Bin Laden - Page 9

[hakeber]

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.

You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence.  Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world.  That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security.  Bin Laden was an elderly figure head.  He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already. 

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by hakeber 


You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence.  Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world.  That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security.  Bin Laden was an elderly figure head.  He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already. 

In my opinion, the greatest evidence of terrorism's success was watching American people celebrate this man's death in such an atrocious manner.  

Bin Laden had not been anything more than a figurehead for many years. He was a sick old man. Killing him will not effect any real change, other than to galvanize desperate people who saw him as an answer to their desperation.  

[monkey's mom]

Great posts Hakeber.

I agree, insidevoice.....I kept thinking that tired old refrain of "If we xyz, the terrorists have won," and kept coming back to, "Wow. We've become them. How's that for winning?"

Those videos of celebrating will be looped and looped at whatever training camps these people have and will surely incite more new recruits than we could ever imagine.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence.  Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world.  That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security.  Bin Laden was an elderly figure head.  He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already. 

For every civilian killed in the name of fighting terrorism, even more terrorists are made. Those who were hurt by the actions of those fighting "the war on terror". They will seek revenge in the name of those they lost. The path the US has taken is only breeding more terrorists.

[moonfirefaery]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians (men, women and children) who were killed as a direct result of US activity fighting "terrorists".

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

[moonfirefaery]

hakeber - We do need to meet the basic human needs of all citizens of the world, but please remember terrorism isn't only about having needs met. Terrorism occurs for a number of reasons; it's not always due to a "need." Sometimes it's a bunch of tyrants trying to enforce their will on the world around them, including their fellow countrymen, and Osama was one of those tyrants. Nothing except violence would have stopped him. Hamas makes humanitarian efforts and seems to care about getting some needs met, but is still a terrorist organization. Organizations like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't humanitarian at all. They're just tyrants. Do they have a valid reason to be angry at the US? yes. Does it justify their actions? No. We on the other hand aren't acting out of anger, but to protect ourselves.

MamaofLiam - I get to decide what MY view of reality is. It is a well-known fact that not everyone in the world considers us the good guys. Please note that good/bad guys is your terminology, not mine.

Thao - My opinions are based on the facts that I have become aware of through my research, not assumptions. I have a very low opinion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I don't know that I don't consider them terrorist attacks.

eclipse - We weren't the only government who wanted this guy; we also weren't the only one who wanted him dead or alive.

Thao - If an American citizen stole and crashed a plane into a building, killing thousands of innocents including children, and a foreign country decided to assassinate him, I'd be cool with it.

hakeber - Your post was great except that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, we have arrested many members of al Qaeda that took part in the attacks, Obama didn't claim victory like Bush and made it clear it was our military that caught the guy (his SUPPORTORS are using it to sing his praises, not him). When you destroy a group's leader, especially when that leader is charismatic and inspirational, you do weaken the organization. Perhaps they will find a new head that manages to pull them back together. Perhaps they will not.

insidevoice - This was a mission to neutralize a monster the US helped create by any means necessary. The SEALS were the ones on the spot, endangering their lives, making the decisions. If we don't shoot, will he kill us? Will he get away? What is more important, neutralizing this murderer or ensuring he gets a trial?

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

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? 

[Niamh]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

You do realize that you just equated 'thousands' of civilians killed by terrorists to the 'tens of thousands' of civilians (as you quoted MusicianDad saying - and his number is not exaggerated in the least) killed as a direct result of our actions fighting said terrorists.

Are 'our' civilians lives worth more than 'their' civilian lives?

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

eclipse - We weren't the only government who wanted this guy; we also weren't the only one who wanted him dead or alive

I never said we were. But a bunch of governments wanting something to happen doesn't make it legal for that thing to happen. On what do you base your assertion that it was a legal killing? FTR, I don't think something has to be legal for it to be a morally correct choice. There are lots of situations in which I think the moral choice and the legal choice are polar opposites. Admitting that something was likely illegal doesn't mean you're saying it shouldn't have been done anyway. But by saying it was a legal killing makes me think you and I have a different definition of legal. What country's laws do you think we should be examening to determine the legality? Ours? Pakistan's? International law?

[eclipse]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

I *think* Musician Dad's point was that the lives of all of those civilians - both those that were killed as a result of terrorist attacks likely orchestrated or encouraged by OBL and those that were killed by US military action were equally precious, and that it's equally devastating that any of them died. The lives lost on the receiving end of the violence caused by OBL and those like him were not any more (or less) valuable than those lost in fighting the war on "terror." And I, for one, would be willing to say that to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11, or anyone who lost a civilian loved one in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

insidevoice - This was a mission to neutralize a monster the US helped create by any means necessary. The SEALS were the ones on the spot, endangering their lives, making the decisions. If we don't shoot, will he kill us? Will he get away? What is more important, neutralizing this murderer or ensuring he gets a trial?

He was unarmed. You can not convince me a full team of SEALS would not have been capable- having already gotten THROUGH the defenses around him,  of capturing him alive.  This was an assassination from the get go.  He could have been wearing a pink dress and offering a cup of tea to people as they came in the door, he was going to be killed no matter what.  I have a great deal of outrage that  that is the path people felt had to be taken.  I doubt it was ultimately the SEALS' call- I suspect their orders were very much KOS.  If it was their call, frankly, they made a bad one.  Yes, I would rather have seen one of our combatants hurt or killed in combat than I would see them commit murder of an unarmed man. These guys choose this path, they know and accept the risks.   The fact that he was unarmed makes us look very much like we were out not to create safety, but to seek revenge, and I think the long term repercussions of that will cause a great deal more suffering and death worldwide.  

[Drummer's Wife]

OASN, speaking of 9/11, anyone know if we can discuss conspiracy theories now? They always got removed in the past.

yeahthat to everything hakeber said.

[hakeber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

Moonfire; The terrorists who have attacked US soil in the past have never done so out of the clear bue sky, or as George Bush would have had us believe because they "hate our freedom".

In particular the terrorist groups of the middle east (and there are and have been several of them for a reason) exist in large part because of our financial involvement in the civil wars of the region where we pick and choose which side to back with WMDs and which ones we choose to financially sanction and ostracize for reason that can only be viewed by an sane person as racist, and evil. Our govenrment has historically played a major role in the financial support of violent regimes that have cruelly and viciously opressed the peoples of that region for some time...and then we are shocked when they don't want to play nice?  We have lied and set them up for our politcal gain...goading the people (even outright lying and making false promises of either staying out of it or providing support) into attacking their oppressors and then pulling the rug out from under them so many times we are like Lucy to their Charlie Brown. 

They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves...well Israel seems like a lost cause, and the heathens are all mostly erradicated...who should we hate on next?  It was a gradual and consisten build up of loathing that was in many ways contrived by the US government for the benefit of the most wealthy people in the world. 

The wonder isn't that terrorism like 9/11 happens (hence why the US government could easily frame any terrorist group they wanted really, including one they hand picked, after having trained and funded him for decades in their own guerilla wars in the region...I mean if they wanted to.), but that we as a people have not risen up against our government in our own violent coup demanding that we put down the guns, that we stop financially raping the region and we start finding solution to the humanitarian issues that are plaguing the area and have been since post world war 2.

So if you are looking to explain to the victims of 9/11 (dead or alive) who is to blame for the tragedy of that morning, we have no further to look than ourselves.  The American people, as a rule, we tend to live in a fog of blissful ignorance and moral impunity -- it's not me, it's my government.  You can't hold ME responsible for the actions of my government! I'm just an innocent civilian-- in a country that prides itself on having a government of the people, by the people and for the people...well, we simply can't have it both ways.  Either we start to educate ourselves and fight for the changes in policy that we feel will work towards peace, or we go back to the mall and buy another pair of jeans to go with our "Ding dong BinLaden's Dead" T-shirt and consider this a victory...for what I still can't tell. 

But know this...the terrorists of this world, as awful as we may perceive them to be, have a reason to believe we owe them something, if nothing else, our full and undivided attention.

[MamaofLiam]

Quote:

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 toglobal 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.

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

MamaofLiam - I get to decide what MY view of reality is. It is a well-known fact that not everyone in the world considers us the good guys. Please note that good/bad guys is your terminology, not mine.
 

That's right, you do. But you also can't tell and project it on everyone else that it's their reality too. I think you need to clarify that it's YOUR reality. You state it as a statement of fact - see the bolded. I certainly don't share your reality as far as this goes.

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

Quote:

Moonfire; The terrorists who have attacked US soil in the past have never done so out of the clear bue sky, or as George Bush would have had us believe because they "hate our freedom".

In particular the terrorist groups of the middle east (and there are and have been several of them for a reason) exist in large part because of our financial involvement in the civil wars of the region where we pick and choose which side to back with WMDs and which ones we choose to financially sanction and ostracize for reason that can only be viewed by an sane person as racist, and evil. Our govenrment has historically played a major role in the financial support of violent regimes that have cruelly and viciously opressed the peoples of that region for some time...and then we are shocked when they don't want to play nice?  We have lied and set them up for our politcal gain...goading the people (even outright lying and making false promises of either staying out of it or providing support) into attacking their oppressors and then pulling the rug out from under them so many times we are like Lucy to their Charlie Brown. 

They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves...well Israel seems like a lost cause, and the heathens are all mostly erradicated...who should we hate on next?  It was a gradual and consisten build up of loathing that was in many ways contrived by the US government for the benefit of the most wealthy people in the world. 

The wonder isn't that terrorism like 9/11 happens (hence why the US government could easily frame any terrorist group they wanted really, including one they hand picked, after having trained and funded him for decades in their own guerilla wars in the region...I mean if they wanted to.), but that we as a people have not risen up against our government in our own violent coup demanding that we put down the guns, that we stop financially raping the region and we start finding solution to the humanitarian issues that are plaguing the area and have been since post world war 2.

So if you are looking to explain to the victims of 9/11 (dead or alive) who is to blame for the tragedy of that morning, we have no further to look than ourselves.  The American people, as a rule, we tend to live in a fog of blissful ignorance and moral impunity -- it's not me, it's my government.  You can't hold ME responsible for the actions of my government! I'm just an innocent civilian-- in a country that prides itself on having a government of the people, by the people and for the people...well, we simply can't have it both ways.  Either we start to educate ourselves and fight for the changes in policy that we feel will work towards peace, or we go back to the mall and buy another pair of jeans to go with our "Ding dong BinLaden's Dead" T-shirt and consider this a victory...for what I still can't tell. 

But know this...the terrorists of this world, as awful as we may perceive them to be, have a reason to believe we owe them something, if nothing else, our full and undivided attention.

  

That says everything I've thought about before, but wow you said it way better than I ever could! 
 

[hakeber]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

hakeber - We do need to meet the basic human needs of all citizens of the world, but please remember terrorism isn't only about having needs met. Terrorism occurs for a number of reasons; it's not always due to a "need." Sometimes it's a bunch of tyrants trying to enforce their will on the world around them, including their fellow countrymen, and Osama was one of those tyrants. Nothing except violence would have stopped him. Hamas makes humanitarian efforts and seems to care about getting some needs met, but is still a terrorist organization. Organizations like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't humanitarian at all. They're just tyrants. Do they have a valid reason to be angry at the US? yes. Does it justify their actions? No. We on the other hand aren't acting out of anger, but to protect ourselves.

A) Actually terrorism is absolutely about having needs met and little else.  ALL violence is about meeting an unmet need.  Selfishly?  Horribly?  Yes. But the need to be heard, to be a valid part of the human fabric of life is met, and it is an undeniably basic human need.

B) I bet the families of those who join the forces of these groups see them as humanitarian.  I bet the families who are well looked after (far better than by their own governments who allow them to live in poverty and who are generally financially backed by the US and much much more importantly the World Bank) see them as humanitarian and more importantly, THEY see themselves as humanitarians, liberating the world from the emprical forces that oppress so much of the developing world.  And I disagree...it justifies their actions to THEM, hence why they happen.  And we were never acting to "protect ourselves".  His death will not stop murder, terrorism or violence. To think otherwise is extremely naive.

hakeber - Your post was great except that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, we have arrested many members of al Qaeda that took part in the attacks, Obama didn't claim victory like Bush and made it clear it was our military that caught the guy (his SUPPORTORS are using it to sing his praises, not him). When you destroy a group's leader, especially when that leader is charismatic and inspirational, you do weaken the organization. Perhaps they will find a new head that manages to pull them back together. Perhaps they will not.

Actually those tapes were declared fakes (the source never revealed and mysteriously being made for no apparent reason whatsoever other than to conveniently implicate himself???and then he denies it???? does that make sense???) and it has been denied again and again, even unrelated sources, source who have nothing to gain from them being false, have sworn that the man in those tapes is not Bin Laden at all. 

The "confessions" of the "AlQaeda members" and their "testimony" that Osama was the ring leader, as you may recall. were taken after "extreme interrogation" IE torture and anyone who believes a confession made under the threat of torture is a valid confession both hasn't read our constitution and also is a bit of a fool, to be frank.  Furthermore, the report in which these confessions were published was written by people who were neither allowed to interview the confessors themselves nor allowed to make inquiries to verify the truth of these confessions...so in my book...rubbish.  Sorry...but this has never been evidence enough to convince a Grand Jury and it's not evidence enough for me either.

OBL has been neither charismatic, nor inspirational for the last decade...he has been in HIDING (though, now it seems not so much...apparently hanging out on a big hugely visible castle like compound...hmmmm, weird how they couldn't find him, eh?  given they can find a pocket sized cellphone through satellites, but they just missed a giant caslte like compound in the most suspect place ever...weird.) Trust me, it's not going to weaken their resolve.  Hell, most of the taliban supporting chat boards don't even believe he's really dead.  

Finally, if you think President Obama just sits back while his supporters control the media and he and his press office have no control over how the news is being conveyed you have a naive vision of how media and poltics work together.  Haven't you ever seen the West Wing? :-)

ETA:  You don't really believe that last part I highlighted in Red and underlined...do you? For Goodness sake...please tell me this is a wind up.

ETAA:  And I JUST realized, by looking at your siggie, that you were probably about 15 when these attacks happened, weren't you?  So, probably you haven't done a lot of study into the media circus that was (and is) 9/11, not to mention middle east politics, economic policies, Regan/Bush Era history, the World Bank, Iran Contra, the struggle for Jerusalem...stuff like that, eh?  If you are interested in reading more about some of the actual facts in the region and finding out some of the international opinions on the matter, and if you are at all interested in learning more about some of the issues pointed out here, PM me.  I have some fanatasic articles for you to read.  You should check out some of Noam Chomsky's interviews on these topics. 

Edited by hakeber - 5/3/11 at 9:50pm

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

Hell of a lot easier than telling then those deaths were justified because of "the war on terror".

"Oh, don't worry, I know a whole lot of people died, but it was for a good cause." 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by eclipse 

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.

I *think* Musician Dad's point was that the lives of all of those civilians - both those that were killed as a result of terrorist attacks likely orchestrated or encouraged by OBL and those that were killed by US military action were equally precious, and that it's equally devastating that any of them died. The lives lost on the receiving end of the violence caused by OBL and those like him were not any more (or less) valuable than those lost in fighting the war on "terror." And I, for one, would be willing to say that to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11, or anyone who lost a civilian loved one in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, the only difference is the supposed "good guys" are trying to justify the deaths of civilians as a result of the war on terror using the deaths of civilians killed by Bin Laden.

If you are going to condemn one person for doing something, you can't then turn around and do the same thing and justify it as right. Not unless hypocrisy is your goal.

[moonfirefaery]

I think the SEALs who were the ones in their moment risking their lives made the decision they thought was best in the heat of that moment for accomplishing their goal of bringing him in, dead or alive.

I have already acknowledged that we contributed to the factors that led to these terrorist attacks. We did not, however, highjack and crash those planes and therefore, no, we aren't the only ones to blame.

I haven't projected my reality on anyone; I have acknowledged time and again that this is my opinion, while you all tell me how wrong my opinion is and how right yours is... if anyone is guilty of projecting their own reality on another, it's not me.

And yes, I do believe that when you remove the head of an organization, you wound the organization. Some organizations recover; some don't. You don't know that an already weakening al Qaeda will recover from this. OBL IS charismatic and inspirational to the group he leads; even in hiding, he releases videos meant to encourage violence against the west world.

I haven't said that any civilian deaths were justified. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. The only death I've called justfied is bin Laden's, because he was a worldwide wanted murdering terrorist.

And once again, here you all are using the good/bad guys terminology, when I have yet to use it. 

We have more than just testimony obtained under torture. We have testimony of the man running the flight training school, where a highjacker trained. We have identified many of the highjackers and investigation of their roots have only turned up more evidence. We have a videotaped confession, which would hold up in court. We have the previous attack on the WTC organized by bin Laden. Why do you think that the only testimony we have is from the al Qaeda detainees who were tortured? It's NOT. We have other evidence.

[monkey's mom]

White House now says bin Laden was unarmed.....and the reactions ain't good.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-legitimacy-idUSTRE74318620110504 

Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.

"It was quite clearly a violation of international law," .

It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.

"It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.

"This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination." 

A senior Muslim cleric in New Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, said U.S. troops could have easily captured bin Laden.

"America is promoting jungle rule everywhere, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Libya. People have remained silent for long but now it has crossed all limits."