| lifetimefanofqueen 01.05.2011 22:59 |
burn in hell bitch, burn in hell |
| Sebastian 01.05.2011 23:30 |
It took less than 72 hours to upstage the Royal Wedding with real news. |
| inu-liger 01.05.2011 23:50 |
Oshi- ^ And YAY @ Osama's death. *glares at Kim Jong-Il, you're next* |
| pma 02.05.2011 01:32 |
Four more years, four more years, four more years... |
| plumrach 02.05.2011 03:26 |
very good news but thats only one part of the current terror problem, lets hope that in time to come peace will be upon us |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.05.2011 03:31 |
only took 10 years... |
| mike hunt 02.05.2011 04:07 |
Good News, but the problem is here to stay......kill one of these lunatics and 10 more will join them. |
| brENsKi 02.05.2011 04:23 |
exactly.....! Sodom Hussein, Osama Bin-Liner.... 2 down, 2 to go Gadaffy Duck and Army Dinnerjacket to go |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.05.2011 06:08 |
I'm in New York and when the news hit last night, people poured into the street to celebrate. But, as celebratory as this news is, I don't see how it'll make much difference. He's dead, but the ideology of the movement he created still exists in many forms and in many places. AND is harder to squash. |
| emrabt 02.05.2011 07:16 |
How many stupid American are going to think this will end "terror"? He hasn’t been active for years, killing him makes no difference, Our own people have killed many innocent people to do this revenge thing, total hypocrites, there’s very little to celebrate with this prize. Would someone care to explain to me what the point of this was, why are people so happy? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.05.2011 08:04 |
>>>>> emrabt wrote: How many stupid American are going to think this will end "terror"? He hasn’t been active for years, killing him makes no difference, Our own people have killed many innocent people to do this revenge thing, total hypocrites, there’s very little to celebrate with this prize. Would someone care to explain to me what the point of this was, why are people so happy? <<<<< ============== I think many Americans know this is not the end of terror, however, his death is a step toward balancing the injustice of terrorist attacks carried out under his command in the US and around the world. As to why people are so happy, I think an "anonymous Saudi" (quoted from a Reuters article) said it best - "He might have had a noble idea to elevate Islam but his implementation was wrong and caused more harm than good. I believe his death will calm people down and may dry up the wells of terrorism." Of course, that's in the long term. In the short term, we'll have to deal with the increased threat of terrorism that his death will bring. It's only one battle in a very long war. |
| pittrek 02.05.2011 09:53 |
I will NEVER understand how can somebody celebrate ANYBODY's death |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 02.05.2011 10:11 |
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - Mark Twain |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.05.2011 10:15 |
It'd have been better if he had been put on trial, but this is at least better than Bin Laden getting away altogether. Having said that, the numbskulls above who believe that putting down a few more dictators and terrorist leaders will solve all the problems that these individuals thrive on are deluding themselves and others. The unrest in the entire North Africa - Western Asia area, Al Qaeda, tumbling strongman-dictators, they are all but symptoms of the underlying problems of poverty, oppression and fear. |
| Holly2003 02.05.2011 10:19 |
emrabt wrote: How many stupid American are going to think this will end "terror"? He hasn’t been active for years, killing him makes no difference, Our own people have killed many innocent people to do this revenge thing, total hypocrites, there’s very little to celebrate with this prize. Would someone care to explain to me what the point of this was, why are people so happy? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Killing him shows that justice/revenge can reach anywhere, even to a heavily fortified compound in the heart of Pakistan. And it shows that justice doesn't have a time limit, that even 10 years after 9/11 Bin Laden has been made to pay for his crimes. I'm not keen to celebrate someone's death, but if anyone had it coming it was Bin Laden. So his death is justice/payback for his involvement in the deaths of over 2000 people, and it also *may* act as a deterrent to others who may think they're safe because they live far away from the terrorist acts they commit. Of course, it's not an end to terrorism, but if the alternative was to let him live out his days then that would've sent exactly the wrong message. I won't be losing much sleep over the evil bastard's death. |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2011 11:20 |
pittrek wrote: I will NEVER understand how can somebody celebrate ANYBODY's death ================= Well, you see ... you have this thing called common sense... something which most Americans lack. And they are ironically Christians ... you know, those people who tell everyone else to love their neighbour ... except for those who believe in different things they do. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth ... one is required to have this mentality to be pleased at what has happened. I, as a rational bystander with little stake in the outcome, do not get what the big deal is. The leader is gone, but there are 20 people waiting in line to take over. The people in charge who say bin Laden orchestrated 9/11 are the same people who say Oswald killed Kennedy. I take just about everything they say with a pinch of salt. Last year Fidel Castro said Osama bin Laden was in the CIA payroll and used whenever Bush needed to scare people. It's on Wikileaks... and there is not a single lie in there. The only positive I can think of is this just may have secured Obama his second term. All those people who think he is a Muslim and that he's indifferent to war will have no rebuttal now. It's a shame that health care reform wasn't enough for them, but hey, welcome to the US. The American dream ... you have to be asleep to believe it. Now maybe the US can withdraw their troops, and stop meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with them. Maybe then they won't have to scratch their heads wondering why people from the middle east are pissed off and fly airplanes into their buildings. |
| Holly2003 02.05.2011 11:44 |
"you have this thing called common sense... something which most Americans lack" Oh dear ... |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2011 12:08 |
Here is a brilliant article - required reading. It's probably the single best column you'll ever read on the first decade of the 21st century. link |
| GratefulFan 02.05.2011 12:09 |
It's not the end of terror, but it's doubtlessly the end of an era. And it's certainly historic. I got my 16 year old out of bed to watch Obama's speech live so he could witness a small slice of history and so that he might talk about it with some degree of thoughfulness at school today. It's a hugely symbolic victory for the United States because every year he remained at large against such a powerful enemy served to further build his mystique and the apparent righteousness of the mission in the eyes of followers and recruits. Now he's just another guy who eventually went down in a hail of patient, determined and eminently skilled American bullets. He'll be celebrated as a martyr of course but there appears to be nobody in the ranks who can step into his shoes with anything like the quiet charisma or battlefield credentials of bin Laden. This event will change something, though we'll probably need years to determine just what and just how. |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2011 12:58 |
I disagree. Bin Laden went down smiling, as he knew he had achieved his goal - to create an American society of fear. Terrorism on the US will end as soon as the US minds their own business in the middle east (particularly Israel). They are not the superpower they think they are, and 9/11 proved it. It created a fearful and divisive population - exactly with the bin Laden recipe called for. And it's exactly what the Bush administration called for too... In 2000, a right-wing think tank called Project for the New American Century stated in section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." They all wanted it, and they got it. |
| Holly2003 02.05.2011 13:05 |
Sir GH wrote: Bin Laden went down smiling. --------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears he "went down" using a female as a human shield to protect him from 30 US Navy Seals lining up to make him a martyr. So much for the image of the big brave Holy Warrior. |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2011 13:06 |
Yes, but he could have been smiling .. :-) |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.05.2011 13:19 |
Holly2003 wrote: Sir GH wrote: Bin Laden went down smiling. --------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears he "went down" using a female as a human shield to protect him from 30 US Navy Seals lining up to make him a martyr. So much for the image of the big brave Holy Warrior. ===== It was one of his bodyguards who supposedly used a female as a human shield, providing this is not a b*llshit story to explain away collateral damage in the first place, which is a realistic scenario. Take into account that this was a 40-minute chaotic firefight in the middle of the night in a location the design of which was only partly known. |
| john bodega 02.05.2011 13:27 |
"this thing called common sense... something which most Americans lack" Oy vey ist mir. It's exactly this kind of hyperbole that makes me wonder - truly - if there's hope for any of us. |
| pittrek 02.05.2011 13:32 |
What have you achieved with killing Osama ? Or was it Obama ? :-) link For his followers he will be a "hero", a "martyr" who "died a heroic death" and all other bullshit that brainwashed fanatics use to say. In other words, the soldiers who shot him probably created for the world a MUCH bigger danger. |
| The Real Wizard 02.05.2011 13:37 |
1) The photo of the body is a fake - link 2) The "Al Qaeda compound" was within WALKING DISTANCE of Pakistani military HQ, and the CIA couldn't find Osama for 10 years? 3) The body was buried at sea? Why not put his head on a flagpole beside the White House where all the bloody-hungry Americans can see it? Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining. As George Carlin once said - it's all bullshit folks, and it's bad for ya. |
| GratefulFan 02.05.2011 13:43 |
Sir GH wrote: Yes, but he could have been smiling .. :-) ======================== There was a bin Laden quote I've been keenly but unsuccessfully trying to find. It appeared at the end of the HBO doc 'My Trip to al Qaeda' (which is on YouTube and well worth the watch, but since I saw it the last section has been removed on copyright, so it might be a bit frustrating to get all that way and not see the conclusion). Anyway, I can't even paraphrase it properly but it was something like bin Laden not having to rip apart American values and freedoms because after 9/11 they would just turn on each other and do it themselves. Powerful and prophetic and in part the basis of the opinion piece you posted. It's the primary reason I was so apoplectic about the response to the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. America was playing right into his hands. Again. But in so much as they've done it to themselves they can undo it to themselves given time, space and a rebalancing of their vision. That power remains with the American people, not with the corpse of bin Laden. It's almost better that he's lived this long. Over the last months he's had to witness the march of democracy in the middle East by peaceful means, particularly in Egypt. What must he have thought of that given that the Egyptian prisons of decades ago were the birthplace and breeding ground for the radicalization that fed his early ranks. His entire movement depended on a belief that violent resistance to governments sympathetic to the West was the only way. And he lived to see the edges of that fray and start to unravel. I think being a human being he most likely died disoriented and in terror with his heart threatening to pound straight out of his chest. Those aren't usually circumstances that lend themselves to smiling. |
| john bodega 02.05.2011 14:30 |
"In other words, the soldiers who shot him probably created for the world a MUCH bigger danger" Not that I'm placing bets or anything, but I'm actually of the opinion that it isn't going to change it much either way. I don't feel the US is any safer, nor any more dangerous a place to be. The kind of people that might engage in terrorism on the back of bin Laden's death are the kind of people that probably would've done it already anyway. To be totally honest, my first reaction to the news was total ambivalence. The time to shoot him and prove a point was 10 years ago when they messed up and missed out. |
| -fatty- 2850 02.05.2011 15:46 |
Still half asleep, I spent the first twenty minutes of this morning wondering why the Americans had killed Henry Cooper. fatty. |
| GratefulFan 02.05.2011 16:13 |
I think the timing is very serendipitous. No doubt bin Laden will be asking Mr. Cooper to punch him in the face for all eternity once he realizes there isn't even one virgin waiting for him, never mind 72. |
| catqueen 02.05.2011 16:52 |
I am so glad to read some of these comments -- i was beginning to feel like i was nuts. Everyone seems to be so happy about it, but how can we be happy about a death -- ANY death? And waht about all those people who died or whose lives have been ruined in this 10 year war? And apart from that, does anyone REALLY, seriously think that ONE man was single-handedly responsible for all the terrorism in the world? Terrorism was around since the dawn of time and will be around forever. Killing someone wont stop it. And apart from that, how can they be really sure they got the right guy? Or even that he is responsible for everything he is meant to have done, a lot of it was based on fuzzy videos. |
| The Fairy King 02.05.2011 17:03 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: It'd have been better if he had been put on trial, but this is at least better than Bin Laden getting away altogether. Having said that, the numbskulls above who believe that putting down a few more dictators and terrorist leaders will solve all the problems that these individuals thrive on are deluding themselves and others. The unrest in the entire North Africa - Western Asia area, Al Qaeda, tumbling strongman-dictators, they are all but symptoms of the underlying problems of poverty, oppression and fear. My thoughts exactly. |
| *goodco* 02.05.2011 17:35 |
from a moderate democrat.......... moved to the DC area the summer of '01. Lost my job due to this d*ck. Feared for my life pumping gas the next year on the Beltway due to one of this d*cks fanatics who, as a sniper, killed innocent women and children. A long story would ensue regarding our honeymoon to H'wood for Queen's Walk of Fame, but will not digress.. Lost a handful of friends in the towers, due to this d*ck. Friends in Long Island, to this day, have not revisited Manhatten. The scars are still too raw. Had our country torn apart, due to this d*ck. He had millions, and could have helped his supporters with food and education, but........caused our country to waste about a trillion dollars needlessly killing people in Iraq while our infrastructure rots and the needy go unfed........... Eff him. May he rot in hell, with his 72 year old virgins while he gets his just rewards screwing their dry v*gin*s. To our idiotic birthers: do you need a death certificate to guarantee this terrorist's death, or will pictures and the government's and the military's confirmation suffice? Kudos to our 'wimpy' president. Long live the once and future king. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.05.2011 06:54 |
I couldn’t care less if bin laden went down smiling. That smile was his last. That’s what matters. No longer will he be able to entice others to do his bidding – that’s why we celebrate his demise. And yes, I think celebration was/is in order. I get that it’s odd to cheer the death of someone but this someone cheered, encouraged, funded and planned, the deaths of thousands. We know his death doesn’t end terrorism, but it ends one horrific chapter in our lives. And, IMO, people would have cheered and celebrated if he’d just been captured, not killed. The ‘end’ of bin laden is what people applauded. He chose what that end would be. If he’d been captured, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, I would cheer for the capture but not the sentence. That, IMO, is murder. This was a battle in his war. He lost. Good for us. I make no apology for being happy and was proud to be one of thousands outside at midnight cheering when the news broke. Here in NY, we showed our support for our first responders as they drove by, with lights and sirens, in tribute to those they lost to this monster and in celebration of having one less criminal to deal with. |
| Joey2504 04.05.2011 03:26 |
The thick end comes still |
| Holly2003 04.05.2011 05:08 |
Wound my heart with a monotonous languor |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.05.2011 06:15 |
Holly2003 wrote: Wound my heart with a monotonous languor ====== You know, you'd look less stupid if you'd do your research. The line from Paul Verlaine's "Chanson d'Automne" you are trying to refer to is "bercent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone". This translates as "soothe my heart with a monotonous languor". Soothe. Not wound. The makers of "The Longest" Day got it wrong. |
| Holly2003 04.05.2011 07:30 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Holly2003 wrote: Wound my heart with a monotonous languor ====== You know, you'd look less stupid if you'd do your research. The line from Paul Verlaine's "Chanson d'Automne" you are trying to refer to is "bercent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone". This translates as "soothe my heart with a monotonous languor". Soothe. Not wound. The makers of "The Longest" Day got it wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do some research on not being a prick Thomas. |
| GratefulFan 04.05.2011 08:24 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Holly2003 wrote: Wound my heart with a monotonous languor ====== You know, you'd look less stupid if you'd do your research. The line from Paul Verlaine's "Chanson d'Automne" you are trying to refer to is "bercent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone". This translates as "soothe my heart with a monotonous languor". Soothe. Not wound. The makers of "The Longest" Day got it wrong. ================================ It's your bad luck that I chose Chanson d'Automne for a year end project in a Grade 12 French class and as such actually own a tattered old copy of Poemes Saturniens. It's your worse luck that against some odds I was able to quickly put my hands on it this morning and confirm that the line is "Blessent (hurt/wound) mon coeur" and not "Bercent (lull) mon coeur". When you called me a deliberate moron in the earthquake thread I said that you were in actuality one of the poorest thinkers I had ever encountered on the internet. I also considered writing then that you were one of the most intellectually insecure as well, but rejected the thought as unnecessarily mean. But you are. Much of the time you're all superficial nonsense like the above that gives only the appearance of intellectualism without any evidence of more reliable markers of intelligence like the creative and nimble thinking that posters like Holly2003 exhibit all the time. You really need to stop calling people stupid and moronic, and people who accept and admire your 'wisdom' without question really need to reconsider. |
| GratefulFan 04.05.2011 08:45 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I make no apology for being happy and was proud to be one of thousands outside at midnight cheering when the news broke. Here in NY, we showed our support for our first responders as they drove by, with lights and sirens, in tribute to those they lost to this monster and in celebration of having one less criminal to deal with. ============================ I thought of you last night when I read a piece in the Toronto Star "It lessens us to revel in bin Laden's death". I find it very easy to slip into an empathetic mode, even for Osama bin Laden. It's not hard to imagine his perspective as valid to him, not hard to imagine the difficult realities of living caged for the last years of his life, not hard to feel what the end must have felt like, and not hard to feel regret about any violent human death. I can do it as easily for any one of his victims. It's just fallout of a tendency to empathy and perhaps idealism, which isn't a part of me that I'd trade away, but it's important to know when your own sensibilities just aren't up to a task. That's why I think you're right and that opinion piece above is wrong. Bin Laden's death is something that needs to be viewed with cold rationality, and any wanderings into personal moral codes at the expense of his countless effective victims almost become indulgent. As I've said many times in my life you've got to know what you don't know. |
| GratefulFan 04.05.2011 11:05 |
And another kind of interesting angle: Selling Osama Would anybody personally wear/affix/commit to dusting any Osama is dead gear? Or buy for someone else? |
| john bodega 04.05.2011 15:09 |
Damn, no death photo is coming out. Where's that Wikileaks when you need 'em?? Leak the photos, damnit! |
| Donna13 04.05.2011 16:55 |
It will probably take a while for the news to sink in. I am relieved that he was found, and grateful that the job of finding him was not given up on after all these years. Is it worth cheering over? Sure. If I had been down at the White House I would have cheered also. Those military special ops guys are very brave. They had no way of knowing if they were coming out of that mission alive or not. It was a very high risk situation and they were successful. It is too bad they were not able to capture him alive for questioning purposes, but they had to do what was necessary at the time. |
| YannickJoker 04.05.2011 18:40 |
Donna13 wrote: Sure. If I had been down at the White House I would have cheered also. ==== I've never ever cheered another man's death and am not planning to start doing that anytime soon. Sure, he was an asshole to say the least, but cheering someone's death is a very strange thing to do, whoever it was. |
| Donna13 04.05.2011 19:30 |
I didn't say I would cheer his death. I would never cheer anyone's death. I would be cheering for the success of the mission to find him. And it would be completely appropriate. |
| GratefulFan 04.05.2011 22:56 |
I'm starting to get the sense that they've lost the plot in the aftermath a little. Even allowing for the fog of war, the story seems to be evolving an awful lot. There are too many people talking to the media and not enough consistency in the message. Right decision on the pictures I think, but a bit of a confusing meander to get there. |
| YourValentine 05.05.2011 02:41 |
I cannot say I feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden - he was never sorry for any of his victims. However, I feel sorry for the USA who said goodbye to the rule of law once and for all. It is good that we did not have a Nobel peace prize winner as a US president by the end of WW2 and the Nazis were given a trial with legal assistance and everything a democratic country provides for. It was a role model and it brought peace to Europe - the winning and the losing countries. These days they disregard the sovereignity of a befriended country, cross the borders like killers in the night, shoot down the mass murderer in front of his family and ditch the body into the sea while the crowds are cheering in the streets of Washington. The end does not always justify the means - when the only super power in the world so obviously spits on international laws and treaties we are all in a very dangerous situation. This killing did nothing to bring peace - it has all the seeds of conspiracy theories and matyrdom from the start. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 05.05.2011 03:12 |
^ this isn't the first time that the USA and the CIA have tried a stunt like this,they've been doing it since God was a boy [Iran in 80 with the hostages for instance] but this seems to be the first time they've actually succeeded without getting their arses in a mess diplomatically and making the whole scenario worse..for now. |
| john bodega 05.05.2011 04:17 |
What I say is : fuck sovereignty. It is severely overrated. One can argue a lot about whether it was right to kill bin Laden in the way that he was killed, and fair enough, but if you carry the assumption that this was a worthwhile mission to embark upon, the fact is that doing it the legal way would've given Pakistan plenty of time to call the bin Laden residence and say "uh, you might want to be out of town for the first week of May". And don't tell me it would've gone any differently! The thing that's pissing me off the most about this affair is the preponderance of different versions of the engagement. If there really is a Navy Seal helmet-cam version of events, then there is only one story - we're just not being let in on it. For instance, bin Laden's daughter piped up with a different version of his death - a video would either disprove or corroborate that version of things. I'm not too bothered one way or the other about what happened, but I can just see the decades of (retarded) conspiracy theories that will abound. I've already had my fill of 9/11 fallacies and nonsense. |
| tcc 05.05.2011 05:15 |
If sovereignty had been disregarded, how come there is no protest by any nation to the UN ? I think in this case there is really no choice in the way it had been executed. Agreed it is not the end of terrorism, but it is one big down although there will be many more to go. |
| YourValentine 05.05.2011 06:08 |
Zebonka - who is to say that it was a "worthwhile mission"? Do you really want a government - any government - to have the right to decide whom they want to kill and to go into any given country and kill a person with no legal process? It is obvious that Osama Bin Laden is the one person who does not incite any loyalty because he did call for the Fatwa and is certainly responsible for the death of many people. But a democratic country should not make a difference between people who deserve to be treated according to the law and people who do not deserve to be treated by the law, it's a matter of priciple. If they kill people with no trial and legal defense, they are not any better than the terrorist who thinks he can kill people to make a political statement. Who will draw the line in which case a troublesome legal process is necessary and in which case the government can just kill the suspect? If we assume that Pakistan agreed to the "mission" behind the curtain and that there was no other way to arrest Bin Laden but to kill him - and even if there had been a truthful account about the shooting - that Bin Laden was not armed but had to be killed for some other reason - it was still totally unnecessary to dump the body into the sea. It was even politically very stupid to get rid of the body in such a way for many reasons - not only to allow his followers to deny that Bin Laden is actually dead. It will also turn him into a martyr and victim of the "infidels". |
| GratefulFan 05.05.2011 06:40 |
There are higher moral imperatives than law and order, and if one is willing to see things as they must appear through American eyes, the killing of bin Laden may be just such a situation. |
| emrabt 05.05.2011 07:13 |
There are higher moral imperatives than law and order, and if one is willing to see things as they must appear through American eyes, the killing of bin Laden may be just such a situation. ========================== I've said it before in this thread and i'll say it now, Hypocrites the lot of them, By this logic Bush and Obama need to be shot dead, for sending people to war and killing innocents. Your argument is one of the most, poorly thought out, stupid things i have ever read. it boils down to "it's right because america say it's okay." This has fixed nothing, it has changed nothing, 10 years of war for nothing, it really makes me laugh, killing the thousands just to take revenge on the one. It's the kind of stupidity that is equal to nuking a city of people because of a rat infestation. |
| Holly2003 05.05.2011 08:09 |
It's rather amusing that some think OBL would've gotten a fair trial. Nuremburg was mentioned: at Nuremburg the Allies executed Germans who had committed similar and comparable crimes to those the Allies themselves had carried out (bombing of civilian cities, for example). The Allies killed between 35 - 150,000 civilians at Dresden. Colonel Curtis LeMay said that if the Allies had lost the Second World War, they would have been prosecuted as war criminals. At the Tokyo War Crimes, an Indian judge found the Japanese not guilty of war crimes, saying the Allies had committed the same types of crimes for the same reasons (and he was right!) Bin Laden was a dead man the minute he attacked the USA. He would've been found guilty at a trail and executed. He chose that path and his death was the inevitable result, whether at the hands of a US commando or by firing squad at Guantanamo. Either way would've been fine with me. |
| emrabt 05.05.2011 08:25 |
It's almost better that he's lived this long. Over the last months he's had to witness the march of democracy in the middle East by peaceful means, particularly in Egypt. ======================= For some people, living is a worse punishment than dying. Think of it this way, in his head he died a hero, and has gone to heaven. He died thinking that. But for him to live and see democracy, to witness walls being shattered around him could probably have hurt him more. People have to realise, to some death isnt a punishment, but the greatest reward. |
| john bodega 05.05.2011 11:20 |
"Zebonka - who is to say that it was a "worthwhile mission"?" I made allowances for this question when I said "if you carry the assumption" that it was a worthwhile mission. Do you want to know what I think? I don't really think it was worth bothering. They saw an opportunity and went for it - yay for them! - but if it really is just the lopping off of a figurehead, then I personally am not convinced of the importance of the mission. |
| john bodega 05.05.2011 11:27 |
"Do you really want a government - any government - to have the right to decide whom they want to kill and to go into any given country and kill a person with no legal process?" While I agree with what you're getting at, the real truth is that our rights are on very shaky ground as it is. We're in a spot in history where we think of rights as this magical thing that we're all born with. Funny old thing is that a huge number of people in the world don't have those rights - in practice, we only have them if they are granted to us by someone higher up. George Carlin puts it very well in a video somewhere on Youtube; I'm sure a search for 'george carlin rights' would turn something up. If I don't seem shocked at the US going around and conducting missions like this, it's because they already broke international law when they went into Iraq. Everyone said "no" and they did it anyway. I am no longer surprised. My Sphincter of Surprise has been thoroughly stretched to the point that nothing amazes me anymore. |
| Sebastian 05.05.2011 13:25 |
Many interesting points have been brought. All I can say is: * If it's OK to celebrate OBL's death because he was responsible for thousands of deaths, then would it be OK if Bush got murdered and I threw a party or would that be frowned upon or legally condemned? Double standards much? * Is it OK if from now on every kid can tell their teacher 'I did my homework but my dog ate it' and everybody's got to take their word for it? After all, that's what Obama's telling the world... |
| pittrek 05.05.2011 13:45 |
Barbara and Sebastian thanks - I couldn't write it better myself . |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.05.2011 16:03 |
I believe permission for the US to use Pakistani airspace was still in place from when the US brought relief to Pakistan after the 2010 floods. Pakistan, despite their public denial, appears to be a (quasi) partner in the fight against Al-Qaeda. The bluster they’ve shown is likely a front to keep the extremists in their country satisfied. I think the low(ish) level US accusations against the Pakistani leadership are part of that ruse. There is no way the US would be able to carry out missions in Pakistan without instigating an international rebuke unless we had their support. . As for the killing of bin Laden – he declared war on the West and died in battle. Yes, it was a sneak attack. Yes, he was outnumbered. But it was a military operation and he failed to muster up. He’s dead because of his own actions. We killed him because we made the better move in a war game he started. To bin Laden’s burial at sea – more people would have been put at risk if his body had been taken somewhere and given an earth burial. And that burial site would have become a rallying point for his minions. Whether leagues or feet under, many still consider him a victim of ‘infidels’ and a martyr. Better that this was done quickly – if ten years can be called, “quickly” – without giving them a place to worship him. Thousands of bin laden’s victims were incinerated or crushed until no trace of them could be identified. The families of those victims have no official burial site to visit. In a long war where most of the threats against the West have been unseen until carried out, bin Laden’s death is a tangible finality, and for that reason, for the fall of that symbol of hate, Americans responded with joy. Others can point to what is perceived as the moral collapse of America since 9/11, but I am very proud of my country for continuing the fight – though admittedly, not always for the way in which that fight continued. I am also extremely proud of the Navy Seals who carried out and won this mission without losing one member of their team. Those who admonish us for cheering this man’s death, don’t see – or refuse to see – that even through cheers, our hearts are heavy and we long for those who were so viciously ripped from us by the epitome of evil that has finally been destroyed. An entire generation grew up with the fear and pain inflicted by that man. War sucks. Plain and simple. But bin Laden declared that war and died because of it. We cheered his demise and, for that as well as for all reasons stated above, no apology will or should ever be made. |
| Thistle 05.05.2011 17:35 |
As much as I can understand and accept the arguments put forward regarding the celebration of another human's death, one can't but help feel fucking pleased that this evil, vile looking reprobate has been killed. I defy anyone to say that, despite his beliefs, that fucker wasn't terrified as the hitmen piled in - it's human nature. I hope he was as petrified as the thousands he killed were. And I don't care what people think of me for feeling that way. Who said you can't take a bin out on a bank holiday??? |
| ParisNair 05.05.2011 17:52 |
What we Indians knew all along, the worl realizes now. Pakistanis a untrustworthy lot. America gifted billions every year to Pakistan and they spent it on "fighting terror" by supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists. And while looked high and low for osama, turned out he was enjoying the hospitality to the common friend. |
| ParisNair 05.05.2011 17:56 |
Donna wrote: It is too bad they were not able to capture him alive for questioning purposesThe questioning would not have helped in anyway. Remember how Saddam was caught alive, and they had months in hand to question him, but still could not find out where his weapons of mass destruction were? ;-) |
| john bodega 06.05.2011 00:21 |
"Is it OK if from now on every kid can tell their teacher 'I did my homework but my dog ate it' and everybody's got to take their word for it? After all, that's what Obama's telling the world..." I suppose for every million children who use that excuse, there might be one or two who genuinely fell upon that circumstance. Allegedly, the whole thing is on helmet-cam - I think it's handy that they hold onto it. For a couple of decades, people of limited intelligence who only believe what they see with their own two eyes (ie. moon landing conspiracists, JFK speculators) and then, once they've had their fun, the video can come out and clear it all up. The video will be authentic, but then people can argue for eternity over whether it's fake or not. I'm being hypothetical, but my point is that whether Osama's dead or not (he probably is), it has the potential for an awful lot of fun. |
| Sebastian 06.05.2011 01:22 |
It's not (always) about limited intelligence, Zeb. Sometimes conspiracy theorists DO have a point (just like the one or two in a million kids whose homework WAS eaten by the dog). He may be dead, or he may not be. I mean, ever seen a politician lying? |
| john bodega 06.05.2011 04:12 |
"Sometimes conspiracy theorists DO have a point" Indeed! I was more referring to the unfortunates that tend to debate things which are established fact. When you take some of the more fun conspiracy topics - The Moon Landings, and 9/11 - there's a lot of stuff one can argue about. Unfortunately, there's a tendency for the unscientific among us to continue to debate theories which are implausible; things that have been explained rationally. People tend to interpret my attitude as ignorance - far from it! If someone's got new evidence that we didn't land on the Moon, then I'd love to have a look. But as of writing, there is no evidence that it was faked. Every theory (without exception) has been debunked, or at the very least has multiple explanations. It's much the same with 9/11. There's a myriad of scientific reasoning behind a lot of what happened, and for the rest of it, there are multiple explanations - which simply would not be the case if the conspiracy were really all that effective. That uncertainty works both ways, of course - which keeps some people very busy indeed - but the fact is that uncertainty cannot be used as proof of a conspiracy. Like I keep telling these guys, I love a good debate about things that have not yet been figured out. Were the pilots of the planes really CIA guys? Who knows! I couldn't tell you. But there's a lot we do know - about the lunar landings, about JFK, about 9/11 - and I get a little tired of seeing these things debated when the debate is over, when there's no new evidence to discuss. It comes down to people boldface refusing to believe established facts, and that's not helpful to anyone. Hence my use of the words 'limited intelligence'. It wasn't meant to be insulting - indeed, I understand psychological reasons for people going for a lot of this guff, so perhaps it's a bit much to accuse anyone of being 'stupid'. There are underlying causes for people clinging to shit, even once it's been solidly disproved. Like I've tried to say, though - when there is new evidence of anything, or where there is room for doubt - I love conspiracy theories. They range from intriguing to entertaining to downright amusing. And it has to be said that, in the absence of dead Osama photos and helmet-camera footage, there's plenty of room at the moment for people to have their say. But there's a sort of Schroedinger's Cat thing going on here. In that compound in Abbottabad, certain things happened. Our not knowing what happened doesn't really mean anything. Until someone makes a convincing Freedom of Information case for releasing stuff from the raid, this isn't going to change. |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.05.2011 07:05 |
ParisNair wrote: What we Indians knew all along, the worl realizes now. Pakistanis a untrustworthy lot. America gifted billions every year to Pakistan and they spent it on "fighting terror" by supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists. And while looked high and low for osama, turned out he was enjoying the hospitality to the common friend. ==== Sure, take this opportunity to spew your gall and incite ethnic hatred. Of course, it's every Pakistani's fault that Bin Laden lived in a compound near Islamabad. And sure, because their secret service is untrustworthy, every Pakistani is too. NEWSFLASH: there are *no* decent people in *any* intelligence agency *anywhere* in the world. Nor are intelligence agencies very competent. We like to think so, and they like us to think so, but they are not. Odds are, they really didn't know. The fact that you are abusing this to be racist about Pakistanis just shows what kind of unpleasant creature you are yourself. |
| Sebastian 06.05.2011 07:19 |
Wasn't there a saying about not hiding being the best form of hiding or something like that? Maybe that's what happened. Retrospectively, he should've been 'easy' to find but maybe at the moment it wasn't quite like that. Or maybe it was... they're both feasible options. And yes, a lot of times intelligence agencies contradict their own definition. |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2011 08:39 |
ParisNair wrote: What we Indians knew all along, the worl realizes now. Pakistanis a untrustworthy lot. America gifted billions every year to Pakistan and they spent it on "fighting terror" by supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists. And while looked high and low for osama, turned out he was enjoying the hospitality to the common friend. ======================== Anybody who doesn't like the tone of this should check it against some of the anti-American sentiment in this thread. In both cases there is some truth and some history there, but there is also glib oversimplification in service of beliefs established long before. |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2011 09:11 |
emrabt wrote: There are higher moral imperatives than law and order, and if one is willing to see things as they must appear through American eyes, the killing of bin Laden may be just such a situation. ========================== I've said it before in this thread and i'll say it now, Hypocrites the lot of them, By this logic Bush and Obama need to be shot dead, for sending people to war and killing innocents. Your argument is one of the most, poorly thought out, stupid things i have ever read. it boils down to "it's right because america say it's okay." =================================== It boils down to no such thing. Which part is poorly thought out and stupid? Is recognizing that Americans have a distinct perspective and distinct relationship with the history here poorly thought out and stupid? I'd say not. That there are higher moral imperatives than law and order? I think that's demonstratably true. In fact in formal theories of moral development, law and order driven moral reasoning is barely past middling. I think it has to be at least considered that that thinking is too small and too inherently limited for this unique situation. It needs to be a least considered too that the killing of bin Laden served universal human ethics more important than fastidious adherence to international law. That outside of American intention and motive a greater good for the greater number of people was achieved by his certain death than would have been otherwise through the emotional divisiveness of extended detention at Guantanamo and a necessarily farcical trial. Of course the questions have to be asked, and the US must answer them, but the world has the option of recognizing that the Americans had every right to pursue him to the ends of the earth and that the Navy SEALs really didn't owe this man a one iota of unnecessary personal risk. |
| john bodega 06.05.2011 09:11 |
I think people should be skeptical of governments, but unfortunately people tend to just outright deny anything the government tells them. Maybe that's the safest bet when you consider how often we get lied to, but ultimately they can't be lying *all of the time*. It seriously would not work. What I'm getting at is that being properly skeptical means that you'll examine what's put forward, and then make your decision about its veracity - you don't just plug your ears with your fingers and say "gnah gnah gnah, they lied before so this must also be a lie". In any case, Pakistan hasn't done anything to earn my trust in this affair. Bin Laden just chilling in a military town? I'll buy that they didn't know he was there - but there'd have to be a pretty great explanation forthcoming. |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2011 09:14 |
Weird. Both my and Zebonka's posts are timestamped 9:11. |
| YourValentine 06.05.2011 09:30 |
@ MagicalF - I do not blame you for your feelings - revenge, triumph, satisfaction or whatever else. Victims of crimes feel that wish for revenge, it's natural. But a government MUST obey the rules of law, it cannot go uncriticized when a democratic country disregards national and international laws only because it's convenient. Revenge can never be a higher value than the rule of law or "law and order" as GFF puts it so derogatorily. Each one of us can become a target of unlawful actions by a government if we are unlucky - if someone mixes us up with a suspect we might get kidnapped and vanish in a torture prison with no legal help for ten years - and this is not propaganda, it has actually happened. Being proud of your country is all nice and well but what if the government turns against you? I know the George Carlin bit Zebonka referred to - he said that there are no citizen rights, just privileges which can be taken away in a second as anyone can see when he googles "Japanese Americans in the 2nd world war". As citizens we have to defend our rights against the governments who want to take them from us. Only because governments have broken the law in the past does not give anyone the right to break it now and continue to break it now. I am not anti-American, I am pro-legality and pro-democracy. When President Obama was elected we were all very pleased hoping he would put an end to the cowboy policies of the Bush-Cheney regime but unfortunately he did not close Guantanamo and now he did not put justice higher than revenge - this is very unfortunate for the whole world. We can hope that something good comes out of the killing of Osama Bin Laden - maybe the war in Afghanistan will end now but there is no victory over terrorism. Victory would mean that the values of the West win over the brutality of the terrorists. Just killing a terrorist is not a victory, it's just another killing. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.05.2011 10:15 |
With respect, YV, I don't see this as 'revenge' any more than I see local police arresting - or killing in the process of arresting - a murderer as revenge. It's bringing a criminal to justice. I also don't see how the US disregarded national or international law by carrying out this mission. And THIS mission is what I've been talking about. US troops were already in Pakistan with Pakistani permission. Some were lingering from August of 2010 and some were/are specifically there to train Pakistani forces. The US was already on the ground and in communication re. al Qaeda with Pakistani officials. CIA operatives occupied a home within view of the compound for months before this mission was launched. There was and is - though it may not be openly admitted - cooperation between the US and Pakistan. No international laws were broken in this mission. And I can honestly say I do not feel satisfaction from this. I feel that indeed some justice has been done because the figurehead of an vicious gang has been taken down. But this was only one battle in a very long war. There will be times I'll feel relief and times I'll feel more concerned. However, after the horrors this organization has unleashed on the world, I doubt I - or any other American - will ever feel triumphant. Many of your other points are very well taken - and for the most part, I agree with them. In this case, however, I stand by my earlier sentiments. I'm proud of my country and the Navy Seals for their handling of THIS mission and am not sorry in the least that this bloody devil has been destroyed. |
| Holly2003 06.05.2011 10:34 |
"he did not put justice higher than revenge" Really? I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Some elements of the Palistan govt and military are cooperating with the US and the West; some actively oppose the US and the West. The lines aren't always clear. I'm making the assumption you believe the US has no legal authority to operate within Pakistan; however, the Pakistan govt. allows the US to operate within its territory in operations against the Taleban and AQ. Because there is such hostility to this from elements of the Pakistan military and intelligence services, the Pakistan govt. has occasionally to make a public statement denouncing American actions. In the meantime, it condones and supports American military action within its borders. What we're seeing at the moment is probably an exaggerated version of that, with a lot of "soul searching" (lol) from the Pakistan military that they couldn't find OBL and a bit of bitching from their Govt about the USA. Behind the scenes, both the US and Pakistan govt are probably cooperating quite closely. Don't you think that this topic has come up before now, for example? More than likely, various scenarios for the capture/killing of OBL have been worked out between the US and Pakistan. Once he was found, one of these scenarios was enacted, and the subsequent media stories that we're now seeing have all been planmed well in advance, including the Pakistan govt's fake indignation and (some of) the Pakistan military's fake "shock" that OBL was hiding in Pakistan. On another level, I wonder if you think OBL was murdered ("revenge") rather than (for want of a better term) "killed in action". He has said he wouldn't be taken alive and that's how it turned out. He is the equivalent of a Japanese soldier on Iwo Jima in 1945, determined not to surrender, with US soldiers equally detemined not to let him surrender. Were US Marines criminals for not accepting the surrender of Japanese soldiers who had demonstrated their willingness to kill themselves as long as they killed some Americans too? Similarly, should a US Navy SEAL have risked his life to try to arrest OBL when the safer option was to kill him? Surely Bin Laden, through his previous actions and stated intentions, gave up his right to be given the benefit of the doubt in a life or death situation like this. |
| emrabt 06.05.2011 11:03 |
the world has the option of recognizing that the Americans had every right to pursue him to the ends of the earth and that the Navy SEALs really didn't owe this man a one iota of unnecessary personal risk. ======================== Nothing gave Americans, or any other nation the right to kill 100's of innocent people in the process. This is called hypocrisy, going after 1 person but killing just as many as that person did in the process. By rights, this would mean the person who masterminded the orders (Bush etc) should also be killed. It won’t happen due to the disgusting double standards. By your own logic, Al Qaeda now has every right to pursue the American and British leaders to the ends of the earth. The human right of those they killed being BIGGER than the law. If you are going to use this argument, you HAVE to apply it to both sides, without law both sides have this right. |
| The Real Wizard 06.05.2011 11:19 |
I'm not necessarily advocating this guy's views, but everyone in the civilized world should at least watch this video and decide for themselves - link |
| Holly2003 06.05.2011 11:44 |
Yep, crashing airplanes into cities is definitely less of a threat to our way of life than a bee sting. |
| john bodega 06.05.2011 15:07 |
I enjoy watching Alex Jones, and not just because he resembles the captain of Red Dwarf. He serves as an example of being too far in one direction - the other end of the spectrum, I reserve for someone like Bill O'Reilly (although if you really look around, there's worse - yes, worse than even O'Reilly, although not much). He's making a good point about hype here - hype that people who've never done even a rudimentary course in media might be completely ignorant of. The unfortunate thing with a guy like Alex Jones (or Bill O'Reilly) is that there really is no middleground - the place where, typically, the truth is to be found. Waaaay too much hyperbole. It's unacceptable to a guy like this that a government (occasionally, when it suits them) might tell us the truth; just the same that it's unacceptable to a guy like O'Reilly that the government would ever betray us. This guy hovers way too damned close to tinfoil hat/RFID chip/NWO territory for me to take him very seriously - as much as I fully agree with him on how things are hyped and manipulated, because they are. Unfortunately, what people usually take to be one overlord running the show is really the Haves, screwing the Have Nots - as simple as that. It's nothing that hasn't been going on for thousands of years, and by even being party to the system, you're only making it worse. They get this funny idea that there's a conspiracy to achieve some malevolent goal when the real truth is that the govt' doesn't NEED a conspiracy or a new world order. They can do whatever they want already, and it's all a lot more ambiguous than the Emperor Palpatine shit these clowns try to scare us with. Am I part of the New World Order because I've accepted government handouts or done work for government agencies? Y'know what - I HOPE so. I know it'll get up the nose of some pseudo-intellectual somewhere. I'm more interested in sitting on my arse and playing guitar. \m/ |
| greaserkat 06.05.2011 15:59 |
That "worse than Bill O'Reily" would be Glenn Beck. |
| john bodega 06.05.2011 16:38 |
Among others! The fact is, I couldn't pick. |
| GratefulFan 06.05.2011 16:48 |
emrabt wrote: By your own logic, Al Qaeda now has every right to pursue the American and British leaders to the ends of the earth. The human right of those they killed being BIGGER than the law. If you are going to use this argument, you HAVE to apply it to both sides, without law both sides have this right. ======================================= The point is that the mere presence of a law does not alone say everything about the morality or rightness of any individual action in contravention of it. To acknowledge that in no way advocates lawlessness or denigrates the vital role of law and order in society. An example might be assisted suicide, where a person must be prosecuted according to the law but has actually made an ethically courageous and morally correct decision in the specific circumstances. In the case of the United States the example is violating sovereignty (or agreeing to the appearance of violating sovereignty) to ensure the elimination, one way or another, of a wanted man whose ability to influence, plan and facilitate the deaths of thousands of past and future innocents continued for more than 10 years. A man who almost certainly inspired and emboldened more in life than in death, despite the martyr rap. If the choice was between risking letting bin Laden get away and ringing up Pakistan, I do think that without question justice and human life correctly triumphed. The United States needs to answer the questions, perhaps even accept censure if appropriate (and it's far from clear if it even is), but that won't change the fact that they almost certainly did the right thing in the early hours of May 2. It's necessary for the appropriate bodies to raise the issues about international law and such, but in a situation that is anything but clear the rest of us have a choice in the narratives formed, the characterizations made, and to whom the benefit of the doubt goes. You could certainly turn the argument on Bush and Obama et al if you wanted and try to make the case. That's precisely what al Qaeda has done after all. However unlike the American psyche as it relates to 9/11, the people in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have universal or reliably unambiguous feelings about the value of the military intervention or it's place in their history. I personally don't think you can conflate the two issues easily, and there is very little that is yet clear about what the larger result of the wars will be beyond the tragic toll in human life that we completely agree is no more or less precious than any other. |
| Mr Mercury 06.05.2011 17:30 |
Sir GH wrote: I'm not necessarily advocating this guy's views, but everyone in the civilized world should at least watch this video and decide for themselves - linkBob, effectively what this guy is saying is right about hype,etc. But you what the over-riding thing I got from watching this? He was telling about governments trying to tell people how to live their lives by him telling us how we should really live our lives. Effectively he was using a similar method to get the point across. Thats just what I got anyway... |
| john bodega 07.05.2011 01:04 |
I don't dislike this fella because he has extreme points of view - I think, most days, that's something that should be applauded. What I dislike about him (and his opposites on Fox News...) is an almost galling lack of respect for other people's points of view. We are all stuck on this big old world together, many of us feeling and thinking similar things, and each of us cooking up our own ways to cope with the bullshit. There is essentially nothing that this guy is good for, because he rants (repetitively) for 11 minutes, and doesn't really tell us anything positive or helpful. That's the huge difference between someone like Carl Sagan (effing visionary, man) and Richard Dawkins (dope on a rope). Sagan could sit there and lambast horoscopy mercilessly, but at the end of it he would have something insightful to say about living in this universe. Dawkins is just a massive troll, without the unfortunate limitation of obscurity. Someone like Dawkins might have a point, but the point is overridden by their appalling lack of humanity, or empathy, or - most important of all - answers. Know-it-alls like these guys haven't got anything on you or me, because for everything they can tell you about The Big Conspiracy (most of it fictional) or the Non-Existence of God (I agree with this, but practically speaking it actually doesn't matter if He is there or not) there are a million things they can't answer. |
| emrabt 07.05.2011 01:47 |
GratefulFan +===================== So are you agreeing that the result was justifiable, but the method used get that result was totally wrong, both morally and lawfully? In my eyes the result does very little to justify the method. |
| GratefulFan 07.05.2011 09:14 |
emrabt wrote: So are you agreeing that the result was justifiable, but the method used get that result was totally wrong, both morally and lawfully? In my eyes the result does very little to justify the method. ====================== No. I think the decisions and action taken in this case were not a means, but an end itself. The actions were taken because they were right. How the law deals with that is a separate issue. |
| GratefulFan 07.05.2011 09:30 |
Sir GH wrote: I'm not necessarily advocating this guy's views, but everyone in the civilized world should at least watch this video and decide for themselves - link ===================== About 3 minutes of strawman followed by a bunch more minutes of circular logic where he doesn't even try to consider if all the "hype" might be having some causal relationship on the chances of being a victim of terrorism. All minutes conducted in a spectacularly horrible, grating voice. |
| GratefulFan 07.05.2011 09:47 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't dislike this fella because he has extreme points of view - I think, most days, that's something that should be applauded. What I dislike about him (and his opposites on Fox News...) is an almost galling lack of respect for other people's points of view. We are all stuck on this big old world together, many of us feeling and thinking similar things, and each of us cooking up our own ways to cope with the bullshit. There is essentially nothing that this guy is good for, because he rants (repetitively) for 11 minutes, and doesn't really tell us anything positive or helpful. That's the huge difference between someone like Carl Sagan (effing visionary, man) and Richard Dawkins (dope on a rope). Sagan could sit there and lambast horoscopy mercilessly, but at the end of it he would have something insightful to say about living in this universe. Dawkins is just a massive troll, without the unfortunate limitation of obscurity. Someone like Dawkins might have a point, but the point is overridden by their appalling lack of humanity, or empathy, or - most important of all - answers. Know-it-alls like these guys haven't got anything on you or me, because for everything they can tell you about The Big Conspiracy (most of it fictional) or the Non-Existence of God (I agree with this, but practically speaking it actually doesn't matter if He is there or not) there are a million things they can't answer. ======================= I liked this whole post Zebonka. I'm actually reading Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World' right now and while I'm finding it brilliant I think that Sagan still suffers from the same limitations that all rationalist skeptics do. They're right about so much, but unaware of their own blind spots and the degree to which skepticism itself can become a religion. When you have the particular kind of intelligence that the world tends to reward from a very early age with good grades and high praise and later on with a good career and admission into the halls of intellectual and scientific power there is very little impetus to look very far outside that particular way of grasping the world. As a result I think they all miss things. |
| emrabt 07.05.2011 11:08 |
No. I think the decisions and action taken in this case were not a means, but an end itself. The actions were taken because they were right. ==================================== Well anything else we add will be going around in circles, our views and opinions have been expressed, unless something can be added to change our opinions I’m pretty sure we have reached the end of this dialogue without resorting to childish “your opinion is wrong” type stuff, probably for the first time this has happened on queenzone since 2006. :D |
| john bodega 08.05.2011 02:12 |
"When you have the particular kind of intelligence that the world tends to reward from a very early age with good grades and high praise and later on with a good career and admission into the halls of intellectual and scientific power there is very little impetus to look very far outside that particular way of grasping the world" Quite true! I think everyone has these blind spots in some area or another. Sagan had 'em, but I still feel he did a better job of retaining his humanity than, say, Dawkins. Sagan at least had the respect to say "well I might be wrong - cough up the evidence". |
| GratefulFan 09.05.2011 09:47 |
emrabt wrote: I’m pretty sure we have reached the end of this dialogue without resorting to childish “your opinion is wrong” type stuff, probably for the first time this has happened on queenzone since 2006. :D ====================== Hey! "Your argument is one of the most, poorly thought out, stupid things i have ever read" should count for something! ; ) I mentioned formal theories of moral development previously, and one criticism of them is that all our explanations for why we feel one way or another may in fact be post hoc reasoning for decisions that are actually reached at a gut level. In other words, we may know less about why we feel one way or another than we think. It's kind of an interesting premise. Anyway, thanks for all your thoughts. : ) |
| emrabt 09.05.2011 10:04 |
Hey! "Your argument is one of the most poorly thought out, stupid things i have ever read" should count for something! ; ) ========================= Hey! I'm allowed to pick and choose what posts I remember and what I don't, if I have the full history then it’s harder to twist things and make myself right. ==================== I mentioned formal theories of moral development previously, we may know less about why we feel one way or another than we think. It's kind of an interesting premise. ============================ It is interesting, to be honest I’ve never really thought about why I feel something’s are justifiable while others aren’t, especially as me own view rarely match up to others. =========== Anyway, thanks for all your thoughts. : ) ============= You’re welcome. |
| ParisNair 09.05.2011 12:47 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: ParisNair wrote: What we Indians knew all along, the worl realizes now. Pakistanis a untrustworthy lot. America gifted billions every year to Pakistan and they spent it on "fighting terror" by supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists. And while looked high and low for osama, turned out he was enjoying the hospitality to the common friend. ==== Sure, take this opportunity to spew your gall and incite ethnic hatred. Of course, it's every Pakistani's fault that Bin Laden lived in a compound near Islamabad. And sure, because their secret service is untrustworthy, every Pakistani is too. NEWSFLASH: there are *no* decent people in *any* intelligence agency *anywhere* in the world. Nor are intelligence agencies very competent. We like to think so, and they like us to think so, but they are not. Odds are, they really didn't know. The fact that you are abusing this to be racist about Pakistanis just shows what kind of unpleasant creature you are yourself.Hey..is it possible to be racist against your own race? We Indians (those from the Northern part of the country) and most Pakistanis are the same race. When people are angry about the Iraq or Afghanistan war / situation, more often than not they put the blame on "Americans", not "American govt" or "American forces". I used the term Pakistanis in a similar way. I suppose in a verbal conversation you would have got the proper context...I work with a lot of Pakistanis (and many other nationalities) on a very regular basis, and am friends with a few as well. We share common/similar languages (Hindi-Urdu) and discuss cricket casually. However, I have avoided political discussions with them, because of my very strong anti-Pakistan emotions as far as politics and history is concerned (I think we shud nuke the bloody Pakis :-D ). I discuss politics with my American colleagues a lot and those have indeed been very interesting. Anyway, please refrain from personal remarks about someone you donot know at all. It makes you look immature, which I have never felt about you from all your various posts I have read before this. About the intelligence failure - I cant and I don't believe ISI did not know about Osama's presence in Pakistan. |
| ParisNair 09.05.2011 13:13 |
GratefulFan wrote: ParisNair wrote: What we Indians knew all along, the worl realizes now. Pakistanis a untrustworthy lot. America gifted billions every year to Pakistan and they spent it on "fighting terror" by supplying arms and ammunition to the terrorists. And while looked high and low for osama, turned out he was enjoying the hospitality to the common friend. ======================== Anybody who doesn't like the tone of this should check it against some of the anti-American sentiment in this thread. In both cases there is some truth and some history there, but there is also glib oversimplification in service of beliefs established long before.Somehow it is always OK to be anti-American. But talk against some other nationality and you are racist. And I stick to my statement, that the "Pakistani establishment" is untrustworthy. The Americans have stated so themselves in no unclear terms, doubtless from their experiences over the past several years during the "War on Terror". It is also well known fact, not "beliefs established long before", that Pakistan is the training center for terrorists from all over the world. America has been raiding the mountainous regions of Pakistan over and over again in the last many years trying to neutralize the training camps. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.05.2011 23:54 |
First it was "Pakistani's" taken as a "lot", now it's the "Pakistani establishment". It seems to me that you're chickening out because you realize you've gone too far with your ethnic bigotry. Of course the Pakistani leadership sucks. So does the Indian leadership, in case you've failed to notice. Almost every country in the world is led by corrupt and incompetent idiots. What *you* were saying, however, is that Pakistani's as a people are untrustworthy, and you know damn well you did. |
| GratefulFan 13.05.2011 07:01 |
ParisNair wrote: Somehow it is always OK to be anti-American. But talk against some other nationality and you are racist. And I stick to my statement, that the "Pakistani establishment" is untrustworthy. The Americans have stated so themselves in no unclear terms, doubtless from their experiences over the past several years during the "War on Terror". It is also well known fact, not "beliefs established long before", that Pakistan is the training center for terrorists from all over the world. America has been raiding the mountainous regions of Pakistan over and over again in the last many years trying to neutralize the training camps. ======================================= Pakistan is in a situation driven largely by terror supporting policies both past and present, that is true. But since the terror has been turned inward and against the state the Pakistani people are also in a genuinely complex mess for which there is no clear or immediate answer. Talking about any group of people or any nation in an all inclusive, sweeping and disparaging way is unlikely to get anybody much respect unfortunately, unless you're talking to the already like minded. I understand India's unique history with Pakistan, but using racial epithets like 'Pakis' and joking about nuking them all is just not going to register that well with many in the rest of the world. Most of us don't live with that kind of tension and havoc at and within our borders and just don't have the frame of reference to understand it as anything much more than racism, rightly or wrongly. "The Pakistani establishment" is a different thing than the Pakistani people as a whole, and had you started with that you probably wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. I read this the other day, and thought it interesting: High Noon in Pakistan |
| 7Innuendo7 15.05.2011 03:50 |
interesting anagram. osama bin laden = lob da man in sea |
| ParisNair 23.05.2011 12:04 |
Yes I hate Pakistan government. No I don't love Pakistan people. Racism has got nothing to do with it. |
| GratefulFan 23.05.2011 20:32 |
It doesn't make you a bad guy, but it likely doesn't make you right either. In these seemingly intractable ethnopolitical and religious conflicts somebody somewhere must see the fundamental flaw in hating (or 'not loving') 170,000,000 or so people you've never met. I guess for now at least it's not you, and that's OK. I'm sure there are a lot of things I can't understand from the comfort of half way around the world. |