Osama Bin Laden dead - USA has his body

[SteeleJoe]

yes, cant kill anyone when you are dead.

Well, it's a nice line but you do know it doesn't really make any sense in this context, don't you?

The poster you were replying to spoke of "the murder" (emphasis mine) and clearly meant murder committed in a broad sense (presumably by the radical Islamists aligned with or sympathetic to ObL); bin Laden didn't personally murder people by his own hand. Unless you mean that the cessation of ObL's indirect participation (to whatever degree) in murder will bring murders committed by his friends and allies to an end as well... but surely you can't mean that.

Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that the facts we have a are correct, I have ZERO problem with bin Laden catching a round in the head. But let's not lie to ourselves about what it will accomplish or make ridiculous justifications for it.

For me it's fairly simple:

Emotional response/ moral justification -- he was an evil f*_k and I'm not only glad he's dead I'm glad we killed him. I think he "deserved" it for promoting and enabling, on such a massive scale, the deliberate slaughter of innocents (and the casual throwing away of the lives of those who believed in him).

Rational response/Legal justification: He was a combatant in a war. Shooting him was the tactically best option at the time and within ROE.

Now, was it the best option strategically in terms the "War on terror"? Well, that's debatable.

Edited May 13, 2011 by SteeleJoe
fixed quote code

[flying]

If Ron Paul had been President, Bin Ladin would be planing his next terrorist strike from a new sanctuary about now. Remind me not to vote for him.

If Ron Paul had been president soon enough there would never have been a OBL problem in the 1st place

Dont worry about voting or not for him as he is not the usual puppet with the $$$$ of the puppet masters behind him....so he will not be elected

pity

http://www.house.gov/list/speech/tx14_paul/WhatIf.shtml

Edited May 13, 2011 by flying

[SteeleJoe]

If Ron Paul had been President, Bin Ladin would be planing his next terrorist strike from a new sanctuary about now.

If Ron Paul had been president soon enough there would never have been a OBL problem in the 1st place

uhmmm...that was a joke...right?

Edited May 13, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[flying]

uhmmm...that was a joke...right?

Have you read any of his books?

Or do you just base your laughter on what the shepherds tell you?

[SteeleJoe]

uhmmm...that was a joke...right?

Have you read any of his books?

Or do you just base your laughter on what the shepherds tell you?

No, I haven't read any of his books and in fact don't know much about him. As such I have no real opinion about him -- I don't form my opinions based on someone told me (though I can honestly say no one has ever spoken to me much about him), I base them on what information I have and my own critica/analyitcal skills (limited though they may or may not be).

What I do know something about is the history of ObL, radicla Islamism, and the events of the last 30 years. Based on that, I think it laughable to posit that Paul would have miraculously altered the course of history despite antecedents that go back to when he was a small boy (and the formation of al Q to around hwne he first ran for POTUS).

But clearly you know far better than I, so explain to me how his election would have meant no problem with ObL. (Let me guess, you believe that if the US had been more isolationist and/or less supportive of Israel, ObL would have left us alone...in other words you believe ObL's political rhetoric and rationalizations)

EDIT TO ADD:

I confess I'm always offended when people assume they know my thinking and even more so when they assume that my thinking is based on going along with others. (It's particularly galling because the simple fact is that, misguided or not, I am actually by nature a very independent thinker and my positions -- correct or not -- often don't conform to what people are likely to assume). As such I ended up replying more snottily than I should have in the last post.

So less sarcastically: if I'm overlooking something or am unaware of relevant information, please do enlighten me and I will unreservedly concede and apologize.

Edited May 13, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[elcent]

The extra judical killing has woken up the extreme Islamists. Pakistan has just had one of the strongest attacks from the Taliban, at least 80 died. The US police foiled a plot and arrested 2 suspect that were buying guns and grenades, police radio receivers and other stuff.

These all are the results of unthoughtful actions and there's more to come. When they would have studied the nature of how Islam is working, they would have understood that any and all, whether right or wrong, excuses will fuel their aim.

Edited May 13, 2011 by elcent

[FOODLOVER]

yes, cant kill anyone when you are dead.

Well, it's a nice line but you do know it doesn't really make any sense in this context, don't you?

The poster you were replying to spoke of "the murder" (emphasis mine) and clearly meant murder committed in a broad sense (presumably by the radical Islamists aligned with or sympathetic to ObL); bin Laden didn't personally murder people by his own hand. Unless you mean that the cessation of ObL's indirect participation (to whatever degree) in murder will bring murders committed by his friends and allies to an end as well... but surely you can't mean that.

Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that the facts we have a are correct, I have ZERO problem with bin Laden catching a round in the head. But let's not lie to ourselves about what it will accomplish or make ridiculous justifications for it.

For me it's fairly simple:

Emotional response/ moral justification -- he was an evil f*_k and I'm not only glad he's dead I'm glad we killed him. I think he "deserved" it for promoting and enabling, on such a massive scale, the deliberate slaughter of innocents (and the casual throwing away of the lives of those who believed in him).

Rational response/Legal justification: He was a combatant in a war. Shooting him was the tactically best option at the time and within ROE.

Now, was it the best option strategically in terms the "War on terror"? Well, that's debatable.

Let me clarify, OBL death will directly stop or delay operations lead by him which will in turn stop the murders. He himself will not be alive so he can no longer be their mascot as well. Will they replace him, of course. What i'm not getting is the moral outrage about his death.

Rational response/Legal justification: He was a combatant in a war. Shooting him was the tactically best option at the time and within ROE.

[elcent]

I think we can all agree that the action by the authorities served the mob mentality and not civilized procedures.

Even the Mossad seized Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial in israel.

[Ulysses G.]

I think we can all agree that the action by the authorities served the mob mentality and not civilized procedures.

Well you are wrong - yet again. Most posters do not agree that killing a mass murderring terrorist before he can kill again is not "civilized".

Edited May 13, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[elcent]

I think we can all agree that the action by the authorities served the mob mentality and not civilized procedures.

Well you are wrong - yet again. Most posters do not agree that killing a mass murderring terrorist before he can kill again is not "civilized".

I didn't expect a civilized answer from you. It's pretty clear where you stand.

If anyone thinks that this will reduce terrorist attacks then you'll be disillusioned.

At least the authorities could have kept a civilized attitude to this issue and the chances to get over it as a whole would be much higher.

Edited May 13, 2011 by elcent

[Ulysses G.]

I didn't expect a civilized answer from you.

Well. you got one anyway. Please don't include the rest of us in your Anti-Western rhetoric.

[WarpSpeed]

The extra judical killing has woken up the extreme Islamists. Pakistan has just had one of the strongest attacks from the Taliban, at least 80 died. The US police foiled a plot and arrested 2 suspect that were buying guns and grenades, police radio receivers and other stuff.

These all are the results of unthoughtful actions and there's more to come. When they would have studied the nature of how Islam is working, they would have understood that any and all, whether right or wrong, excuses will fuel their aim.

Yep not bad news at all, proper place for it, now we don't have to punish them for having that low life living in the country with their denials all along.. Maybe now they'll wake up and go all out to change the status quo..

BTW it has nothing to do with any so called "extra-judicial killing" they would have done it regardless of the outcome with OBL even if he had been renditioned or otherwise they didn't just plan this on a moments notice.

It's obvious they had contingencies in place for longer then that for it to work on such a high profile target and if they didn't shame on the Pakistani military and Intelligence service for being so lax...

Edited May 13, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[elcent]

I didn't expect a civilized answer from you.

Well. you got one anyway. Please don't include the rest of us in your Anti-Western rhetoric.

who is us? What is Anti-Western rhetoric? Or since when is Western rhetoric to combat wrong with another wrong Western style.

I must have missed something.

[elcent]

The extra judical killing has woken up the extreme Islamists. Pakistan has just had one of the strongest attacks from the Taliban, at least 80 died. The US police foiled a plot and arrested 2 suspect that were buying guns and grenades, police radio receivers and other stuff.

These all are the results of unthoughtful actions and there's more to come. When they would have studied the nature of how Islam is working, they would have understood that any and all, whether right or wrong, excuses will fuel their aim.

Yep not bad news at all, proper place for it, now we don't have to punish them for having that low life living in the country with their denials all along.. Maybe now they'll wake up and go all out to change the status quo..

Now the police without having to listen to political maneuvres did the right thing and acted civilized. There's were credibility has it's home. Evidence not destroyed too ...

[WarpSpeed]

I think we can all agree that the action by the authorities served the mob mentality and not civilized procedures.

Even the Mossad seized Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial in israel.

Yes they're all well known for their civilized procedures these terrorists and their followers .

[WarpSpeed]

The extra judical killing has woken up the extreme Islamists. Pakistan has just had one of the strongest attacks from the Taliban, at least 80 died. The US police foiled a plot and arrested 2 suspect that were buying guns and grenades, police radio receivers and other stuff.

These all are the results of unthoughtful actions and there's more to come. When they would have studied the nature of how Islam is working, they would have understood that any and all, whether right or wrong, excuses will fuel their aim.

Yep not bad news at all, proper place for it, now we don't have to punish them for having that low life living in the country with their denials all along.. Maybe now they'll wake up and go all out to change the status quo..

Now the police without having to listen to political maneuvres did the right thing and acted civilized. There's were credibility has it's home. Evidence not destroyed too ...

Say what??

[elcent]

I think we can all agree that the action by the authorities served the mob mentality and not civilized procedures.

Even the Mossad seized Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and put him on trial in israel.

Yes they're all well known for their civilized procedures these terrorists and their followers .

... and well groomed for poiltical purpose and war tactics even proxy wars. At least they were buddies for years to fight shoulder on shoulder in Afghanistan in various forms. Something gone wrong?

Since 9/11, where have all the civil rights gone?

Back to the Wild West maybe?

[Ulysses G.]

Since 9/11, where have all the civil rights gone?

Not to any Islamic country.

[elcent]

Since 9/11, where have all the civil rights gone?

Not to any Islamic country.

So why the quick burial of AlQaeda now? Oh, is it because it doesn't look good to fight with the same against Gadaffi? (at least quite a considerable number of AlQeada fighters involved)

The more one gets obsessed with any of these Islamic Nations the more they drag you down (read the Quran and all the other books and learn about it's strategies).

What will happen when Libya gets rid of Gaddafi? Another 9/11 from the same group that fights now as a proxy against Gadaffi?

There are no easy solutions and foremost - an uncivilized manner will make things worse than they already are.

[elcent]

Now read that ...

Terrorists Have Rights Too

What International Law Says about the Killing of Bin Laden

DPA

Osama bin Laden: Was killing him the right thing to do?

The elimination of al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden earlier this month was widely celebrated. But was it the right thing for the US to do? International law expert Kai Ambos argues that killing him was both illegal and morally dubious.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,762417,00.html

... maybe it should read the alleged elimination. So keep it with supposed as if ...

[venturalaw]

Morally dubious? No way.

[WarpSpeed]

Since 9/11, where have all the civil rights gone?

Not to any Islamic country.

So why the quick burial of AlQaeda now? Oh, is it because it doesn't look good to fight with the same against Gadaffi? (at least quite a considerable number of AlQeada fighters involved)

The more one gets obsessed with any of these Islamic Nations the more they drag you down (read the Quran and all the other books and learn about it's strategies).

What will happen when Libya gets rid of Gaddafi? Another 9/11 from the same group that fights now as a proxy against Gadaffi?

There are no easy solutions and foremost - an uncivilized manner will make things worse than they already are.

No doubt very much like liberals in that sense.. Very good at painting one into a corner and being major hypocrites..

Edited May 13, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[flying]

uhmmm...that was a joke...right?

Have you read any of his books?

Or do you just base your laughter on what the shepherds tell you?

No, I haven't read any of his books and in fact don't know much about him. As such I have no real opinion about him -- I don't form my opinions based on someone told me (though I can honestly say no one has ever spoken to me much about him), I base them on what information I have and my own critica/analyitcal skills (limited though they may or may not be).

What I do know something about is the history of ObL, radicla Islamism, and the events of the last 30 years. Based on that, I think it laughable to posit that Paul would have miraculously altered the course of history despite antecedents that go back to when he was a small boy (and the formation of al Q to around hwne he first ran for POTUS).

But clearly you know far better than I, so explain to me how his election would have meant no problem with ObL. (Let me guess, you believe that if the US had been more isolationist and/or less supportive of Israel, ObL would have left us alone...in other words you believe ObL's political rhetoric and rationalizations)

EDIT TO ADD:

I confess I'm always offended when people assume they know my thinking and even more so when they assume that my thinking is based on going along with others. (It's particularly galling because the simple fact is that, misguided or not, I am actually by nature a very independent thinker and my positions -- correct or not -- often don't conform to what people are likely to assume). As such I ended up replying more snottily than I should have in the last post.

So less sarcastically: if I'm overlooking something or am unaware of relevant information, please do enlighten me and I will unreservedly concede and apologize.

It is not my job to enlighten you nor do I seek an apology from you.....(for what?)

I have seen your posts ....not all of the 650 in 5 months mind you.. but they always read the same.

You do not seek relevant information nor do you apply critical/analytical thinking as you claim.

You just want to dance....like a few others.... with no real reason. Your mind has long been made up.

You claim you do not base your thinking on what others think/tell you & then in the same breath ask me to enlighten you?

Enlighten yourself before you sarcastically reply as you did to my post & in the next post go on to claim you know nothing of the man & yet make even more claims against him.

Should you choose to......

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ARon+Paul&keywords=Ron+Paul&ie=UTF8&qid=1305305713&sr=8-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B001I9TTX6

Edited May 13, 2011 by flying

[koheesti]

uhmmm...that was a joke...right?

Have you read any of his books?

Or do you just base your laughter on what the shepherds tell you?

Well, in reality, what the Executive branch of governement wants they don't always get. It's that whole dam_n checks and balances thingy.

I'm not a fan of RP, but I don't dislike him either. If there were a button I could press that would switch the current POTUS with Ron Paul, I would spend all day smacking it with a hammer just to make sure it got pressed.

[mrbkk]

He died of old age..

[SteeleJoe]

Flying:

It is not my job to enlighten you nor do I seek an apology from you.....(for what?)

No, it's not your job. But you implied I didn't know what I need to know and so I asked you to fill me in. Moreover, you made a claim and I implicitly asked you to back it up.

An apology for what? Well, I assume you can read English - the apology would have been for laughing at your claim if you subsequently proved me to be wrong.

I have seen your posts ....not all of the 650 in 5 months mind you.. but they always read the same.

See, we both know that isn't true. You aren't commenting about my posts at all, you are just trying to make excuses for the fact that hours later you still can't make an argument that supports your previous claims so you go for some ad hominem.

Your mind has long been made up.

Really? About what? Tell me what my mind is made up about (as allegedly indicated by my posts).

You claim you do not base your thinking on what others think/tell you & then in the same breath ask me to enlighten you?

That's right. Did I say I would then base my thinking on what you think or tell me? No. I listen to all sorts of sources but if it's just some guy on the internet then I'll look for some real sources to back it up (and I would have asked you for some sources that supported you).

It was polite way to ask you to prove me wrong - I'd be genuinely glad to know if I'm wrong rather than continue to believe something false and claim it was true to others. But it was also a way to prove what I suspected -- you have no argument.

...in the next post go on to claim you know nothing of the man & yet make even more claims against him.

What claim did make against him?

Let's sum up: you can't support your claim so hours later the best you can do is make personal attacks and lie about what I do or don't post. Not one single thing that supports your case or refutes mine.

OK, then.

[flying]

you are just trying to make excuses for the fact that hours later

(.......Usual long dance snipped.....)

Again....it is yours to decide/educate yourself.... do so or not....your choice.

As to the hours later comment.

I live in the USA it was late when I posted, now it is morning...I replied.

Sorry if that kept you waiting.

Edited May 13, 2011 by flying

[SteeleJoe]

you are just trying to make excuses for the fact that hours later

(.......Usual long dance snipped.....)

Again....it is yours to decide/educate yourself.... do so or not....your choice.

As to the hours later comment.

I live in the USA it was late when I posted, now it is morning...I replied.

Sorry if that kept you waiting.

1) It was actually inappropriate of me to mention how long it took you. I am sorry.

2) You have neither supported your false claims about what I posted nor apologized for your lack of truthfulness.

3) You are still not being intellectually honest. And you still have not supported your claim (it's not my job -- or anyone else's to do so -- especially since it can't be done: it was an absurd claim).

So clearly I was right and what you said was laughable.

[koheesti]

The extra judical killing has woken up the extreme Islamists.

Like they needed waking up.

[SteeleJoe]

They began waking up before bin Laden was even born.