Bin Laden - Page 8

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.

How do you get to decide what the reality is? There are others who would assert that the reality is the direct opposite of what you are saying and that the US are terrorists. And as far as what the US is targeting: who knows what the US is targeting... There is so much the US has done that has me . It's just not as simple as "good guys" (e.g., US) and "bad guys" (e.g., terrorists). BTW I can tell you for a fact that there is growing sentiment around the world that the US is NOT the good guy. How do you make sense of that? And as a pp pointed out, you can't hold people to 2 different standards depending on whether you think they are "good" vs "bad". I think the problem I'm having understanding your view point is that I'm not seeing you acknowledge other perspectives outside of the pro-USA bubble. You're certainly entitled to think whatever you want, but limiting yourself to only one perspective is limiting your own understanding.

BTW the vast majority of quotes out there that I've seen about Bin Laden have been leaders of nations who are strong US allies, i.e. agreeable to the US's viewpoint. But that's not the entire world. Has anyone else heard what other non-Christian, white nations think about Bin Laden's death? I'm curious...

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?

A "fair chance?" What, exactly, is the alternative? Vigilante killings based on UNfair chances?

Are we civilized people here, or what?
 

[Thao]

(For some reason I can't get the quote button to work.)

"Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion."

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are based on fact and some on assumption. So far, all you've given to back up your opinions is assumptions about what you think people thought. I would agree with you that probably nobody thought the 9/11 attack would bring peace, but then again nobody I've talked to or heard talking about OBL's death thinks it will bring peace either. In the short run it will almost certainly increase the risk of a terrorist attack. But we hope that it will weaken AlQueda (sp?) and in the long run make terrorists think twice about attacking us. Why would it be improbable for a Palestinian to have a similar train of thought on 9/11? After all, Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon shortly after the terrible attack on our barracks there. Terrorist violence is sometimes effective.

You are right that the 9/11 attack was against innocents, whereas OBL was most definitely not innocent. That's why I brought up the Hiroshima bombing, where we attacked innocents. Yet we don't call that a terrorist attack. In the same way, I imagine the people who supported the 9/11 attack did not consider it a terrorist attack, but rather justified violence against the population of a country  which they are at war with. It's all a matter of perspective. Which is why I think the only consistent way to deal with such things is to say killing is Bad, period, and never to be celebrated. But sometimes necessary.

Edited by Thao - 5/3/11 at 7:25pm

[MamaofLiam]

Wow... this thread just really erupted! lol 

[babygirlie]

Actually he's killed hundreds of thousands of non-american, non-white, non christian people also.

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Trying to save American lives, to hell with all those non-American, non-White, non-Christian lives.

At least thats how it looks to the rest of the world.

[babygirlie]

No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.

What are you talking about? 

the definition of the word vigilante is: done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures adj or noun any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, asby avenging a crime.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.

No, are WE civilized?

And that answer has nothing to do with how we are treated, what is done to us, or how uncivilized anyone else is.

Are WE civilized?

Are WE people who do things fairly and justly and behave with dignity and respect no matter what?
 

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Chamomile Girl,

A murder is an unlawful kill. The kill was lawful; therefore, it was not murder.

.

I think the lawfulness of this kill has yet to be established. Is it lawful because we (meaning the US Government) say it's lawful?

[MusicianDad]

     Quote:

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.

So because he's the bad guy that give the US the right to stoop to his level? Why the hell should I show any respect either parties in this matter? The US's response to Bin Laden has come off as very "Kill 'em. Kill 'em all!"

If you want to tout yourself as being above the person you hate, you have to actually be above the person that you hate.

[Thao]

"What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)? Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy? Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?"

Actually, I was thinking Reagan for his funding of the Contras, who targeted civilians in their attempt to overthrow their (democratically elected) government. They should have sent in a commando team. As long as it was legal by Nicaraguan law, it would have been okay, right? :D

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?

I must say I am glad it's not me making these decisions.

There are plenty of people willing to give Bush a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt...

[eclipse]

And to continue in that vein. . .Say, for example, Mexican authorities found out that a drug cartel leader, who they believed (but had yet to be arrested or convicted) had been indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexicans due to instructing his/her underlings to carry out assassinations, police ambushes, and other acts of terror, was living across the border in the United States. Say then that Mexico sent in Mexican soldiers, without notifying or cooperating with the United States government or law enforcement, to bring him in dead or alive. Say, in the course of that raid, several people (including the initial target) were killed. How would the United States (government and citizens) react to something like that? Would those kills be lawful? Mexico is, quite literally, at war with the drug cartels (more literally than the USA is at war with this amorphous concept of "terror") - would it be justified as an act of war?

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Thao 

"What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)? Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy? Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?"

Actually, I was thinking Reagan for his funding of the Contras, who targeted civilians in their attempt to overthrow their (democratically elected) government. They should have sent in a commando team. As long as it was legal by Nicaraguan law, it would have been okay, right? :D

Originally Posted by eclipse 

And to continue in that vein. . .Say, for example, Mexican authorities found out that a drug cartel leader, who they believed (but had yet to be arrested or convicted) had been indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexicans due to instructing his/her underlings to carry out assassinations, police ambushes, and other acts of terror, was living across the border in the United States. Say then that Mexico sent in Mexican soldiers, without notifying or cooperating with the United States government or law enforcement, to bring him in dead or alive. Say, in the course of that raid, several people (including the initial target) were killed. How would the United States (government and citizens) react to something like that? Would those kills be lawful? Mexico is, quite literally, at war with the drug cartels (more literally than the USA is at war with this amorphous concept of "terror") - would it be justified as an act of war?

 Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

 Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.

You're right. My bad.

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

 Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.

 That probably shouldn't be funny b/c it is so true.
 

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

 Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.

Well, if you're not with us, you are against us.

[insidevoice]

I think the key here would be to determine if assassination/execution is a legal action to take against an unarmed man.  

[hakeber]

Osama Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist organization, yes...but we have been given ZERO viable proof that he was behind the attacks of 9/11.  So if people want to say they finally got justice for the crimes of 9/11...they are sadly mistaken on a number of counts.

1) it could have been and likely was our own government who instrumented the 9/11 attacks.

2) the death of one elderly figure head of a religiously and politcally motivated organization does not balance out the physical, emotional and social destruction that has ensued as a result of those attacks.

3) the Obama administration (and this BREAKS my heart to see!) is using this as a politcal smoke and mirror stunt for votes.  If it were about anything else, the CIA would have done it like they do everything else, silently and without a whisper.  This is a total media whore stunt and Obama should hang his head in shame.  Change indeed, sir, Change indeed.

4) Terrorist organizations, particularly religiously motivated ones, are typically, historically the hydras of the world.  When you cut out the long time unifying figure head, two come back in its place.  If the Palestine-Israel conflict, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown us anything there should be at least two more leaders to come forward in the near future and they will certainly be seeking their own brand of justice for not only an unlawful, death that was justified by "resisting arrest" when there was never enough evidence to press formal charges for 9/11 in the first place (I personally know of NO ONE who is rejoicing the death of this man because of his heinous crime of bombing a US embassy in 1998, do you?  Most people I know had never even heard of the man before 9/11) but also because the US forces didn't have permission to be there, and from what I understand, they wiped out a fair number of innocent Pakistani civilians along their mission to OBL. 

If you still think this was about justice, if you still think the US gets out of this one with a shiny white coat of glistening armour and a reputation as the saviors of the world, you need to think again.  The people the world where I'm hanging out are horror stricken and the people who admired amd followed OBL are merely in grieving for their leader and when that passes, they will be coming for blood, no doubt about it in my mind. 

I am so glad I am here in the relative safety of Colombia.

At the end of the day, not even one ounce of wickedness and evil are wiped out when a man is murdered.  Perhaps we might feel a sense of peace knowing that this ONE person cannot commit any acts of evil again, but we should never rejoice the death of a human being, no matter what they have done.  It speaks of a bitterness and cruelty of the soul that can only be described as inhuman.  It also speaks of a dangerous naivete that truly believes that erradicating a murderer brings us one step closer to erradicating murder.  This has never proven true and never will.

I pray for the revellers that they may find peace in their hearts, but I cannot join in their foolish denial of what has really happened here. 

Edited by hakeber - 5/3/11 at 7:53pm

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by monkey's mom 

Well, if you're not with us, you are against us.

Exactly. As Arthur Miller Pointed out through Danforth, during the McCarthy trials, the long repeating refrain of our society from Salem to now...You either stand with us or against us, there is no road between.

How can any US American Patriot cheer an execution without a trial?  Without even a solid case for a valid warrant for arrest?  How?  Do we even teach History in the schools anymore?