Bin Laden is dead

[Hildegard]

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.

 

He got the terrorist label the very moment when he decided to undergo actions aimed against the interests of the US and its allies.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Hildegard

[Krookie]

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.

 

He got the terrorist label the very moment when he decided to go against the interests of the US and its allies.

 

How would you define terrorist then?

[GreasyDogMeat]

He got the terrorist label the very moment when he decided to undergo actions aimed against the interests of the US and its allies.

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

[GreasyDogMeat]

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.

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'.

Edited May 3, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Krookie]

ITT: people try and be all saint like to seem philosophical and tolerant over the internet. Nobody gives a s**t and you just sound stupid.

[213374U]

ITT: you are a moron.

[Nightshape]

Numbers, there's a key ****ing difference. Bin Laden was just some self-appointed rich douche who one day decided he could kill thousands of people. The US administration has the freely given democratic assent of millions.

 

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.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Nightshape

[Hildegard]

How would you define terrorist then?

 

Terrorists are organizations, groups and individuals that are willingly conducting actions aimed at the deaths of civilians or undergoing actions of self-interest while fully aware they will result in deaths and suffering of innocent civilians. Don't get me wrong, for me Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist. But what is going on in the last 10 years, and rather the last 60 years isn't war on terror, but war of terrors. State-level terrorism and small-group terrorism as means of achieving goals and aims of various powerhouses, the talk of light vs. dark, good vs. evil in all of this is nothing more then propaganda on both and any side.

[Krookie]

ITT: you are a moron.

 

guess your extreme level of morality is just 21337 for me.

[Volourn]

People who defend Bin Laden are very cute in their need to be special internet warriors. I guess purposefully targetting innocent civilians is a-okay. That's beautiful. But, those who hunt down scum like Bin Laden are evil trolls out to murder innocence and purity.

 

Bin Laden is not even pro Muslim since he LOVES to mass murder muslims like he lvoes to mass murder anybody else. We shouldn't dance over a grave but to actually shed tears over his detah like NumbersU is is hilariously sad. And, yes, trying to paint the US as the 'bad guys' in this situation is pretty much what you are doing. It also spits in the eye of every Muslim that has been murdered in cold blood by AQ as well.

[Krookie]

People who defend Bin Laden are very cute in their need to be special internet warriors. I guess purposefully targetting innocent civilians is a-okay. That's beautiful. But, those who hunt down scum like Bin Laden are evil trolls out to murder innocence and purity.

 

Bin Laden is not even pro Muslim since he LOVES to mass murder muslims like he lvoes to mass murder anybody else. We shouldn't dance over a grave but to actually shed tears over his detah like NumbersU is is hilariously sad. And, yes, trying to paint the US as the 'bad guys' in this situation is pretty much what you are doing. It also spits in the eye of every Muslim that has been murdered in cold blood by AQ as well.

 

LOL FIRST TIME I AGREE WITH VOLO (besides the part on celebration of this guys death, but I'll let it slide seeing how he is Canadian and doesn't really have best perspective) MARK THIS DAY IN HISTORY.

[Hildegard]

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

 

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.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Numbers, there's a key ****ing difference. Bin Laden was just some self-appointed rich douche who one day decided he could kill thousands of people. The US administration has the freely given democratic assent of millions.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Krookie]

Are all Swedes rude and stupid? Whatever the hell you are.

 

DON'T GROUP THEM TOGETHER THEY HATE THAT.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Are all Swedes rude and stupid? Whatever the hell you are.

 

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.

 

 

People who defend Bin Laden are very cute in their need to be special internet warriors. I guess purposefully targetting innocent civilians is a-okay. That's beautiful. But, those who hunt down scum like Bin Laden are evil trolls out to murder innocence and purity.

 

Bin Laden is not even pro Muslim since he LOVES to mass murder muslims like he lvoes to mass murder anybody else. We shouldn't dance over a grave but to actually shed tears over his detah like NumbersU is is hilariously sad. And, yes, trying to paint the US as the 'bad guys' in this situation is pretty much what you are doing. It also spits in the eye of every Muslim that has been murdered in cold blood by AQ as well.

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.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Calax]

I do find it a bit strange that the same people who were so horrified that Bin Laden and his cohorts, as well as a few of the Anti-american islamic nations, were celebrating on 9/12/01, are now saying that it's perfectly ok for them to be cheering up a storm when Bin Laden is killed.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I do find it a bit strange that the same people who were so horrified that Bin Laden and his cohorts, as well as a few of the Anti-american islamic nations, were celebrating on 9/12/01, are now saying that it's perfectly ok for them to be cheering up a storm when Bin Laden is killed.

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.

[213374U]

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.

No. The use of the word "war" has very specific legal connotations. Whatever this is, it's not war, as there are only states on one side. It's actually closer to fighting well-armed organized crime. The first of those "new methods" should be to identify the problem and the causes. Terror attacks are just the consequence, and unless the causes of terrorism -poverty and illiteracy among others- are tackled, this "war" will never end.

 

 

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.

Yep. During wartime. Against members of enemy armed forces. Neither is the case here.

 

 

You apparently invented your own version of what is and is not terrorism.

Everyone does. Do you have one that's universal?

 

 

ITT: you are a moron.

 

guess your extreme level of morality is just 21337 for me.

Naw, you're just dumb is all. Edited May 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Nightshape]

I do find it a bit strange that the same people who were so horrified that Bin Laden and his cohorts, as well as a few of the Anti-american islamic nations, were celebrating on 9/12/01, are now saying that it's perfectly ok for them to be cheering up a storm when Bin Laden is killed.

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.

 

How many Afgani civilians have died as a result of the invasion? Of which the goal being to get Osama... Blood on the innocent on everyones hands.

 

It's all wrong, mind... This stuff has been going on well before 9/11... That was just the point when America was attacked in a significant manner.

[Krookie]

Naw, you're just dumb is all.

 

No you're just dumb! See, I can insult people on the internet too.

[Malcador]

So, why are we sneering at Americans again ? Just trying to keep on message here.

[213374U]

Naw, you're just dumb is all.

 

No you're just dumb! See, I can insult people on the internet too.

Yeah. But you kinda suck at it. Edited May 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Nightshape]

YAY! Everyone is retarded!

[Krookie]

Naw, you're just dumb is all.

 

No you're just dumb! See, I can insult people on the internet too.

Yeah. But you kinda suck at it.

 

now your internet insult skills AND morality is 21337 for me, gee wiz.

[Malcador]

And thread gets locked soon. Reading a report on Obama et al. watching it, kinda recalled that scene from Patriot Games, heh.