GreasyDogMeat

Yeah, and why is that? Because many Americans respect and love the people you mentioned. Are you now saying that many Muslims respected and loved Osama Bin Laden? Because you are now insulting Muslims.

The better question is why the hell would I care if some ignorant Muslim celebrated the death of one of those people? My reaction also wouldn't be to go burn down the nearest Mosque.

You can't even make an exception for Bin Laden. Countless people across the globe, from the U.S. to Africa to the U.K. to Bangladesh have been killed by his orders. Countless countless survivors are missing limbs and in wheel chairs and countless more have lost loved ones or have been emotionally scared. Lets not forget the perversion of a religion, racial intolerance, sexism, murder of homosexuals & general intolerance of anything they don't believe in. Nazis only manage to surpass their general despicability thanks to their efficiency with the gas chamber, which I'm sure Al-Qaeda would surpass if they had the means. If I'm somehow insulting someone by being happy/kicking back a brewsky over his demise they can go **** themselves along with Al-Qaeda. I really do think it means something. This just doesn't bare any semblance of comparison to a murderer or rapist fleeing the United States to hide in another country. It is a continued and extreme threat originating in a foreign country. At what point does declaring war on a terrorist organization become feasible? Do they need to kill millions with chemical/nuclear attacks before there is a reaction? I would agree that the reaction hasn't been a shining threat. Again though, new precedent, new risks. I'd love to see your definition. I don't see what this had to do with Hildegard's lame arguments that the U.S. is somehow comparable to Al-Qaeda.

This particular 'criminal organization' is roosting in a foreign country and is quite large. I just don't see the organized crime comparison. It is a new precedent in threats to America and a new form of fighting it was needed. I completely agree about tackling poverty and illiteracy. Especially after reading Walshingham's 'interview with a suicide bomber' thread. New precedent above. From dictionary.com. –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Hildegard is trying to argue that guerilla warfare = terrorism. Definition: sudden unexpected attacks carried out by an unofficial military group or groups that are trying to change the government by assaults on the armed forces I see a distinct difference in the definitions. Then they are hypocrites, or they forgot to use 'death of innocent civilians', which isn't as catchy.

I find it strange that the celebration of the horrific murder of thousands of civilians is being compared to the celebration of the killing of a terrorist leader responsible for thousands of deaths. I'm just not making the connection.

DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER THEY HATE THAT. I know. Apparently it is ok to do it against Americans though. We all believe in God... or something... so it makes it ok. I was a bit disappointed he was given a proper Muslim burial. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but if he supposedly represents a twisted image of Islam why is he being honored as such.

So basically then if a murder is done by a democratically elected government it's less of a murder then committed by some organization or individual. Sounds to me like a convinient explanation of those who see government sanctioned assassination as something acceptable. But then again, most of the so called enlightened free world thinks so, or they just willingly turn a blind eye, same thing. And Bin Laden wasn't self-appointed as an leader of a radical Islamic organization, he was financed, trained, equipped by the US who actually created him as such when he was seen useful. When his tactics and rules of war was seen as guerrilla warfare of a freedom fighter when he fought the Soviets. But if a group uses the very same strategy and means against coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq today they are in the eyes of the west nothing but terrorist. Terrorist or freedom fighter, assassin or soldier, good or evil, in the end it all depends on the point of view of the observer. Don't try and use an argument based on reason with Americans. They believe in god don't you know. Again, geniuses, they didn't get the label because of hit and run guerilla tactics. 9-11 & Suicide bombings. Are all Swedes rude and stupid? Whatever the hell you are. Of course they were technics and tactics learned from the CIA while they were allies, and I really don't need the US version of what is and what is not terrorism. Techniques aimed at military targets. You really think the CIA trained Al-Qaeda to invade Russia and suicide bomb schools etc. You probably do you pathetic troll. You apparently invented your own version of what is and is not terrorism.

Yeah, the whole concept of being "at war" with anything other than a sovereign state is pretty ridiculous too -- it's just a convenient excuse invented so military force can be used and abused where otherwise it wouldn't be justified. And "military" assassination is a problem because, well, it's still an assassination and it's kind of illegal. Depending on the version you listen to, he wasn't killed as a result of a gunfight, and he most definitely wasn't an imminent threat to anyone -as evidenced by the fact that the SEALS trained in a replica house for weeks-, so the usual justifications don't fly. They simply didn't want him alive. Sorry if your feelings are hurt, but death squads are as death squads do. An terrorist organization is unlike any threat the U.S. has faced before, new methods of fighting a group like Al-Qaeda needed to be used. Again, you can't have the police/Interpol deal with this organization. If a country is so pathetic at handling it radical elements and those radical elements are so large I'd say a war against those elements would be justified. As for assassination, I'm fairly certain military assassination is not illegal. It was performed numerous times by all sides in WWII. Its a bit of a gray area. As for Bin Laden, who is the a-hole who let it be known that Bin Laden didn't have a gun. Should have just planted a gun. Going to be disgusting if this turns into some sort of trial for whoever the hero is who put a round in his head. 'Death Squad' is such an ugly word. I prefer 'Cleaners'.

What were those actions genius? BOMBINGS! Do you even know what the definition of a terrorist is FFS!?

Called casualties of war. And where the hell did you pull 'hundreds of thousands of civilians'? I'm assuming it is your ass. 14,000 to 34,000 Afghanistan civilians have been killed.

Uh, I don't think it was the strategy used in Afghanistan that got him that 'terrorist' label. You hear about that 9-11 thing back in 2001? I think thats what did it. Those suicide bombings targeting civilians instead of military targets might of helped too.

What exactly is that going to do for you ? Well unless you have some kind of death fetish I usually have zero interest in any form of film or pictures involving someone's death. I don't even like watching video filmed from hundreds of feet away of a fatal wreck. That said, seeing an image of an inhumane pig like Bin Laden dead might give me a boner. JOKING of course!! ... or am I

I hear the sequel "Marriage" is really good at the start, but goes down hill quickly.

They've attacked all over the place.

I see. I thought you were implying that the release of Honest Hearts 'early' was to avoid competition with L.A. Noire. Which might have been the case with Brink as it was originally going to be released same day as L.A. Noire on the 17th, but got bumped up a week to the 10th. Speaking of which, only 7 days left and I can't wait!

I remember seeing the images of people leaping from the towers to avoid dying from the fire. I also remember seeing pictures of body parts, arms, legs and even genitals in the wreckage of 9-11. Yeah, I wouldn't actually mind seeing this particular blown apart corpse.

We're at war with Al Qaida. I fail to see how military assassination is a problem. Its part of a strategy you know. Enemy general or commander's location is known and an attack can be made it is. These aren't cops going in for an arrest. Its also nice that you think of our soldiers and commandos as 'death squads'.

I thought L.A. Noire came out on the 16th. Brink is also coming out on the 10th so its going to be a pretty awesome month for me. Edit: L.A. Noire comes out on the 17th, same day as Honest Hearts.

Thats why I play it with Tutu. The movement speed increase and some other additions from BG 2 really help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1KveTKWQs "During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior." This is likely what you are seeing. I'm still not impressed.

I also note that no source was provided and suspect those stats came from the Mujahideen. Remember Baghdad Bob?

No kidding. U.S., U.K. and all Allied casualties up to this point in Afghanistan: 2,300 to 2,400 from 2001-2011. Afghan Soviet war from 1979 to 1989: 14,000 to 15,000 dead Soviets. Afghan Civilian casualties from Allied forces 2001-2011: 14,000 to 34,000. Afghan Civilian casualties from Soviet forces 1979-1989: 2,000,000. Thats two MILLION. Yet you criticize the U.S. and it's Allies? And no, I'm not happy about/bragging about those stats. I'd prefer the Allied death toll to be 0. Merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

Unfortunately for Osama, the SEALS twitter.

I'll have to give it another try with the recent patch. If I can stand the repeating areas. I rejected it and substituted my own. It is what it felt like to me, particularly in the later sections of the game. Mash a button, throw in a special here and there, except draw it out to excess and make the bodies 'splode from time to time. Didn't actually mind the body 'splodings. Nothing quite makes you feel powerful like whacking a guy with your sword and having him pop like a pimple. Reminded me of Doom 3 where you could smack a scientist with your flashlight and he would dissolve into a skeleton.

Did they take the DNA test before or after they urinated on him? Because that could have skewed the results...