137 replies to this topic

[Geoffrey]

I just came back to this thread to say something I meant to earlier but didn't. Anywho, essentially Osama did use one of his wives as a meat shield, and that is an undeniably wrong action to carry out. However, US troops where willing to shoot through her to get at him, and they did, such an action is equally wrong, if not worse.

[Isdrakthül]

I just came back to this thread to say something I meant to earlier but didn't. Anywho, essentially Osama did use one of his wives as a meat shield, and that is an undeniably wrong action to carry out. However, US troops where willing to shoot through her to get at him, and they did, such an action is equally wrong, if not worse.

They retracted the statement about him using his wife as a shield. There's an explanation of why they did so here.

[Schwa]

They retracted the statement about him using his wife as a shield. There's an explanation of why they did so here.

Proves my point. The News are the real terrorists, and have been for longer than I've been alive.

It's not hard to see these are the tactics they favor, but people don't want to think, thinking is too scary for them because it is a declaration that they don't know everything, nor have control over everything in their own lives. People would rather have a finger to point at someone or something, it's so much easier and more comfortable than thinking, and the News plays on that and gives those people what they need so badly in exchange for having control over them in that fashion.

I think this whole thing with Osama's death has the News salivating over what possibilities this gives them. I just didn't realize quite how much, until I read this article link.

[Sheik]

Also, I just noticed that I wanted to comment on this line, too:

Well sheik, you may feel like that now but what would you feel like if someone murdered 100s of people you loved and cared about and didn't even feel bad to the slightest. I don't think you could forgive anyone who did that. Osama deserved to die and we all know it. He was a horrible heartless man. He was killed humanly anyway. One shot in the head and it's over.

You know, when you are a seal in the US army, you get eqipped with a machine gun. If you shoot at somebody's head with a MG, you'd call that a head shot. But there won't be much head left afterwards, apperently. I doubt you'd call that humane. I'd call it butchering rather. But defiantely not "clean".

Edit:

Proves my point. The News are the real terrorists, and have been for longer than I've been alive.

I'd agree to a certain degree, but I'd rather say that the lobbyists (also these that make money of television/media but not only) are the real forces that control the strings. Money rules the world, and money is economaical business. Which in retrun is the playing ground of lobbyists. To spin this some further, it's our capitalistic ideology that's behind them again (and especially the stupid idea that there's no alternatives to economic growth, which is mother to all our real problems). But that's offtopic anyways. I just felt like mentioning it, since you sort of "started" a thought.

Edited by Sheik91, 05 May 2011 - 02:31 PM.

[Lemon]

Proves my point. The News are the real terrorists, and have been for longer than I've been alive.... words... and the News plays on that and gives those people what they need so badly in exchange for having control over them in that fashion.

Hey now. I work for a newspaper, and thus have quite a lot of Intel on the News and media. While what you're saying may be right, you're taking an extremely hard turn somewhere off the road of straightforward observation into the pitfalls of inconsistent conclusions.

Let's be fair here, everyone has a switch to turn the television off, a cursor to click onto another program, or a hand on which to lay down a newspaper. I'm not going to defend Fox News or MSNBC here, but I find it incredibly hard to blame them for simply being drat effective at their businesses. I'll yell at them for their stupid f***ing biases, but you can't treat the consumers like they're innocent bunnies.

Eitherway, the media doesn't have everyone brainwashed ala Clockwork Orange. In many circles it's replaced the old fashioned system of just talking to opinion leaders you knew in town, but overall I'd wager that no one is convinced to take a certain stand on an issue from watching television that they wouldn't be just as easily convinced to take listening to someone they considered educated.

Sure what you're describing exists, but it really doesn't deserve to be played up so dramatically.

[Anthus]

This is the man who waged war against the free world, and had thousands killed for his cause.

He got what he deserved. The truth is, we'll never know the truth.

We also waged war against those who waged war against the free world, and thousands were killed. People will always die in war. It is ugly, but essential.

[NoeL]

This is the man who waged war against the free world, and had thousands killed for his cause.

He got what he deserved.

Are you saying he deserved to die because he killed thousands, or he deserved to die because keeping him alive was too great a risk to others? If the latter, sure I can understand, though it's unfortunate. If it's the former, and you're advocating some eye-for-an-eye justice, I have to disagree with you.

[Tree]

Well sheik, who cares! He was one of the most terrible men in the world and no matter what, even if all humans deserve life, he deserved to die. And when you are show in the head, you die instantly most of the time. Or at lease knocked out cold. You don't live to feel pain. If he murdered all your friends and family in a terrorist attack like he did to thousands of other families, you couldn't forgive him no matter what.

[NoeL]

If he murdered all your friends and family in a terrorist attack like he did to thousands of other families, you couldn't forgive him no matter what.

That's a character flaw on our part. It doesn't mean they deserve to die just because we can't find it in our hearts to forgive them.

[Anthus]

... and you're advocating some eye-for-an-eye justice, I have to disagree with you.

Not at all. In the states, 'justice' and 'trials' are on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty". In Osama's case, he organized attacks on the US as well as other places, then admitted to it in a video, then said that his group would (attempt to) destroy the free world. He was an evil man, who not only showed no guilt, but was rather unapologetic about the whole ordeal. He is the super villain of this decade, and as romanticized, and mystified he may have become, he was still a human, and and evil one at that. He was capable of harboring fear, and leading people, or at least convincing them that he was right. He came from money, and had people telling him he was DA MAN for years. He hated the US, and what we stand for. He admitted to the organization of the murder of thousands of US citizens that day. He was shot in the head by a US Navy Seal. He had his trial.

Did he deserve a fair trial? Sure, everyone gets their shot, I guess, but can you imagine the circus that would have been? I bet people would have tried to take him out once he was brought stateside. What would the charge be? "Being Osama Bin Laden?" Plus, could you look in the eyes of the parents of anyone lost in the 9/11 attacks and say, "The guy who had the attacks carried out deserves a fair trial". After all, justice and fairness, and freedom where all ideals which he had some issues with, and tried to destroy.

Justice was served.

[NoeL]

I wasn't really talking about trial or nay, that's kind of beside the point. The point is whether people should be punished for past crimes, or punished to deter them from committing future crimes. I think the former is barbaric, and we should gear our minds towards the latter. Get over the past - you can't do anything about it. Your actions should be based on shaping the future, not effecting "justice" on the past.

[Arthas]

If you want some specifics of the operation, he was essentially executed, they went in, he was unarmed, and they shot him in his bedroom after shooting his wife. 3 other men downstairs were also shot.

Something funny thats sprung up, the tail of the super secret stealth helicopter they used to infiltrate pakistan's airspace, which was damaged and they had to destroy, well it survived, and now pakistan has it and tens of billions of dollars worth of stealth technology are on their way to pakistans friends, namely china.

As for the BIG picture: the cost to kill bin laden = 10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 killed, and $1,188,263,000,000 spent...if bin laden is indeed the core of the war on terror, and killing him is indeed the solution. But we know this isn't the case. He was a useful and still is a useful card to play during or before an election.

Edited by Arthas, 06 May 2011 - 06:59 AM.

[Tree]

That's a character flaw on our part. It doesn't mean they deserve to die just because we can't find it in our hearts to forgive them.

Only the most kind hearted person could forgive a horrible monster like him and I can say that most of us aren't very kind hearted.

[Adem]

He was one of the most terrible men in the world and no matter what, even if all humans deserve life, he deserved to die.

I understand what you're trying to say, but this is an oxymoron. It makes no sense.

In addition, if all humans have the right to life, who are you to say one shouldn't?

[Geoffrey]

I wasn't really talking about trial or nay, that's kind of beside the point. The point is whether people should be punished for past crimes, or punished to deter them from committing future crimes. I think the former is barbaric, and we should gear our minds towards the latter. Get over the past - you can't do anything about it. Your actions should be based on shaping the future, not effecting "justice" on the past.

I agree we need to convince people not to commit future crimes, but not focusing on past crimes is like telling people they don't need to take responsibility for their actions, this is already happening in our own legal system... The security guard at the movies gets pissed at me when I slide down the stair rail, because I might fall and then sue. But if I did sue, like many do in similar situations, I would be suing someone else for something which was entirely my own doing.

I do believe in an eye for an eye. If you're going to face jail time for stealing, or face getting your hand lopped off, which one will deter you more? The truth is, once someone comes out of jail, they rarely change. However, if you have a stub where your hand used to be, that's always going to remind you of what you did, and hopefully of how it was wrong.