Bin Laden - Page 6

[moonfirefaery]

I don't think our hands are anywhere near as bloody when it comes to this matter as bin Laden's are. We can appreciate our role in this awful situation, while still celebrating that he is no longer at large. If you create a monster, isn't it your duty to neutralize it?

So... You won't be the least bit upset when people, say, cheer the death of GW Bush when it happens?

You think that GW Bush, who cost lives due to mismanagement and incompetence, is the same as bin Laden, who deliberately killed innocent people to spread terror? I'm sorry but if you can't understand how and why these two people are not comparable in this regard, it's like someone said earlier that we're really quite done here. We're not going to be able to connect if you cannot see the difference between them, because I think there is a huge difference, not that I'm a fan of Dubya.

In any case, if people cheer his death, no, it won't phase me. They have the right to respond how they choose.

[monkey's mom]

You think the Iraqi people who lost families as we "shocked and awed" them for weapons for  mass destruction (that we KNEW did not exist) and then continued to kill them to "free them" feel any differently about GWB or *us* than people here feel about Osama Bin Laden??

Cheering his capture is not the same as cheering his death. He's dead. He may have been a monster, but he was a human being. One of us. He leaves a family behind.

If you can "other" him to the point where you can't see his humanity how the heck is tha any different than what he did? I'm not weeping for him. I'm relieved he's gone, but dancing in the streets and fist pumping? That's vile.

This guy in the Christian Science Monitor says it well:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0502/Celebrating-Osama-bin-Laden-s-death-is-anti-American-and-not-very-biblical 

There is something deeply wrong with this picture. By celebrating death, even of someone as evil as bin Laden, we let our worst impulses trump what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” We look petty, juvenile, and small. And we should all be worried about that .

.

[moonfirefaery]

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.

[monkey's mom]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question.

There is no court case here. You think the blood on our hands is somehow justified. I disagree.

I don't think Osama and Bush are equals. But when you're comparing killing innocents to killing innocents, I think it's pretty short sighted to say, "Well, what we did was different."

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.

Your point may be valid but it's the assumption that's under question. Many people believe that Bush's actions were not merely incompetence or mismanagement, but purposeful acts. To those people, Bush is a terrorist.

[amma_mama]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.

Yes, I think this is where we part ways. There was, IMHO, just as much intent in Bush's invasion of Iraq. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction nor an imminent threat of attack. Bush and family fully intended the heartless destruction, destabilization and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and lied to the world to gain permission to do so. Mismanagement was just icing on the cake. The evidence of torture, approved by the Bush Administration, was well outside international law and were otherwise crimes against humanity. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be put before The Hague to answer for their sins. Instead, they wrapped themselves up in an American flag and got away with mass murder.

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.

Originally Posted by laohaire 

Your point may be valid but it's the assumption that's under question. Many people believe that Bush's actions were not merely incompetence or mismanagement, but purposeful acts. To those people, Bush is a terrorist.

Laohaire you make a good point. Moonfirefaery - How do you or anyone else personally know what Bush's intentions were? How would you personally know he didn't maliciously intend it? I really don't know that. The answer is: you really can't know either. You need evidence to make this conclusion.

Originally Posted by amma_mama 

Yes, I think this is where we part ways. There was, IMHO, just as much intent in Bush's invasion of Iraq. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction nor an imminent threat of attack. Bush and family fully intended the heartless destruction, destabilization and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and lied to the world to gain permission to do so. Mismanagement was just icing on the cake. The evidence of torture, approved by the Bush Administration, was well outside international law and were otherwise crimes against humanity. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be put before The Hague to answer for their sins. Instead, they wrapped themselves up in an American flag and got away with mass murder.

Yup. The evidence or lack of evidence in terms of weapons of mass destruction points to some other intent on Bush's part. Hmmm... lying certainly did happen. I agree with everything here. It's disturbing - the lack of accountability we hold our leaders to.
 

[moonfirefaery]

monkey's mom, We'll have to agree to disagree, as we'll probably never agree on whether what we did was different or justified.

laohaire, I have my suspicions about Bush's intent, but until they are proven I will not acknowledge that he holds a candle to Osama. I don't think his intent was as cold-blooded. I suspect that it was. But there must be proof.

MamaofLiam, no one but Bush knows his intent, but I have the right to observe him and his actions and then believe what I like about the intent behind them. Lying most certainly did happen, or rather exaggerating the 30% of evidence that he had WMDs while hiding the 70% of intelligence stating he probably didn't. As to the rest, I'll need proof before I can consider someone a terrorist worthy of the same fate as Osama. Yes, the accountability IS disturbing, especially when we are punishing Bradley Manning instead of the corrupt administration he exposed.

[monkey's mom]

I think we, as a people--as a nation, absolutely ought to decide what kind of behavior we expect from ourselves.

Take that kid who shot up Virginia Tech....if crowds of people had gathered around his body at the scene and spit on him, kicked him, pointed and sang "hey hey hey good-bye," and danced on the quad, would we think that was appropriate? Would we not have expected the authorities to step in and say, "Hey, we don't do that." We might understand that people were freaked out of their minds and reacted badly in the moment, but we don't condone that.

Do we drag bodies down the streets? Do we hang people in town squares and cheer as the rope snaps their necks?

There are social mores--cultural norms--that we collectively come up with for what constitutes decent behavior. I think dancing in the streets and singing songs that we sing at victorious sporting events about the death of Osama Bin Laden has struck one of those grey areas for us. Of course people have a right to do it. Just like those infamous men who danced and cheered in Lafayette Park or wherever it was on 9/11. It doesn't make it any less distasteful or embarrassing.

[Ldavis24]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Um, wow...

I an neither a terrorist, nor a supporter of terrorists.

I an not cheering either. For no other reason than I feel that cheering a death is wrong.

yeah this...I was SHOCKED to wake up to dh showing me the news where it looked like people were celebrating a super bowl win or something...It was really off putting and bizarre to me... Nothing has changed, Al Qaeda is still functioning, we still have troops fighting a "war" that can't be "won" and I see college kids jumping into a river like morons...I'm not sad he is dead but there is a middle ground and I think partying like it's new years eve is messed up...just me.
 

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

laohaire, I have my suspicions about Bush's intent, but until they are proven I will not acknowledge that he holds a candle to Osama. I don't think his intent was as cold-blooded. I suspect that it was. But there must be proof.

That's ok, I'm not out to convince anyone of Bush's intents or lack thereof. Just pointing out that this is the crux of the difference of opinion.

[moonfirefaery]

I'm not embarrassed about it... We've been at war for so long, and we will be for years to come...and then there will be more wars. But we have made an accomplishment; a feared murderer can no longer do murder.. and I don't bedgrudge anyone their fleeting happiness at the news.

[mar123]

Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20.  (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).

[moonfirefaery]

mar123, I could be wrong but it was my understanding that most intel suggested he did have WMDs at that time, but that they were moved before the Iraq War erupted. I am, however, glad we got rid of Saddam; I disapprove of the methods used and the exaggerations that led our Congress to approve them.

[love4bob]

Originally Posted by mar123 

Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20.  (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).

Clinton also had the opportunity to capture or kill OBL during his presidency, but didn't. You can not blame all of the middle east problems on Bush. It goes back many presidents before, probably starting around Raegan.... or maybe even Nixon since he is the one who started the whole supporting Israel no matter what business.

I do not agree with the conflicts we are currently in because it was not our place to dispose autonomous leaders of other nations(even though Saddam was a very evil man, possibly even more so than Bin Laden was), but it WAS our place to hunt down Bin Laden and Al-Qeda. It is possible to support one and not the other. Just because we have done some things that were wrong does not mean that we are wrong for doing what needed to be done in the case of Bin Laden.

[love4bob]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

mar123, I could be wrong but it was my understanding that most intel suggested he did have WMDs at that time, but that they were moved before the Iraq War erupted. I am, however, glad we got rid of Saddam; I disapprove of the methods used and the exaggerations that led our Congress to approve them.

Yes, I believe the initial intel did show that he had them, plus he was being sneaking and evading, and not allowing the UN to investigate which led to even more suspicion. Hindsight is definitely 20/20. I don't think that at the time he had a good decision to make, it was either he did have them and might use them against us or our allies, and we could go in and find out or wait it out and find out if he was going to use them. Both options have the possibility of a terrible outcome.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

 as we'll probably never agree on whether what we did was different or justified.

The mass murder of innocent people is never justified.

[insidevoice]

New information revealing that he was not, in fact, armed or using his wife as a shield. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489658/Osama-bin-Laden-was-not-armed-and-did-not-use-wife-as-human-shield.html

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by mar123 

Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20.  (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).

Bush was told by the people who gave the US the information that it had been falsified before he even sent troops to Iraq. 
 

[love4bob]

I also think it is easy to say what we would/would not do if we were in charge or what should/should not have happened, but until you are actually in that position I don't think that anyone can really say... as Obama is finding out with his presidency. He said a lot about the wars while campaigning, but I think he is finding the reality a lot different.