Bin Laden be Dead

  • 111 replies
  • 25164 views
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2011, 10:56:45 PM »
The problem is that the masterminds and engineers of these deeds get away with it.( and sometimes then become politicians like Mohammed Def and Khaled Mash'al)
or Martin McGuinness or Menachem Begin, who were responsible for their own share of disgusting atrocities.

It's not just in the Arab world that terrorists can become politicians. Arabs don't hold the franchise on terrorism as a fast-track political training scheme. Nor would I suggest that terrorists should never be allowed to become politicians or hold political office. I honestly don't know who your 2 guys are. Maybe they're scumbags, but if they're able to deliver peace at some point in the future then a judgement needs to be made about the benefits of peace against the need for justice. Not suggesting that's ever been an easy calculation to make. Not suggesting anyone invites them round for a cuppa this week. Not suggesting that it always works out well.

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2011, 11:47:11 PM »
Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, have been known to heroically go after areas where children are playing.  The one time someone in one of their groups strapped on a pair (as opposed to strapping on an explosive vest) and arranged to rub out a high ranking government official, the payback sent the brave terrorist leaders scurrying back to their rat holes to plan heroic attacks on restaurants, shops, and other softer targets.

Whether one attacks children with bombs attached to oneself or by shooting them in the head, it's still killing children. Perhaps to the degree that suicide bombers are considered brave by anyone it's because they must sacrifice their own lives in the act, whereas someone who shoots a Palestinian child in the head isn't likely to suffer any injuries. Note that since September 2000 more than 954 Palestinian and 123 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed.

From Wikipedia
Quote
Palestinian Child Casualties during 2000-2004

According to the Defence of Children International (DCI),[17] of the "595 children killed [29 September 2000 to 30 June 2004], 383, or 64.4%, died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, during assassination attempts, or when Israeli soldiers opened fire randomly" and "212 children, or 35.6%, died as a result of injuries sustained during clashes with Israeli military forces".[18]

It is estimated that two-thirds of all injuries are to Palestinian minors. The DCI estimates that from the 1 January 2001 until 1 May 2003, at least 4,816 Palestinian children were injured, with the majority of injuries happening as a result of Israeli army activity, and a small fraction of those injuries being at the hands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the majority of these children were killed and injured while going about their normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply when in their homes.[19][20]

According to the UNRWA, between August of 1989 and August of 1993, 1,085 people treated in its clinics had been shot in the head, of whom 545 were under the age of sixteen, and of whom 97 were under the age of six.[21] A study by the Association of Israeli and Palestinian Physicians for Human Rights (PHR-Israel) reveals that during five years of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a child under the age of six was shot in the head every two weeks.[22]

…Amnesty International claimed that the Israeli government used "excessive, disproportionate and reckless force against unarmed Palestinians and in densely populated residential areas", and that such practices "frequently result in the killing and injuring of unarmed civilians, including children."[22]

Quote
BTW - There were other reasons for getting rid of Saddam.  Just how much of that Oil for Food money went towards big reward payments to the families of those Palestinian suicide bombers while the people of Iraq went hungry?

Hard to argue the people (well @200,000 of them) were better off with violent deaths than going hungry.

Quote
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.  Osama was a bad terrorist, but the SEALs made him into a good terrorist.

I think in a more fair and just world there wouldn't be terrorists to begin with. Did you know that not one of the people responsible for the illegal scams that caused the world economic crisis have spent even one day in jail?

I'm just sayin'
suddenly it become more of a statement to NOT have a tattoo…

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2011, 11:56:08 PM »



Yes, but does he have a TEFL qualification? Oh, hold on, sorry. Wrong thread.
ahahahahah ahahahahah ahahahahah good one.
suddenly it become more of a statement to NOT have a tattoo…

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #78 on: May 06, 2011, 12:42:01 AM »
You know what?  If the US had just come out and said "We executed him", it seems to me there'd be a hell of a lot less querying the authenticity of the claims.  That's an interesting and puzzling idea, and it leads to one asking why they announced his death at all.  One wonders what the difference between a successful military action and an execution is anyway.  Presumably only the certainty of the outcome.  So included in the frame of combat action is an intention to kill?  But presumably kill only other combatants.  And presumably only for the higher purpose of securing some military objective.  So.... this was a military action?  A policing action?  A murder?

It's a bit bizarre, I guess, but why not just call it a murder?  There's something absurd in having so much raw military power and still seeking to humanize it by claiming impersonal, legalistic controls behind its deployment.


Oh wait--
when ur a roamin', do as the settled do o_0

*

Escaped Lunatic

  • *****
  • 10849
  • Finding new ways to conquer the world
    • EscapedLunatic.com
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #79 on: May 07, 2011, 12:57:18 AM »
Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, have been known to heroically go after areas where children are playing.  The one time someone in one of their groups strapped on a pair (as opposed to strapping on an explosive vest) and arranged to rub out a high ranking government official, the payback sent the brave terrorist leaders scurrying back to their rat holes to plan heroic attacks on restaurants, shops, and other softer targets.

Whether one attacks children with bombs attached to oneself or by shooting them in the head, it's still killing children. Perhaps to the degree that suicide bombers are considered brave by anyone it's because they must sacrifice their own lives in the act, whereas someone who shoots a Palestinian child in the head isn't likely to suffer any injuries. Note that since September 2000 more than 954 Palestinian and 123 Israeli children under the age of 18 have been killed.

From Wikipedia
Quote
Palestinian Child Casualties during 2000-2004

According to the Defence of Children International (DCI),[17] of the "595 children killed [29 September 2000 to 30 June 2004], 383, or 64.4%, died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, during assassination attempts, or when Israeli soldiers opened fire randomly" and "212 children, or 35.6%, died as a result of injuries sustained during clashes with Israeli military forces".[18]

Let's see - strap on a bomb and deliberately head to a playground (and be hailed as a hero and your family gets a big fat check from Saddam) vs. collateral damage in military action (if the IDF deliberately targeted children, the could easily kill thousands every week) or during assassination attempts (who was trying to assassinate whom? - if a 17 year old "child" is attacking soldiers in a way likely to cause severe injury or death, there's NO crime in the soldiers shooting him in the face).

Yes, I'm sure some IDF soldiers may have broken the rules.  If so, they should be court marshaled and properly punished.  On the other hand, anyone encouraging people to deliberately target unarmed civilians (especially children), suicidally or not, should be slowly flayed alive and have their name, picture, and crimes permanently displayed so that others will be warned not to follow a subhuman criminal like that.
I'm pro-cloning and we vote!               Why isn't this card colored green?
EscapedLunatic.com

*

kitano

  • *
  • 2601
    • Children of the Atom
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #80 on: May 07, 2011, 01:32:59 AM »
I don't think deliberately killing civilians is THAT different to targeting combatants knowing full well that you will kill civilians.

*

piglet

  • *
  • 1714
    • Piglet's House
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #81 on: May 07, 2011, 02:02:09 AM »

No but the problem is when the terrorists use the civilians as human shields knowing full well what will happen. What are you supposed to do,just say "oh well I can't get those terrorists without harming anyone so I will just let them go on doing what they do"
it's an impossible situation imho


I don't think deliberately killing civilians is THAT different to targeting combatants knowing full well that you will kill civilians.
For people who like peace and quiet - a phoneless cord

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #82 on: May 07, 2011, 05:48:07 AM »
Well, the way I see it, it pretty much comes down to this: if they do it to us it's "terrorism", and if we do it to them it's "fighting terrorism". I think it's always been that way. Whoever the enemy is isn't human, and their actions are abominable. They're monsters or terrorists or whatever, so it's OK to kill them, and they see us in the same way. That's why we've had names for them like "gook," to dehumanize the enemy.

Only problem is I'm not really clear on who "us" is and who "they" are anymore. I should probably just stick with America being right because I'm an American and that's probably the most convenient answer, and the safest bet in the long run. Even if we are wrong sometimes, it's better to be loyal and stick to one's own, and to be clear on who the enemy is. Not sure where exactly I lost the ball on this, but it's probably not too late to rejoin ranks and fight the bloody terrorist menaces, whoever they are and wherever they are. When it comes right down to it, it's us versus them, and we'd better stick together and @#$% them!

 blblblblbl bcbcbcbcbc qqqqqqqqqq
suddenly it become more of a statement to NOT have a tattoo…

*

piglet

  • *
  • 1714
    • Piglet's House
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2011, 06:08:03 AM »
Well I could go on at length Ben Dan after living in the Middle East for the last 30 years but I am tired and hubby is laying the table for Friday night nosh,so I will shut up.
However it is certainly not true that if they do it it's wrong and if we do it, it's okay. But some countries/groups have a sort of "ethic" and others don't... like I said v complicated.
For people who like peace and quiet - a phoneless cord

*

Mimi

  • *
  • 517
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2011, 07:02:52 AM »
I know where you're coming from Ben-Dan.  But, getting too far into a theoretical land in which, for example, Bin Laden and Bush are the same is dangerous.  They were both reprehensible leaders, but for different reasons.  Not everything bad is the same.

*

kitano

  • *
  • 2601
    • Children of the Atom
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2011, 10:42:11 AM »
i do think to some extent it is just two sides of the same coin, people have to stand up against it

not me tho, i'll trick someone stupider and better looking than me to sacrifice themself for my belief :D

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #86 on: May 07, 2011, 03:49:34 PM »
I know where you're coming from Ben-Dan.  But, getting too far into a theoretical land in which, for example, Bin Laden and Bush are the same is dangerous.  They were both reprehensible leaders, but for different reasons.  Not everything bad is the same.

Glad everyone could tell my post was a joke, and that I'm really just saying that if it's our team we will find all sorts of rationalizations and justifications for whatever we do, and if it's the other side we will find every way to distort and twist things so they are automatically wrong and more importantly - inhuman.

The killing of Osama, no matter how bad he was, was clearly an assassination. And yet we were first greeted with information of a "fierce fire fight" and "using a human shield," which would make it NOT an assassination. But over the day the story has become that Osama's 29 year old wife merely "lunged" at the armed Navy Seals and so they shot her in the leg and shot Osama in the head. Holy Smoke, if they hadn't shot her she might have, er, scratched one of them, by Gad. Why can't people just admit it was an assassination, for example? [Note: Osama was assassinated in front of his wife and possibly children. A question remains in my mind why barbarism is the response to barbarism. Is greater violence the way to end international terrorism? Couldn't we have set an example by being more humane? The lack of images or video – originally the confrontation was said to have been filmed, and there's a pic of leaders supposedly observing it – may have something to do with it not exactly looking honorable and perhaps being a bit of an embarrassment if you forget for a second that the victim is the devil.]

Yes Bush and Osama aren't the same. Bush wears a suit and tie for instance, and some find his down to Earth lack of interest in the world and befuddlement with the English language comforting. Osama has a long beard and wears entirely different clothing. Personally I don't find him the least bit charming. Bush we might imagine sitting in the White House or tooling around his ranch in a pick-up truck. Osama we might imagine hiding in a dusty cave, and who wants to live like THAT?!

Both of them are responsible for a lot of deaths, but for different reasons. I forget Osama's original rationale, but it had something to do with sanctions in Iraq, US backing Israel in it's conflict with Palestine, and other matters to do with the American involvement in the Middle East. For this reason he plotted to have planes fly into various targets in America. One thing I keep forgetting is that if they were all successful it would have been MUCH worse, and that the Twin Towers weren't the only target. If he were the leader of a country this would obviously be the start of a full on war.

The Bush team's reason for going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan was to fight the bad guys that attacked us on 9/11 and to prevent a "mushroom cloud" terrorist attack in America. Only problem was Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't have weapons of mass destruction (they'd already been cleaned out after the first war with Iraq under Bush Sr.; "Desert Fox" under Bill Clinton, in which 100 cruise missiles were fired at suspected WMD sites; and with subsequent thorough weapons inspections before the latest wave of weapons inspections).

Because it was becoming very clear Iraq had no WMDs one day Bush faced a terrible problem. No WMDs = No War. He tried to say Saddam was hiding WMDs in his palaces, so Saddam let the weapons inspectors in the palaces. Supposed photos of WMDs or manufacturing sites were found to be bogus. So the Bush team came up with a solution = Give Saddam and his sons 2 days to get out of Dodge, or we blow the place to shit.

At this point I was protesting up a storm, along with hundreds of thousands of other American citizens, and people all over the world. We all knew the War on Iraq was completely bogus and a lot of people were going to die. We also knew the risk of terrorist attacks and retaliation would increase. Everywhere people were waving American flags and festooning their homes and cars with them. In New York employers were cynically using 9/11 as an excuse for unnecessary layoffs. The "We Support Our Troops" stickers were plastered everywhere. The irony and hypocrisy in the air could be cut with a chainsaw.

And we learned about the antidote to "terror" = "shock and awe." When it came to frightening people, we could do it better with fighter planes instead of jets, and with bombs instead of kamikaze tactics of making one's plane into a bomb. So we showed the world who was the most powerful and frightening, terrifying if you will.

The death toll began to rise. Now it's over 200,000 Iraqis. This was the solution to 3,000 Americans killed. Attack a country that had nothing to do with it, destroy the country, cause civil unrest [protect only the Ministry of Oil], and murder people by the thousands.

So, I can basically understand why Osama is a monster and why he'd get assassinated [even if it would make much more sense to interrogate him, after all the song and dance about how interrogation is actually necessary to preserve freedom and setting up Guantanamo…], but I can't get why Bush is human and able to freely go about his business. I guess it comes down to the white lie about thinking Saddam had WMDs even though there wasn't a shred of evidence and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was cooperating. Even if he really did believe there were WMDs (I find this impossible to believe because I knew from what the weapons inspectors said that there weren't any, and I'm just your average citizen), there was still no justification for a "preemptive strike." If it's just a "white lie" that separates a despicable villain from a goofy savior, perhaps Osama should have said his rationale for attack was he was certain the Bush administration was going to launch an attack on the Muslim world, and he was doing a preemptive strike. Hindsight is always too late.

So, if someone can tell me the real difference between Bush and Osama, I might be less confused. For now I still stick to my old adage, which is that there are just two types of people in the world: people and people. There's no them and us. There's just different bullshit excuses to commit heinous atrocities, and every culture is guilty of them. Some countries, like Cambodia and Germany can't hide from their history, but the rest of us are the same and if we look carefully our history is pretty dark and murky and sinister. And the way out of that is first to admit it.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 04:44:10 PM by Ben-Dan »
suddenly it become more of a statement to NOT have a tattoo…

*

piglet

  • *
  • 1714
    • Piglet's House
Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #87 on: May 07, 2011, 07:43:05 PM »
No sorry,Ben Dan that is not the situation at all. Bush's "team" (not that I personally can stand the guy) represents democratic systems of government. Bin Laden's "team" is an ideological group called "Al Qaida" whose sole purpose is to wipe off the earth any people who do not accept the Muslim way of life and ideology be they Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Remember the Moors in Spain? That was the same .They call everyone else "kaffar" which means infidels and they are fair game. Remember what the Taliban did in Afghanistan to those magnificent statues of the Buddha? They smashed them up. Why? because it's not their religion.If you listen to the aim of those guys ( and I am not talking about ALL muslims,god forbid) you will see that "tolerance" is not in their lexicon.They feel that if they don't convert everyone their own salvation is in jeopardy. It is their duty to convert us all.They just don't speak the same language as we do in the Judeo-Christian tradition, of live and let live, turn the other cheek etc etc.
They are extremists and would have no qualms shooting any man,woman,child or baby so long as they thought it would further their chances at Heaven,virgins etc etc.
Try reading Ayan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel" to get to the mindset. It is NOT The same as Bush's liberal Christian democratic understanding of the world.
For people who like peace and quiet - a phoneless cord

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #88 on: May 07, 2011, 08:00:25 PM »
Piglet, there are some Christians that also have the mindset that everyone must be converted. Luckily, they don't kill or torture people to do it (unless you count the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons knocking on your door as torture).

Of course, this was done done in the middle ages but we do grew out of it, I think.

Re: Bin Laden be Dead
« Reply #89 on: May 07, 2011, 10:37:34 PM »
No sorry,Ben Dan that is not the situation at all. Bush's "team" (not that I personally can stand the guy) represents democratic systems of government.

Having stolen the election (actually I think both of them) Bush's team represents anything but democracy, and it doesn't matter what one is supposed to represent if what they do is needless slaughter.

Quote
Bin Laden's "team" is an ideological group called "Al Qaida" whose sole purpose is to wipe off the earth any people who do not accept the Muslim way of life and ideology be they Christians, Jews or Buddhists.

Could this be an oversimplification?! Have you ever read Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

He's compiled a huge list of grievances against America, including some rather surprising ones, such as
Quote
(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.

But I can't find anything in there about attacking Americans because we aren't Muslim. Maybe I missed it because I did skim over some parts. But, there's far more semi-legitimate sounding grievances there than the Bush squad ever gave for attacking Iraq.

I know Osama's guilty of crimes against humanity, and there are no excuses for that, but I'm just not clever enough or knowledgeable enough myself to see why he's soooo much worse than others who have killed far more people, and consistently for noble sounding causes. Aren't some of the worst atrocities committed under the noblest rhetoric? Certainly Osama, in that letter (which is quite interesting politically), was trying to claim the higher moral ground.


Quote
They are extremists and would have no qualms shooting any man,woman,child or baby so long as they thought it would further their chances at Heaven,virgins etc etc.

Actions speak louder than words, and everyone accuses their enemies of having wrong beliefs, vile motives, and being inhuman. The victors in history have the leisure to rewrite history, claim the high moral ground, and promulgate their interpretation of the past. Inevitably the losers will end up the villains, or simply be downplayed.

I assume you are familiar with the genocide of native American Indians on the American continent. Was that turning the other cheek? Our good Christians gave them blankets with small pox in order to kill them. Now, when Osama was killed the Seals sated, "Geronimo E.K.I.A." The Native American community is in an uproar because of the American military using the name "Geronimo" for "Osama." But, the Apache's didn't win and so they can still be demonized in conventional rhetoric.

It's too difficulty for me to unravel whose lies about the other are correct. It's much simpler to look at the results of people's actions. Whoever kills the most people or children cannot be said to value the lives of people and children more. Whoever kills the most people of another religion cannot be said to be the most tolerant.


suddenly it become more of a statement to NOT have a tattoo…