Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Osama Bin Laden is Dead.


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
148 replies to this topic

#21 GMuser   Members   -  Reputation: 211

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:26 AM

I bet this is all just an excuse to "revitalise the war on terror" and invade more middle-eastern countries. The talk in the whitehouse probably went like this "well, looks like we are going to lose the next election because everyone realises I suck as much as any other. I know, let's do a George W. Bush!".


I can't believe how lacking in evidence this is. Obama will be remembered as the president of forgery.

Sponsor:

#22 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:34 AM

I bet this is all just an excuse to "revitalise the war on terror" and invade more middle-eastern countries. The talk in the whitehouse probably went like this "well, looks like we are going to lose the next election because everyone realises I suck as much as any other. I know, let's do a George W. Bush!".


I can't believe how lacking in evidence this is. Obama will be remembered as the president of forgery.


Wasn't this also confirmed by Pakistan? After all they made the operation possible. Basically I get the feeling that you wont be satisfied until you see the body, hopefully somebody had the foresight to take a picture before they dumped him in the sea.

#23 owl   Banned   -  Reputation: 364

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:40 AM


I bet this is all just an excuse to "revitalise the war on terror" and invade more middle-eastern countries. The talk in the whitehouse probably went like this "well, looks like we are going to lose the next election because everyone realises I suck as much as any other. I know, let's do a George W. Bush!".


I can't believe how lacking in evidence this is. Obama will be remembered as the president of forgery.


Wasn't this also confirmed by Pakistan? After all they made the operation possible. Basically I get the feeling that you wont be satisfied until you see the body, hopefully somebody had the foresight to take a picture before they dumped him in the sea.


I stopped being satisfied since the first gram of a child's blood was dropped because of his fault. He wasn't worth the suffering he caused. I have no reason to feel happy for his death. He was never worth a bit of my attention. Instead you are and you are celebrating over his death and ignoring all the lives you took because of his fault..

You failed at being better than him. Just as I could have. But I didn't.
I like the Walrus best.

#24 GMuser   Members   -  Reputation: 211

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:43 AM

Of course I want to see the body, I can't believe the reports they dumped it in the sea. Surely they knew that would inspire talk of conspiracy. I would have expected DNA tests and proper confirmation that it was him, not this "you just believe us that we killed him, BOOYAH!". I was also pretty sure he was already dead before this event, so it's unlikely to have him pop up and say something.

#25 Smeagol   Members   -  Reputation: 133

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:43 AM

There will be a lot of people who see this as a sort of closing of that particular chapter of history, though Obama said the War On Terror will continue. BBC reported earlier that the Taliban have threatened attacks on Pakistani agencies and the US, so nothing much has changed from this time yesterday. A member of AQ who was/is held at Guantanamo said they had a nuclear weapon hidden in Europe which would be detonated if OBL was ever killed, but nothing has happened yet so it's probably safe to either he was lying or, security services found and dealt with the problem sometime ago.

He was little more than a figure head/ fundraiser for AQ so, not much will change with him being dead, except some loons frothing at the mouth about it.

There will be many people who will think it's a conspiracy of some sort. They'll never believe it no matter how much proof is given.

What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared, to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heartrending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottom of his training shoes.

#26 Fiddler   Members   -  Reputation: 840

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:49 AM

Do you really believe the circle of violence will end with a murder? Are you really so naive?

By celebrating the assassination, you have dropped to the level of the terrorists you are supposedly fighting. Whatever moral high ground you used to claim - that is lost now.

Enjoy your peaceful intermission until the next terrorist strike lands. Your policy has all but made that certain. Mission accomplished?

[OpenTK: C# OpenGL 4.4, OpenGL ES 3.0 and OpenAL 1.1. Now with Linux/KMS support!]


#27 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 05:58 AM

By celebrating the assassination, you have dropped to the level of the terrorists you are supposedly fighting


I'm not celebrating murder. I'm celebrating the loss of a man responsible for mass murder. Would you not have celebrated the demise of Hitler? Or Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for a genocide of his own? There is nothing wrong with being happy that an evil person who caused such inconceivable harm to the world is no longer in it.

And 'dropped to the level of the terrorists'. No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists. No matter how you may feel about the celebration of somebody's death, don't ever accuse people of sinking to the level of the terrorists. Don't equate a possibly slightly immoral expression of free speech with mass murder and genocide.

#28 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29747

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:00 AM

By the by, does anyone have a link to anywhere that cites that OBL ever actually admitted to planning 9/11? The closest I can find is this where he says that 9/11 sent the message that he'd been trying to send for years, and that the though of attacking american towers entered his mind in the 80's (prior to the 1993 WTC attacks). It's very vague...

It's "common knowledge" that he's the guy responsible, and the legality of the Afghanistan invasion rests on that knowledge, but I can't dig up a solid source for it. Anyone got a better source of this bit of common knowledge?

Wasn't this also confirmed by Pakistan?

Pakistan did confirm his death... 5 years ago.

#29 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:02 AM


Wasn't this also confirmed by Pakistan?

Pakistan did confirm his death... 5 years ago.


I was wrong anyway, according to the reports I'm seeing now the US were worried about information leaks in the Pakistani intelligence network so didn't inform anybody before the strike!

#30 forsandifs   Members   -  Reputation: 154

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:19 AM

http://www.guardian....aden-dead-obama


Any one else disturbed by the fact that even a time honoured newspaper like The Guardian can make such basic grammar mistakes as "None of the Americans was killed"? (In case English is not your first language, it should be were killed).

#31 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29747

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:26 AM

No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists.

Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
Or what of the 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a direct result of American sanctions during the 90's (to no effect)? Isn't that basically laying siege to and killing via attrition hundreds of thousands based on nothing but their nationality...?


Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts?

#32 owl   Banned   -  Reputation: 364

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:34 AM


No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists.

Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
Or the 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a direct result of American sanctions during the 90's (to no effect)? Isn't that basically laying siege to and killing via attrition hundreds of thousands based on nothing but their nationality...?


Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts?


You are supposed to be the leaders of the developed world. Not just the enemy of some crazy (nazi) nutcase. You are our example. What's your example? Beatin' the shit out of anyone in your way?

That's fine. But as soon as I have something to hurt you. GTFO of my way.
I like the Walrus best.

#33 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:43 AM

Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts?


If the goal was to do so because they are evil men, yes. If not, perhaps not. Am I happy about the innocents killed in Iraq during the hunt for Saddam Hussein? No, of course not. But at least now he can't commit atrocities any more. The innocent deaths along the way are a tragedy, and should not be trivialised, of course not, their lives are every bit as important as those killed on 9/11, for example. But can Hussein systematically attempt to exterminate entire races now? No. Something worthwhile has come out of the war, not just misery and death. Lives have been saved as well as lost.

There is a slight difference between people who cause terrible things to happen because of poor execution of good intentions than people whose GOAL it is to cause terrible things to happen. I can't comment on Vietnam or the 90's sanctions as I am highly ignorant of the circumstances of those events. But the recent war I can. I'm not trying to paint George W. Bush as a saint or anything, I dislike him as much as anyone, and I won't feel bad when he dies. But I won't celebrate either because at the end of the day, his existence was not dedicated to the destruction of peaceful people. This is where the likes of Bush differ from the likes of Hussein and bin Laden, who felt exactly that was their duty.

#34 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2121

Posted 02 May 2011 - 06:57 AM

Intentions doesn't mean Jack shit. Actions do. Maybe The intentions of Churchill was nice, when they bombed Drezda, Americans were nice when they bombed the shit out of Tokio/Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I don't give a shit. It wasn't any better than the Holocaust IMHO just the numbers were different.

#35 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:05 AM

Intentions doesn't mean Jack shit. Actions do. Maybe The intentions of Churchill was nice, when they bombed Drezda, Americans were nice when they bombed the shit out of Tokio/Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I don't give a shit. It wasn't any better than the Holocaust IMHO just the numbers were different.


I agree, mostly. I can agree that all those events you mentioned were horrible, horrible deeds. Intentions only come into it after the people responsible are gone. If you can ask yourself the question "Is there likely to be less death and misery in the world now that this person is no longer in it?" and the answer comes back "yes", that seems like a good enough reason to be happy. Do you not think? That's why I celebrate (if you can call it that, I'm not cheering in the streets, I simply admit that it makes me feel a little happy) Bin Laden's death. Not because I think it is justice, but because I think 'he can no longer orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands'. I don't see what part of that attitude is such a bad thing that people find reprehensible.

#36 owl   Banned   -  Reputation: 364

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:07 AM

Intentions doesn't mean Jack shit. Actions do. Maybe The intentions of Churchill was nice, when they bombed Drezda, Americans were nice when they bombed the shit out of Tokio/Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I don't give a shit. It wasn't any better than the Holocaust IMHO just the numbers were different.


You know what bothers me? That they can drop a letter inside your toilet telling you that they can drop a letter inside your toilet but they can't wipe the genocides out of this world without killing thousands of innocent civilians. I give a fuck about the MILLONS comunism killed BEFORE That's the buried past. The US sold me all this shit about superman and the league of justice, Transformers and the like. They better stand up for it or give me my hours of consuming their propaganda back.
I like the Walrus best.

#37 forsandifs   Members   -  Reputation: 154

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:08 AM

I agree, mostly. I can agree that all those events you mentioned were horrible, horrible deeds. Intentions only come into it after the people responsible are gone. If you can ask yourself the question "Is there likely to be less death and misery in the world now that this person is no longer in it?" and the answer comes back "yes", that seems like a good enough reason to be happy. Do you not think? That's why I celebrate (if you can call it that, I'm not cheering in the streets, I simply admit that it makes me feel a little happy) Bin Laden's death. Not because I think it is justice, but because I think 'he can no longer orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands'. I don't see what part of that attitude is such a bad thing that people find reprehensible.


The hipocrisy of it.

#38 Smeagol   Members   -  Reputation: 133

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:09 AM

I think some people need to give their heads a wobble.

What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared, to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heartrending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottom of his training shoes.

#39 Fox89   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:15 AM

The hipocrisy of it.


What's hypocritical about it? I feel confident in saying it would be fair to apply the same attitude to anyone.

#40 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2121

Posted 02 May 2011 - 07:15 AM

I agree that accidents happen, but if those figures about the wars against terrorist are correct, then they're not accidents. It's the US Army, the most fuckingest advanced army in the Universe for Christ's sake!

Back to topic: I agree that this event is not much more than an "ahham, okay" event.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS