Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

[Gardenia]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

kind of funny...

Heh, I was just coming to post this after seeing it on twitter. I read the linked Atlantic article yesterday, but in the comments they were debating if MLK actually did say that at a speech or in a book, or was it a first draft of something similar he said, and so on, so I didn't know what to make of it in the end. (Although I did find the first thread of comments on the Atlantic article pretty funny. )

I guess this is why I never put much stock in quotes...


So in my own words? He's dead, and to be honest? I just... don't care. No, his death isn't going to magically fix everything and make it all right - but if it makes people happy, and they want to celebrate, and it makes them feel better in some cathartic way, or if it helps them to move on? So what? I don't think now is the best time to be telling people that no, actually their feelings are wrong or bad or whatever. Sometimes it is okay to feel relief, or even happiness over someone's death, so if that's how some people are taking the news? Fine with me.
(It's not to say I haven't seen some things that, I find, are - well, in bad taste? But...)

[Roknrol]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

I guess this is why I never put much stock in quotes...

Even if the quotes are misattributed, that doesn't mean that what they have to say is incorrect.

I don't think now is the best time to be telling people that no, actually their feelings are wrong or bad or whatever. Sometimes it is okay to feel relief, or even happiness over someone's death, so if that's how some people are taking the news? Fine with me.
(It's not to say I haven't seen some things that, I find, are - well, in bad taste? But...)

I never told anyone that they were not entitled to feel as they'd like. I simply commented on the amount of pleasure being reflected in some of the posts. Of course, you wouldn't remember many of these, but I have seen dozens of Abortion/Death Penalty threads come up on this Forum in the past. This thread is offering an interesting window into the minds of some who have debated the "life" issue with me in the past.

<shrug> It seems like way more people are getting their panties in a wad over this than I was...I was simply making an observation (and then explaining it, and then repeating myself...but that's how these things go...)

[Gardenia]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Even if the quotes are misattributed, that doesn't mean that what they have to say is incorrect.

This is not my issue with quotes - but I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I have, so perhaps I'll leave that for another time, because I think it could make for an interesting topic in itself.

I never told anyone that they were not entitled to feel as they'd like. I simply commented on the amount of pleasure being reflected in some of the posts. Of course, you wouldn't remember many of these, but I have seen dozens of Abortion/Death Penalty threads come up on this Forum in the past. This thread is offering an interesting window into the minds of some who have debated the "life" issue with me in the past.

<shrug> It seems like way more people are getting their panties in a wad over this than I was...I was simply making an observation (and then explaining it, and then repeating myself...but that's how these things go...)

I see two people showing what I'd call pleasure before your post. Then a vague comment about 'people' celebrating and another vague comment about the 'people' who value life. No, I would not remember those threads, or what was said in them, because I have not spent much time in the debate section in the past. If you've got something specific to say about a post here, or about someone specific, then do it. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people don't/can't follow the point you're trying to make.

[Roknrol]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

[Medusa]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

kind of funny...

Thankfully I don't believe in this Lord dude. So let the gloating commence.

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

Double whammy post for me!!!
I get ya. You were making an observation in my opinion.

[Gardenia]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Judging by what I'm reading, people aren't misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to make...they're trying to justify it.

If your point is that some people here are acting hypocritical because in one thread they defend life, and in another they celebrate a guy dying... then yeah, I didn't see that as your point until, you know, you actually said that in your last comment. (I might have got it with your third comment, if I had ever read those threads.)

As for justification? I am not celebrating, and so have nothing to justify.


And just so it's clear, that post (31) was not aimed specifically at you, since you're not the only one here who's brought up the not celebrating death bit. It's obviously something a lot of people are talking about in general as well, with those two 'quotes' have been flying around the internet.

I know this may not be a popular viewpoint.... but I wish they had put him on trial instead of just shooting him.
If you look at old footage of the Nuremburg trials after WW2 it was great to see these once haughty men on the receiving end of the justice they had denied to so many others.

I've been thinking about this since I heard something about not having a trial on the news that night (I forget the exact line). I also wonder if it would have gone well? Would it have been more fuel on the fire than the current situation?

[magusphredde]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Getting to the party a bit late ... Sorry folks ...

Without reading thru all the 4 pages of posts I will put my $ .02 in ...

If he is indeed dead, not gonna cry over it ... To me, no great loss ...

Why was he buried at sea? ... Was he really killed? ... DNA proof it was him? ... Where did the comparative DNA sample(s) come from? ...

Let's see who fills the void ... Remember Nature abhors a vacuum ...

[Gardenia]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Why was he buried at sea? ... Was he really killed? ... DNA proof it was him? ... Where did the comparative DNA sample(s) come from? ...

I heard his body was offered to Saudi Arabia (and perhaps a few other places?), but they didn't want him. They buried him within 24 hours because of Islamic custom, so they didn't have much time to do too much more I guess? However, some are saying burial at sea is also against Islamic custom...

There was a DNA test - they got the DNA from his half sister, which I guess they had her DNA because she had brain surgery somewhere in the states... but I have read that only proves the person was a relation, but necessarily Bin Laden. I am not sure about all that... They also had people ID a picture of the body, if I remember right. It was the reason they sent a team in, rather than doing an air strike, so they could be more sure that they did get him.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

I've been thinking about this since I heard something about not having a trial on the news that night (I forget the exact line). I also wonder if it would have gone well? Would it have been more fuel on the fire than the current situation?

It's a very difficult one, Gardenia, which is why I hesitated before posting. I can well understand that people are relieved he has been removed from the planet... but his ideology, his message, remains. That's important. We haven't cut the head off the hydra because you simply can't do it. Putting a hydra behind bars (assuming that it was possible of course) could show that it was only smoke and mirrors in the first place. (Though I accept that's by no means certain.)

The terrorism of 9/11 was a terrorist act on a large - unimaginable - scale. Large scale attacks are designed to paralyse the enemy by striking fear into their very bones (think of the SS wiping out Lidice, for example).

But one death, one thousand deaths.... each one was a tragedy for those concerned, for their friends, families and the community at large. In the UK we have lived with political terrorist attacks for decades (mostly concerning northern Ireland, but the 7/7 attacks were linked to the same ideology as those in the US) - with one important difference. The 9/11 attackers were not American citizens. The 7/7 attackers were British born and bred. And that raises the spectre of the enemy within - something altogether more subtle, more dangerous because they are so much more difficult to identify and because they are protected by the same rights that I take for granted.

Maybe it would have been impossible to have captured Bin Laden and got him out of Pakistan. But was it considered? Because what I fear most for the US is that you will find that having got rid of the 'other' (i.e. Bin Laden, the foreign hate figure, easy to identify and blame) you will suddenly discover a whole host of his supporters who are in fact US citizens, (unknown, impossible to identify with certainty and who can ultimately do more damage, both in terms of attacks and paranoia generally) and that the enemy has been brought within your own boundaries, something I would hate to see happen.

Would a trial have made any difference? I don't know. In my bones I think it would because it would have diminished him. Martyrs to a cause - any cause - rarely abide by the same rules as the rest of humanity.

But that's just my current opinion.

---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 AM ----------

I know what you're saying, but, actually, "killed while trying to escape" is really the best option here. After WWII the Nazi party was pretty much a dead party (for the time being). The Nazis weren't really terrorists although they did use terror as a weapon (like the bombing runs on England). They were fighting largely according to the European standards of war. What these two things mean is that those men who were on trial in Nuremburg were like the severed tentacles of a dead octopus - there was no head left, and the other severed tentacles couldn't do much on their own.

However, Osama has left a live octopus behind him, one that doesn't fight according to European conventions. People have already mentioned that we can expect reprisals, but if bin Laden was in captivity alive, those reprisals would be much worse, because the octopus would be trying to get it's tentacle back.

I understand where you're coming from, although I do think you have a rather rose view of European conventions, especially with regard to war. So although I am going slightly off track here, I am going to try and deal with that, because I think that WW2 was rife with terrorism of one sort or another, and that this terrorism actually had its roots deep within European attitudes to warfare.

For example.... you could say that moving into a town and killing every single inhabitant (often by burning alive while locking in a town hall of church) was an act of terrorism. It was war against unarmed civilians, anyway. It certainly happened in WW2. But it had happened much earlier too. Take the sack of Magdeburg in the 17th century - twenty thousand civilians killed, only 400 escaped. Whether you are killed by an airplane crashing into your office or slashed to death with a cutlass, the end result for the individual is just the same.

You could also say that European standards of war prevented nations from turning on their allies.... but in WW2 Britain sank the French navy (its allies) with the loss of about 2000 men. This was to prevent it from falling into the hands of Germany after France fell. It was an unprecedented act, to kill one's own allies. (And I'm sure the French never forgave us.)

You could also say that European standards of war would have prohibited the massacre of unarmed POWs... but again, that was fairly common practice for centuries.

Another thing was concentration camps - the Germans didn't invent these. I hesitate to say who did, but the British were certainly using them in South African in their war against the Boers at the end of the 19th century. Thousands of people - including women and children - died as a result.

I'm only giving these few examples to show that European conventions of war are not - and never were - as gentlemanly as they are sometimes portrayed.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

It's a very difficult one, Gardenia, which is why I hesitated before posting. I can well understand that people are relieved he has been removed from the planet... but his ideology, his message, remains. That's important. We haven't cut the head off the hydra because you simply can't do it. Putting a hydra behind bars (assuming that it was possible of course) could show that it was only smoke and mirrors in the first place. (Though I accept that's by no means certain.)

The terrorism of 9/11 was a terrorist act on a large - unimaginable - scale. Large scale attacks are designed to paralyse the enemy by striking fear into their very bones (think of the SS wiping out Lidice, for example).

But one death, one thousand deaths.... each one was a tragedy for those concerned, for their friends, families and the community at large. In the UK we have lived with political terrorist attacks for decades (mostly concerning northern Ireland, but the 7/7 attacks were linked to the same ideology as those in the US) - with one important difference. The 9/11 attackers were not American citizens. The 7/7 attackers were British born and bred. And that raises the spectre of the enemy within - something altogether more subtle, more dangerous because they are so much more difficult to identify and because they are protected by the same rights that I take for granted.

Maybe it would have been impossible to have captured Bin Laden and got him out of Pakistan. But was it considered? Because what I fear most for the US is that you will find that having got rid of the 'other' (i.e. Bin Laden, the foreign hate figure, easy to identify and blame) you will suddenly discover a whole host of his supporters who are in fact US citizens, (unknown, impossible to identify with certainty and who can ultimately do more damage, both in terms of attacks and paranoia generally) and that the enemy has been brought within your own boundaries, something I would hate to see happen.

Would a trial have made any difference? I don't know. In my bones I think it would because it would have diminished him. Martyrs to a cause - any cause - rarely abide by the same rules as the rest of humanity.

But that's just my current opinion.[COLOR="Silver"]

I think these are important points!

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

I understand where you're coming from, although I do think you have a rather rose view of European conventions, especially with regard to war. So although I am going slightly off track here, I am going to try and deal with that, because I think that WW2 was rife with terrorism of one sort or another, and that this terrorism actually had its roots deep within European attitudes to warfare.

I'm only giving these few examples to show that European conventions of war are not - and never were - as gentlemanly as they are sometimes portrayed.

YES. Living in Germany, I've learned a LOT of WWII history and practices and things of the Nazi party in power, both at war and at home. "Terror" is almost an understatement for some of the things they did. They had absolutely no concern for honor, or value of the life on the other side (and often, not even their own citizens). Winning and dominance were their only priorities.

And I have no doubt that Germany would have turned on their allies had they been victorious. Nazi Germany wasn't exactly known for its honour, or keeping its word.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Off topic, just to clear something up------

Tylluan, all you say is true - and I know all that. I know I wasn't clear about what conventions I ws refering too, but what I had in mind was the way in which war was fought - with military objectives, an army with conventional military weapons. and a means of winning (which means that there is also a means of defeat) - none of these is a characteristic of terrorism. This is what General Rupert Smith defines as "large scale industrial war between nations."

The point that I wanted to make was that a defeated Germany wasn't going to launch a campaign of terrist attacks to free Goring because, by every military standard, they had been defeated and rendered helpless.

Terrorism operates in a completely different way - not just different in terms of degree to which they use terror, but in the very nature of what they do & why they do it.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Yes, thanks for clearing that up, de Corbin, I had a feeling I had misunderstood!

[DanieMarie]

Re: Osama Bin Laden Dead 5/01/2011

Yeah I misunderstood too!

Though I think (though the objective of winning is still true) some of the fronts, like the Russian, got a little chaotic and saw guerilla warfare. And even the battle of Berlin got a little less organized, and at that point they were kind of low on stuff like weapons.