "right hand man".
Then I went :|
:spit:
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 16, 2011, 04:17:45 PM
First, I read an article about the discovery of Osama's porn collection.
Then I read an article about Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's supposed "right hand man".
Then I went :|
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
story about how they did it all:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all
it's kinda longwinded, IMO, but a good read nonetheless.
Quote from: LMNO on May 03, 2011, 05:22:16 PM
I think I've already noted that when I started hearing the chanting of "USA! USA!", I got this sinking feeling in my stomach.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
That's just humans gathering dopamine.
This is all normal.