Bin Laden is dead

[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.

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.

The people who said "You can't cheer about the death of somebody!" are now cheering about the death of somebody.

[Krookie]

"Last night was a good night, for me, and not just for New York or D.C. or America, but for human people. The face of the Arab world in America's eyes for too long has been bin Laden, and now it is not. Now the face is only the young people in Egypt and Tunisia and all the Middle Eastern countries around the world where freedom rises up. Al Qaeda's opportunity is gone."

[Krookie]

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.

The people who said "You can't cheer about the death of somebody!" are now cheering about the death of somebody.

 

surely you are smart enough to see the difference between someone who was innocently killed and someone who killed the innocent.

 

and by default, can see the difference in celebrating the two.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Krookie

[Zoraptor]

I can't really see any disputation over legality and such- ObL certainly considered himself to be at war with the US. Everything we know of him suggests that this is, somewhat ironically, just about exactly how he would have wanted to go out and that the very concept of being captured would have been anathema to him.

 

The real question is whether people would apply the same principle in reverse. So long as the people celebrating would not get upset about the horrendous terroristic illegality of it all if Obama or Cameron or Petraeus got whacked there really ain't any inconsistency.

[Calax]

Indeed I can, it's just that I don't think that saying that nobody should cheer for the death of your friends, and then turning around and cheering about the death of somebody else is hypocritical.

 

Death doesn't just wipe out everything you did in your life, and the dead deserve respect under any circumstances. Being the leader of an organization dedicated to the removal of another via force of arms/terror, or being a guy who earns 5 bucks an hour mopping floors, or a middle manager who sleeps around and steals peoples pensions makes no difference.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Calax

[GreasyDogMeat]

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.

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.

 

 

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

New precedent above.

 

 

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

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.

 

 

The people who said "You can't cheer about the death of somebody!" are now cheering about the death of somebody.

Then they are hypocrites, or they forgot to use 'death of innocent civilians', which isn't as catchy.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[213374U]

Hello Krookie. I want to introduce you to an acquaintance of mine. She's called the Fifth Amendment to the ****ing United States Constitution. I'm sure you'll be fast friends!

[Krookie]

Hello Krookie. I want to introduce you to an acquaintance of mine. She's called the Fifth Amendment to the ****ing United States Constitution. I'm sure you'll be fast friends!

 

I never said anything about Bin Laden getting a fair trial. Or him being armed/unarmed during the killing. You just provided a counterpoint to an argument I never made. Nice try.

 

You've now proved that you aren't even arguing anything because you believe it, but rather just to seem intelligent. OH LOOK I CAN LOOK UP THE 5TH AMENDMENT AND POST IT!

 

What a shame that it doesn't apply to a thing I've said.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Krookie

[Volourn]

"Also, who's to say that members of the 9/11 victims weren't bad people? Death doesn't just wipe out everything you did in your life, no matter what, but the dead deserve respect under any circumstances. "

 

This is a horrible argument. The 9/11 victims were not killed because of being bad people or because they did bad things. they got kileld for being in the wrong palce at the wriong time and were simply targeted for things outside their control.

 

Example: A mass murderer is gunned down by police after a long chase is vastly different then a mass murder being accidentally a victim in a random hit and run.

 

It wouldn't matter if a 9/11 victim had happened to b a child molestor. They weren't killed for being a child molestor. Capiche? Totally irrelevant.

[213374U]

It is a new precedent in threats to America and a new form of fighting it was needed.

Precedent doesn't really mean anything in this context. So the bad guys outmaneuvered the US. And the solution to the emerging problem of asymmetric conflict is... to apply conventional force, to fight the last war. Is this the "new form of fighting" you're referring to? Because, clearly, it's not working. Compare with Petraeus' methods in Iraq.

 

 

From dictionary.com.

Yeah... that's about as "universal" as it gets, as far as defining terrorism goes.

 

Reference.com is not, AFAIK, a source of law in any case.

 

 

I never said anything about Bin Laden getting a fair trial. Or him being armed/unarmed during the killing. You just provided a counterpoint to an argument I never made. Nice try.

Then I guess you simply post random **** without really having any clue what the discussion is about or even what your point is:

 

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.

 

"Nice try", indeed.

Edited May 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Calax]

Key words:

 

They

 

Got

 

Killed.

 

That's all that really matters.

 

And Volo, the circumstances of the death for the faceless mass that is "9/11" victims has basically wiped anything they did in life out for most people so that no matter what each and every single one was a saint, patriot, and true american hero, simply because they happened to be in a specific place at the wrong time.

 

They still deserve the same level of respect as any other dead guy, including Bin Laden, and John Paul II.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Indeed I can, it's just that I don't think that saying that nobody should cheer for the death of your friends, and then turning around and cheering about the death of somebody else is hypocritical.

 

Death doesn't just wipe out everything you did in your life, and the dead deserve respect under any circumstances. Being the leader of an organization dedicated to the removal of another via force of arms/terror, or being a guy who earns 5 bucks an hour mopping floors, or a middle manager who sleeps around and steals peoples pensions makes no difference.

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.

 

 

Precedent doesn't really mean anything in this context. So the bad guys outmaneuvered the US. And the solution to the emerging problem of asymmetric conflict is... to apply conventional force, to fight the last war. Is this the "new form of fighting" you're referring to? Because, clearly, it's not working. Compare with Petraeus' methods in Iraq.

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.

 

Yeah... that's about as "universal" as it gets, as far as defining terrorism goes.

 

Reference.com is not, AFAIK, a source of law in any case.

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.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Krookie]

Then I guess you simply post random **** without really having any clue what the discussion is about or even what your point is:

 

Are you joking or just stupid? Did you read half of this thread?

 

Half of this conversation was about whether or not it was just to celebrate his death. That's all I've ever argued. Learn to read what you're arguing against.

[Calax]

Indeed I can, it's just that I don't think that saying that nobody should cheer for the death of your friends, and then turning around and cheering about the death of somebody else is hypocritical.

 

Death doesn't just wipe out everything you did in your life, and the dead deserve respect under any circumstances. Being the leader of an organization dedicated to the removal of another via force of arms/terror, or being a guy who earns 5 bucks an hour mopping floors, or a middle manager who sleeps around and steals peoples pensions makes no difference.

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.

And if I were to ask several people from a variety of Islamic countries they'd turn around and fire that same argument back about GeeDubuya, Obama, or a variety of other members of the DoD (Robert Gates for example).

[213374U]

Are you joking or just stupid? Did you read half of this thread?

 

Half of this conversation was about whether or not it was just to celebrate his death. That's all I've ever argued. Learn to read what you're arguing against.

In fact, and unlike you, I read the whole thread, you stunted asswipe.

 

See, it helps when you are trying to look cool and blend in with the crowd, to at least make clear who is the target of the random insulting remarks you are making. That may require that you first gain a modicum of reading comprehension so you get a superficial understanding of what people are actually saying, but hey, one step at a time, you oligophrenic inbred runt.

 

Best wishes, dip****.

[GreasyDogMeat]

And if I were to ask several people from a variety of Islamic countries they'd turn around and fire that same argument back about GeeDubuya, Obama, or a variety of other members of the DoD (Robert Gates for example).

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.

[Krookie]

Are you joking or just stupid? Did you read half of this thread?

 

Half of this conversation was about whether or not it was just to celebrate his death. That's all I've ever argued. Learn to read what you're arguing against.

In fact, and unlike you, I read the whole thread, you stunted asswipe.

 

See, it helps when you are trying to look cool and blend in with the crowd, to at least make clear who is the target of the random insulting remarks you are making. That may require that you first gain a modicum of reading comprehension so you get a superficial understanding of what people are actually saying, but hey, one step at a time, you oligophrenic inbred runt.

 

Best wishes, dip****.

 

Ah name-calling and an exit from an argument after you brought up a completely irrelevant point to an argument I didn't make. Smooth move. Classic Internet! If you read the whole thread you'd have noticed that I never made a claim that had ANYTHING to do with the 5th Amendment. Don't be mad you tried to have some sort of epic retaliation post by linking me to the Constitution when in reality it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

[Calax]

And if I were to ask several people from a variety of Islamic countries they'd turn around and fire that same argument back about GeeDubuya, Obama, or a variety of other members of the DoD (Robert Gates for example).

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.

I don't know why you'd care, but I'm willing to bet some of the people who were cheering in the streets on sunday night would be flipping out at the images they'd be shown if one of the people I mentioned was assassinated.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I don't know why you'd care, but I'm willing to bet some of the people who were cheering in the streets on sunday night would be flipping out at the images they'd be shown if one of the people I mentioned was assassinated.

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.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[213374U]

Don't be mad you tried to have some sort of epic retaliation post by linking me to the Constitution when in reality it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

Right, my bad. Because I made the -wrong- assumption that what you were saying wasn't just random inane babble that was aimed at nobody in particular and of no relevance or interest to the topic. Classic internet.

 

I won't make the same mistake again!

[Krookie]

Don't be mad you tried to have some sort of epic retaliation post by linking me to the Constitution when in reality it had nothing to do with what I was saying.

Right, my bad. Because I made the -wrong- assumption that what you were saying wasn't just random inane babble that was aimed at nobody in particular and of no relevance or interest to the topic. Classic internet.

 

I won't make the same mistake again!

 

What the hell are you talking about? Go back and read ANY of my posts and tell me how you think any of them relate to the 5th amendment. The topic at hand was (when I made my original post) whether or not we should celebrate the death of a madman. Perhaps it is you that needs to gain some reading comprehension skills LOL.

 

like i said, you're just too proud (like everyone else on the internet, so it's okay) to admit that your constitution reference had no relevance to my argument. but to resort to name calling just makes you look childish. "asswipe"? I haven't heard that one since like 5th grade. Or last episode of South Park, but they're in 4th grade on that show lol.

[GreasyDogMeat]

If it helps cool the tension at all, I actually rather like and/or respect most of the people arguing, like numbers, krookie & calax, I just don't agree on everything and this is kind of a polarizing thing to disagree on, despite seeing where people are coming from.

 

I usually try not to insult people, but terrorism kinda brings out the rage.

Edited May 4, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[213374U]

The topic at hand was (when I made my original post) whether or not we should celebrate the death of a madman. Perhaps it is you that needs to gain some reading comprehension skills LOL.

Hmm, no. The topic at hand was the killing of BL. You know, that's what titles are for, if you lose track. Some people were commenting on other things like the hypocrisy of celebrating, etc. You posted a badly-written, generic, undirected flamebait after Hilde, GDM and me were discussing a different aspect of the topic. The problem is that you'd have had to quote Nepenthe directly to make it clear who you were talking to, and then your 4chan-quality bait would actually become a direct personal attack on him. But on top of being stupid you have yet to grow some balls. If you can't man up over the ****ing Internet, you must really be a frightened little bitch IRL. Did you give your lunch money to the school bully before or after you blew him?

 

 

I haven't heard that one since like 5th grade. Or last episode of South Park, but they're in 4th grade on that show lol.

Don't get out much, I take it? That would explain why you have so much trouble following conversations. Edited May 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Krookie]

The topic at hand was (when I made my original post) whether or not we should celebrate the death of a madman. Perhaps it is you that needs to gain some reading comprehension skills LOL.

Hmm, no. The topic at hand was the killing of BL. You know, that's what titles are for, if you lose track. Some people were commenting on other things like the hypocrisy of celebrating, etc. You posted a badly-written, generic, undirected flamebait after Hilde, GDM and me were discussing a different aspect of the topic. The problem is that you'd have had to quote Nepenthe directly to make it clear who you were talking to, and then your 4chan-quality bait would actually become a direct personal attack on him. But on top of being stupid you have yet to grow some balls. If you can't man up over the ****ing Internet, you must really be a frightened little **** IRL. Did you give your lunch money to the school bully before or after you blew him?

 

Man the "bait" must have really worked if I've gotten you this worked up about it. :D

 

 

also, I'll take your internet-name calling skills as a sign that YOU don't get out much.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Krookie

[213374U]

What can I say, I have a soft spot for educating people who lack a chromosome.