Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I gotta echo what the three guys above me have said, and that they've said it in a less convoluted way than I did.

Edit: (page topper) - The three above me were pointing out that the death of Bin Laden doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things, and that we should not lower ourselves to cheering the death of our enemies á la Winston in 1984.

Quote (Tonepoet)

His human rights, whatever few he had left remaining, certainly don't supercede everybody else's and there's a basic human right to general safety; a basic human right to life, which he has violated and would violate time and time again. He needed stopping first and foremost and as I've mentioned above, that's what he got.

I'm sorry, I know I'm gonna be flamed for this, but he still had human rights. The point of basic human rights is that everybody always has them.

Yes, he was evil - from our perspective. But he still has his rights. Rights such as the right to life don't superced anybody else's right to life. They don't work like that.

In this situation, the troops did the right thing - but only because he resisted and probably shot back.

And sure, I'd agree with you that because of his actions, we would probably be justified in violating his rights for the greater good. But we shouldn't pretend that we aren't violating them.

A necessary evil has been done, not a virtuous act. We should not pretend otherwise.

And as for the Guantanemo point, yeah, I'd aree with you there.

This post has been edited by Stiltzkin on 3rd May 2011 07:55

--------------------

We apologise for the inconvenience

Quote (Stiltzkin @ 3rd May 2011 02:46)

Edit: (page topper) - The three above me were pointing out that the death of Bin Laden doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things, and that we should not lower ourselves to cheering the death of our enemies á la Winston in 1984.

Yep. This is all I ever wanted to say in this thread, and it's the reason it took me thirty-six hours to weigh in here. I really do believe in the psychological gain from this here in the States, and probably no other real gain. However, I really don't feel that the "well, those Ayyy-rabs dance in the street when they kill our men and women" excuse I've seen in so many places over the last two days holds up one little bit. For me, this is a situation that demands the dignity that a world power should put forth in times of both hardship and celebration, and I'm not sure that dignity is quite where it should be right now.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

For my part, I'm relieved that the man who's responsible for 9-11 and so many other atrocities will never be able to hurt anybody again. As for the repercussions, it all depends on how the U.S. uses this event to shape its foreign policy and how the Arab world reacts. I know this isn't the end of terrorism or other forms of violent extremism, but I sincerely hope this and recent events in Egypt mark the beginning of an era where we can find more peaceful resolutions to these problems. So, I guess I'd describe my feelings as cautiously optimistic.

Quote (Narratorway)

There's a metric f***ton of people who could be described thusly who we afford the right of due process. Just saying…

Uhm, maybe if you ignore the second second sentence entirely or take it as some simple rhetoric rather than as the wholly serious and literal summation of the situation at hand. He's been green lighting attacks on tourist sites elsewhere ever since. I'm not saying the Unabomber doesn't deserve his day in court but the Unabomber doesn't have trained militia at his disposal but even he was never responsible for the deaths of dozens of people at one time time or commission the deaths of over 3,000 people. Aside from that due process is relative to normative procedure and insofar as the United States goes, outright bloody wars started on a self-evident basis go so far back as the beginning as described in the Declaration of Independence.

A key point to consider here is that if you don't defend yourself from tyrants who would take away your essential liberties, you lose them, plain and simple. If not to Al Queda, to the massive numbers of people who see how easy it is to simply tread all over you thereafter. If you wanna take your principals to the extremes of following in the footsteps of Christ to aide and abet your own unjust crucification as to exonerate the public of their wrongdoings, well that's your business but I think I'd rather care to turn to Jefferson 'n company as my go to guys for determining the delicate balance of human rights.

Quote (BlitzSage)

I don't want to stress this point, but people in the American government could be described in that way. The Iraq War resulted in well over 100,000 deaths (by the by, those are over 100,000 civilian deaths). And neither Bush nor anybody else in his administration were seriously considered for war crimes, despite the fact that they committed perjury about the war. Yes, bin Laden was an evil man, but there are many people whose hands are not clean.

Would the reason you don't want to stress it be because it applies rather poorly to the situation at hand? 100,000 civilian deaths is a terrible thing but that's hardly what happened in this case. In fact it really only serves to show why tactics such as this should be held as permissible in a time of war because if Bush could've gotten Saddam out so cleanly, only 1 civilian would've died 'cause the enemy used her as a meat shield, as opposed to 100,000 being killed under the questionable circumstances of direct combat. As it would so turn it, it appears that silent Assassination is a better tactic than brazenly announced attacks in the hopes of using Shock 'n Awe to scare your enemy into submission. Isn't that part of the point I was trying to exemplify i my last post? I thought it was.

Quote (BlitzSage)

Also, take a look at these Arab opinion polls. They clearly show that our actions have cast a negative image of us in the region. Case in point, the poll which shows us right behind Israel as the region's biggest threat. Why do people wonder where terrorism comes from? There it is. People in the region (and most of the polls there are stable in this regard) dislike our intervention.

Again I care to object. Firstly where are the arab opinion polls of the 1990s for comparison? They're just simply not there 'cause we didn't give a hoot? They may've always had a frank and earnest disdain for us. Secondly, with perhaps the exception of the Gulf War and some minor conflict resolutions interests, we could've largely cared less about the middle east on the whole before 9/11 2001 happened. I'm not saying that's all-permissive in and of itself mind you but the way you say it is almost as anachronistic as if you're blaming Kefka for the initial Warrings of the three Goddesses.

Besides that, I hate to invoke Godwin's law but seriously, W.T.F. is with those polls? Looking at the questions asked and the responses so given, it seems like the people so polled were factually Nazis who want nukes. I don't want f'n nazis to have nukes and neither should anybody who knows even the most basic history behind WW II, well, unless they're a Nazi. If you want to make an appeal on my sympathy, find a better poll please because I certainly can't empathize with people who can't extend the same courtesy to the sufferers of the holocaust. Also, Arabs surf the web in Arabic? Wow! Who knew?

Quote (Stiltzkin)

Yes, he was evil - from our perspective. But he still has his rights. Rights such as the right to life don't superced anybody else's right to life. They don't work like that.

In this situation, the troops did the right thing - but only because he resisted and probably shot back.

And sure, I'd agree with you that because of his actions, we would probably be justified in violating his rights for the greater good. But we shouldn't pretend that we aren't violating them.

I can respect that but I'm not fully convinced. He wanted war and he acted accordingly so he got the logical consequences of such actions. Why shouldn't somebody have the freedom to do that? He knew what risks he was taking beforehand. It's a fully forewarned consequence of going beyond that scope of which the fifth amendment calls for as so defined in the national law, therefore this is in part a manner of his prerequisite implicit assent. I.e your rights can't be taken away but you can put them willingly in forfeiture. Otherwise, under your doctrine, even so much as putting convicts in prison is still a violation of their human rights as it takes away their right to liberty, which is arguably no better. A founding forefather would choose to take death over a permanent loss in liberty any day and between the outcomes, those are the only feasible outcomes. I'm sure Bin Laden has his objections to both and would've had little choice besides the two.

Quote (R51)

Yep. This is all I ever wanted to say in this thread, and it's the reason it took me thirty-six hours to weigh in here. I really do believe in the psychological gain from this here in the States, and probably no other real gain. However, I really don't feel that the "well, those Ayyy-rabs dance in the street when they kill our men and women" excuse I've seen in so many places over the last two days holds up one little bit. For me, this is a situation that demands the dignity that a world power should put forth in times of both hardship and celebration, and I'm not sure that dignity is quite where it should be right now.

If the impact of this seems small to you, that's simply because the job isn't done yet or perhaps you just don't feel so threatened by this organization as the rest of us. I personally see Mr. Bin Laden's death as winning a battle in a war. The war itself is still ongoing until Al-Queda ceases attacking, be that via peaceable surrender (as if they'd ever relent and even if they did, we'd have to be cautious of a trojan horse style attack) or we make them cease to attack through forceful means.

All that said, I think I'm going to end this one here and chalk it up any further disagreements to values dissonance.

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 3rd May 2011 17:26

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 11:03)

If the impact of this seems small to you, that's simply because the job isn't done yet or perhaps you just don't feel so threatened by this organization as the rest of us.

I never said it felt small. I think that there's a great psychological effect, but I also think that it's going to be short-lived. I note your analysis of why I might feel this way, and while I think you're off base with it, I will say that you're probably right that I do feel less threatened by terrorist activity than you seem to be. Maybe that's because I feel that living in constant fear of terrorism does more damage to the collective psyche of the country than an actual terrorist attack might, or maybe it's that visiting Ground Zero a handful of times between 2004 and 2007 is my closest personal experience to domestic terrorism.

Quote (Same Post)

I personally see Mr. Bin Laden's death as winning a battle in a war. The war itself is still ongoing until Al-Queda ceases attacking, be that via peaceable surrender (as if they'd ever relent and even if they did, we'd have to be cautious of a trojan horse style attack) or we make them cease to attack through forceful means.

In putting this in a response to my post, it would seem to me that you're implying I don't actually feel the same way. I want you to be clear that I do see it roughly the same way, as a battle in a war. I just don't feel that this war is going to do anything other than feed itself from both sides in perpetuity, just like the lovely ouroboros.



--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 17:03)

He knew what risks he was taking beforehand. It's a fully forewarned consequence of going beyond that scope of which the fifth amendment calls for as so defined in the national law, therefore this is in part a manner of his prerequisite implicit assent. I.e your rights can't be taken away but you can put them willingly in forfeiture. Otherwise, under your doctrine, even so much as putting convicts in prison is still a violation of their human rights as it takes away their right to liberty, which is arguably no better. A founding forefather would choose to take death over a permanent loss in liberty any day and between the outcomes, those are the only feasible outcomes. I'm sure Bin Laden has his objections to both and would've had little choice besides the two.

Not being American, I'm afraid can't pretend to be well-versed on the rights of the fifth amendment.

But, I think your argument of 'willing forfeiture' of one's human rights is basically the same argument as my 'justified violation' - but from different angles.

- That is, if I understand correctly, you are saying his actions constituted a forfeiture of his rights and therefore no wrong was done.

- The way I view it, his actions caused a justification in the violation of his rights, and therefore the wrong committed by the American troops was vindicated.

We both seem to be agreeing that the right thing was done - but differ on whether the American action was 'a righteous act' or 'a necessary evil'. and I guess you are right about that boiling down to probable values dissonance.

Other than that, I think R51 managed to succinctly state everything I had been trying to previously!

--------------------

We apologise for the inconvenience

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 12:03)

Would the reason you don't want to stress it be because it applies rather poorly to the situation at hand? 100,000 civilian deaths is a terrible thing but that's hardly what happened in this case. In fact it really only serves to show why tactics such as this should be held as permissible in a time of war because if Bush could've gotten Saddam out so cleanly, only 1 civilian would've died 'cause the enemy used her as a meat shield, as opposed to 100,000 being killed under the questionable circumstances of direct combat. As it would so turn it, it appears that silent Assassination is a better tactic than brazenly announced attacks in the hopes of using Shock 'n Awe to scare your enemy into submission. Isn't that part of the point I was trying to exemplify i my last post? I thought it was.

What do you mean it applies poorly? We used national security as an excuse to invade a country. And keep in mind that when I say civilians, I mean people not armed for combat. We invaded a country, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed over 100,000 people and that doesn't apply?

Also, keep in mind that those 100,000 were civilians in the same way that our 3,000 people killed were civilians. How is that not applicable? Our their lives not as important as ours? Is destroying a country not an act of terror within itself?

Also, it is again important to realize (as with Osama) we armed Saddam as well. The "questionable circumstances" you spoke of would sadly be ones we created. We could've stopped arming Saddam a decade before the war even began.

Quote (Tonepoet)

Again I care to object. Firstly where are the arab opinion polls of the 1990s for comparison? They're just simply not there 'cause we didn't give a hoot? They may've always had a frank and earnest disdain for us. Secondly, with perhaps the exception of the Gulf War and some minor conflict resolutions interests, we could've largely cared less about the middle east on the whole before 9/11 2001 happened.

Do you know the history of that region? If you did then that entire statement would be absurd. For starters, western powers have had a vested interest there dating back to before the Crusades. And in modern times, we and Britain created the state of Israel in 1948 and have backed it militarily since then. To this day, because of our backing, Israel has the second most powerful military in the world.

And in 1967, they started (and to this day, continue) an illegal occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and they and the U.S. have opposed a two-state solution countless times.

You also need to realize that we supported Mubarak, Egypt's dictator, for 30 years. We support Saudi Arabia as well, which is a brutal regime. Also, in Iran, in the 1950's, the CIA assassinated their leader and placed another person in charge.

And keep this in mind: all of this stuff occurred well before 9-11. You do realize that it's the most energy rich region in the world right? And you do realize that it's been our main interest to control that region for over 50 years?

Now, with that said, why did I bring up the polls? Why are they, and the War in Iraq pertinent to a conversation about terrorism? Very simple: those polls are the cause of terrorism. Those are real Arabs, real people that consider the U.S. a threat. Those are the people that don't mind helping out terrorist cells if they feel it will defeat their enemy. That's why I brought it up. And evil man he was, but an evil man WE armed! There are many with hands that are not clean.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 3rd May 2011 18:16

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 17:03)

A key point to consider here is that if you don't defend yourself from tyrants who would take away your essential liberties, you lose them, plain and simple.

To the US.

Want to know something strange? If Bin Laden was within the EU none of the countries could extradite him to the US because he would face certain torture and death, and that's strictly against the European Convention on Human Rights. There was a debate over transferring Julian Assange to Sweden because there was a question over whether the US would storm in and take him mid-transit. Isn't that appalling? Will you ever consider that current US foreign and domestic policy with regards to war and human rights is utterly, utterly wrong?

I should definitely add, I'm not under the illusion that Britain is much better. There's a lot we need to fix as well, e.g. arms sales, foreign policy in the Middle-East and North Africa, human rights at home in a lot of cases... However I'm referring to the ECHR because I think it's a great example of what can be done to make a massive change.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 3rd May 2011 18:57

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 3rd May 2011 14:43)

Will you ever consider that current US foreign and domestic policy with regards to war and human rights is utterly, utterly wrong?

I should definitely add, I'm not under the illusion that Britain is much better. There's a lot we need to fix as well, e.g. arms sales, foreign policy in the Middle-East and North Africa, human rights at home in a lot of cases... However I'm referring to the ECHR because I think it's a great example of what can be done to make a massive change.

I should note that there are many in America, such as myself, that do consider those policies to be wrong. America is now in the position that Britain was once in. Were I living in Britain in the 19th century, I would've been outraged by the treatment of India. But you are right to be hopeful, and that many around the world share in the outrage. Because, ultimately, we all want to see terrorism end, in all its forms. Whether it is religious extremism, economic elitism, or imperialism.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 02:29)

People who died as a result of not taking the attack prior to 9/11 on the World Trade Center seriously enough. In fact I hear it was Al Queda themselves who attacked it the first time as well, as a matter of fact. Before you get smart and say there are still terrorists in the world and even in Al Queda, of course there are but any damage this one could've done has been effectively stopped for good, which by the way, is saying quite a lot considering his position as leader of the organization.

So you say. I say they died as retribution for the US's constant invasions of the Middle East and our continuous support for Israel, and the way to prevent their deaths would have been by not making a target out of ourselves. OBL's stated reason for the 9/11 attacks was the US's support for Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I also say OBL hasn't planned Al Qaeda's actions for some time now, and has only been releasing videos from seclusion. A figurehead, basically. I have trouble rejoicing over bin Laden's death, and I have trouble saying that he deserved it for attacking us first. That's exactly what he would say about us. To summarize:

OBL claims to attack the WTC as a response to the killing of innocent people in Lebanon. People cheer on the streets. Bush claims to invade Afghanistan as a response to the killing of innocent people. People cheer on the streets. Obama orders SEALs to kill OBL, who by this time is basically a figurehead. People cheer on the streets, and think, "It's okay because he won't kill any more innocent people." Both sides can keep this up indefinitely by interpreting history so they're always the victim and never the aggressor. "We killed innocent people too? Well that doesn't count."

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 09:03)

Secondly, with perhaps the exception of the Gulf War and some minor conflict resolutions interests, we could've largely cared less about the middle east on the whole before 9/11 2001 happened.

Thems a lotta words in that post, but I should point out that par-tic-kew-lar statement is...flat out wrong.

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (Narratorway @ 3rd May 2011 20:53)

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 09:03)

Secondly, with perhaps the exception of the Gulf War and some minor conflict resolutions interests, we could've largely cared less about the middle east on the whole before 9/11 2001 happened.

Thems a lotta words in that post, but I should point out that par-tic-kew-lar statement is...flat out wrong.

Sad thing is a lot of people believe that way. It's amazing how information can be hidden so well.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Let's see, there's the thing where we get a lot of our oil from there, there's the thing involving hostages and later arms sales, there's the fact that the region--especially between the major powers there (such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) has been extremely volatile, there's the terrorist organizations based in the Middle East and carrying out attacks there (U.S.S. Cole at Yemen) and elsewhere (U.S. embassies in Africa), and last but definitely not least, there's every geopolitical issue involving Israel.

Yeah, I'd say that we unfortunately have to pay attention to the Middle East in our foreign policy analysis, like it or not.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

The 2011 elections will be held later on this year and I really think that the White House reporting this story (whether true or not) will now easily get him that second term more than ever before.

I won't elaborate much, but I'm rather skeptical about this. I don't think that the government actually "got" him. I am convinced that because of Obama's low approval ratings recently, all of a sudden the White House reporting that Osama had been "killed" was just an attempt to boost his reputation again like it was back in 2008 when he ran against McCain and Clinton. Even the republicans are starting to respect him just for this story.

It seems I'm the lone tinfoil hat guy who thinks Osama has been captured and killed for a long time and that this is all a suspicious media-circus.

Well, if he wasn't dead, he definitely is now. Shifty burial at sea complete. In a twist of fate, I agree with the Catholic first response.

Either way, if we wanted to take him alive we would have. With military technology being what it is at this point, it seems ridiculous that we couldn't set our phasers to stun and not kill. Seeing as how Osama wanted to die in a hail of gunfire, it seems like an epic-facepalm is in order. If Sun-Tzu wasn't rolling over in his grave before, he is now.

Edit

Ah, another tinfoil hatter posted while I was writing this!

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 5th May 2011 02:44

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 4th May 2011 22:43)

It seems I'm the lone tinfoil hat guy who thinks Osama has been captured and killed for a long time and that this is all a suspicious media-circus.

Well, if he wasn't dead, he definitely is now. Shifty burial at sea complete. In a twist of fate, I agree with the Catholic first response.

Either way, if we wanted to take him alive we would have. With military technology being what it is at this point, it seems ridiculous that we couldn't set our phasers to stun and not kill. Seeing as how Osama wanted to die in a hail of gunfire, it seems like an epic-facepalm is in order. If Sun-Tzu wasn't rolling over in his grave before, he is now.

Edit

Ah, another tinfoil hatter posted while I was writing this!

That all does not seem plausible. First, look at people's reactions after his death. Why would any president or government official keep the information of his death secret, as it is a major boost? If he was dead before, why didn't Bush use it to help his image, which had greatly deteriorated? Or, if he were killed within the first two years of Obama's presidency, why didn't he use it then? Remember, in 2010 the Democrats lost control of one chamber of Congress. And throughout those years people criticized him for not being as strong as Bush (for what resaon, I don't know, since he's increased the troop number in Afghanistan). He could've changed his propagated image completely had he released that. Imagine, let's say you're correct, and he was killed nine months into Obama's presidency. Why, if Obama knew, would he not say that he did in nine months what Bush couldn't do at all? It would be insane not to do that.

Also, the theory about the soldiers not being able to keep him alive? These are soldiers, not police. And these soldiers were infiltrating a compound filled with people. You can't infiltrate a compound with a stun gun. And yes, if they knew exactly where he was, which is also inplausible, they might've been able to switch to non-deadly weapons, but what if they were caught in a situation where they were left in a firefight with him? They do say that he was armed.

And bear in mind, that Sun-Tzu wouldn't be the one rolling over in his grave. That would be Thoreau, Gandhi, and all those people that have stood for the end of wars. Well, in fact, Sun-Tzu was one of them. He believed that a war should end quickly, and it only should be fought if entirely necessary. How many things we do actually fit that description?

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 5th May 2011 13:24

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Allen Hunter @ 4th May 2011 21:32)

The 2011 elections will be held later on this year and I really think that the White House reporting this story (whether true or not) will now easily get him that second term more than ever before.

I won't elaborate much, but I'm rather skeptical about this. I don't think that the government actually "got" him. I am convinced that because of Obama's low approval ratings recently, all of a sudden the White House reporting that Osama had been "killed" was just an attempt to boost his reputation again like it was back in 2008 when he ran against McCain and Clinton. Even the republicans are starting to respect him just for this story.

It's a bit hard for me to give your theory that much credence when you're a year off on when Obama will actually stand for re-election. Sure, there's some campaigning going on right now from both major American parties, but the next president won't be elected until November of 2012, not 2011. If this was a political sham, why wouldn't they have either held it until closer to the election, or, as BlitzSage said, use it earlier, while Obama's party was on the rocks six months ago? I also don't understand what this has to do with 2008, either, for what it's worth. Did Obama claim to have killed bin Laden in a debate?

I'm not too worried about most tinfoil theories, but this one just doesn't make any sense to me.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Allen Hunter @ 4th May 2011 20:32)

The 2011 elections will be held later on this year and I really think that the White House reporting this story (whether true or not) will now easily get him that second term more than ever before.

I won't elaborate much, but I'm rather skeptical about this. I don't think that the government actually "got" him. I am convinced that because of Obama's low approval ratings recently, all of a sudden the White House reporting that Osama had been "killed" was just an attempt to boost his reputation again like it was back in 2008 when he ran against McCain and Clinton. Even the republicans are starting to respect him just for this story.

....... yea.....

Conspiracy theories......

Maybe Obama is doing it to take the heat off of his "real" birth certificate, so people don't look to closely at it.

He is really a sleeper agent you know. Trying to destroy america!

I'm seriously shocked that people are having a hard time believing it didn't happen now, or it wasn't Osama. Watch the news stories. Hear them interviewing neighbors who saw/heard the helicopters land in the compound. Do you really think that he really was killed earlier, and they decided to keep it from public for awhile? Or maybe Osama isn't really dead. Maybe it was just a publicity stunt. If that were the case, the next tape released by Osama would destroy the credibility of Barack Obama.

No, I'm 100% sure they wouldn't have released a statement about having killed him if they weren't 100% sure it was him, and it didn't happen in the Magical land of Narnia 1000 years ago. I feel 100% positive that it happened last weekend, in Pakistan.

I guess some people, no matter what evidence is presented to them, will always choose to believe what they want to believe.

--------------------

"And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped” -Sir Bedevere the Wise

About an hour or two before the announcement was made, I watched the New Jersey episode of South Park. For those of you who know how that one ends...

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

Quote (Dark Paladin @ 5th May 2011 17:09)

About an hour or two before the announcement was made, I watched the New Jersey episode of South Park. For those of you who know how that one ends...

Haha, that's the first thing I thought of when I heard the news.

Quote (BlitzSage)

I should note that there are many in America, such as myself, that do consider those policies to be wrong. America is now in the position that Britain was once in. Were I living in Britain in the 19th century, I would've been outraged by the treatment of India. But you are right to be hopeful, and that many around the world share in the outrage. Because, ultimately, we all want to see terrorism end, in all its forms. Whether it is religious extremism, economic elitism, or imperialism.

Oh yeah don't worry. Stereotypes or reports can be accurate or widespread to a point but I definitely don't hold much stock in them. It's a shame when people do take them too far, like people assuming Americans are all war-mongering imperialists that need to be killed, or all Arabs hate whites.

I want to echo what a few of us have been saying, there is nothing that can come from this perpetual cycle of retribution. The more people die, the more people will die. I can understand short-term solutions and I'm probably in favour of stopping (not necessarily killing) Bin Laden, even if it was completely at odds with Pakistan's national sovereignty. In the long-term the next Bin Laden or Bush III (possible?) is just going to go through the same motions and terrorism will be entirely equivalent to war.

Also I'm relieved to hear how many people are also disgusted with the cheering of Bin Laden's death. Also also, I don't want to see Bin Laden's dead bullet-ridden face. Why the hell does anyone think they have a right to see it? I thought Saddam's hanging was horribly barbarous enough for one decade.

I remember Obama promised during the election that he was find Bin Laden. I suppose everyone got what they voted for in this respect, right? As for the conspiracy theories, hmm, I must admit I had a suspicion but not because they didn't release the picture and not because of politics. Actually the most responsible thing for the US to do would be to keep the whole thing under wraps, plan a cover story (witnesses and so on), then tell their allies, their armies and all their embassies to prepare for retaliation, which would prevent any surprises. Of course I don't know for sure so I'm not going to assume anything, and also I suppose I don't care, it really doesn't matter.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 5th May 2011 20:45

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 5th May 2011 16:23)

Oh yeah don't worry. Stereotypes or reports can be accurate or widespread to a point but I definitely don't hold much stock in them. It's a shame when people do take them too far, like people assuming Americans are all war-mongering imperialists that need to be killed, or all Arabs hate whites.

Indoctrination is rampant here in the States. But I would be surprised to witness any ordinary American that turthfully supports the war, or most of the current/recent American policies. In fact, the vast majority see Bush as a joke, the War in Iraq as a war crime, so on and so forth.

But stereotypical assumptions are accurate, in one form or another. The stereotype that Americans are war-mongering imperialists is accurate because to some extent it's true. It's not true in the sense that normal Americans are imperialists. It's true in that the elite ruling class are imperialists because it's in their self-interest, and the U.S.'s actions both at home and abroad reflect those interests.

And the stereotype about Arabs hating white people is true because, for the most part, Western powers, which have continuously meddled in their affairs, have been composed of generally white populations, because they come from European ancestry. It is a truism that no person is the same, so obviously not all Arabs can hate America, nor are they all prejudiced. But the prejudice is based on foreign policy of Western interference, which (as you implied with the cycle of retribution) leads to a wish for retaliation. This is the basis of my thesis: that our foreign policy does a lot to create the very terrorism we're fighting, and fighting this terrorism increases anti-American fervor.

And for someone to imply otherwise, well, those people do not understand why prejudice forms in the first place. It is not natural. Why is there a white/black racial problem? That is because of years of racial conflict, and policies enacted by majority (or at times exclusively) white governments against blacks. The issue of slavery, for instance, was not just the terror it caused in one generation, but the terror it has continued to cause even after its end. I, being from the American Southeast, see all to well the scars that haven't healed.

Which leads back to Osama Bin Laden. Who was he? "Does it matter any more? He's dead, right?" I don't know, I still think it's important to truly investigate...

Who were the KKK members? Yes, they're a white supremicist group, but why? First, it is because of centuries of imperialist policy in other regions. Second, the KKK formed because the South had been destroyed, and the people (who had been heavily indoctrinated) were scorned and shamed. That lead them further into the extreme.

Now, who was Osama? Someone in a region that has been destroyed, someone who is heavily indoctrinated. The more important question is: are there more people like him? Clearly, sadly, but once again, why? I can only see two real solutions. One, we must help to remove indoctrination, in other words, religious extremism. Two, we must find who is destroying that region. It has to be the very policies of the West.

The first is hopefully being removed through democratic uprising. The second is up to the West.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 4th May 2011 10:06)

Quote (Narratorway @ 3rd May 2011 20:53)

Quote (Tonepoet @ 3rd May 2011 09:03)

Secondly, with perhaps the exception of the Gulf War and some minor conflict resolutions interests, we could've largely cared less about the middle east on the whole before 9/11 2001 happened.

Thems a lotta words in that post, but I should point out that par-tic-kew-lar statement is...flat out wrong.

Sad thing is a lot of people believe that way. It's amazing how information can be hidden so well.

While I will admit to not knowing as much as I should about the history of the region, I feel somewhat obliged to clarify that I'm not completely ignorant that the U.S. has supported less than stellar candidates and that when I wrote that statement, i was largely considering the years immediately following up to the event.

It would seem to me that rather than however many decades, centuries or millenia before or most especially the ten years after with more recent campaigns in between, the best time to gauge reactions to see if it the attacks occurred during a time when their public opinion was concurrent with them. Trying to read the present into the past like that can lead to some rather problematic conclusions. One thing I'll note:

Quote (Blitzsage)

We support Saudi Arabia as well, which is a brutal regime.

Well considering that most of the bombers were extremist Saudi males, I'm not sure how much that has to do with it. Al-Queda isn't exactly known for promoting human rights. I mean at the very least, they're obviously not against corporal punishment or pushing equality towards the sexes.

Quote

What do you mean it applies poorly? We used national security as an excuse to invade a country. And keep in mind that when I say civilians, I mean people not armed for combat. We invaded a country, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed over 100,000 people and that doesn't apply?

Here's the schpeal. I was suffering from allergies and in trying to figure out why you were quoting me and brining up something else read your statement as a directly contradictory point to mine, rather than as an ironic addendum. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have written that portion of the post at all. Please do forgive my stuffy head over that. I personally think the humanitarian crisis really started when Saddam got in power, which as you so astutely pointed out the U.S. is in part responsible for but speaking solely for myself, I'm not entirely certain how relevant Iraq is to the topic at hand. (Which isn't to say it's irrelevant altogether...)

Quote

So you say. I say they died as retribution for the US's constant invasions of the Middle East and our continuous support for Israel, and the way to prevent their deaths would have been by not making a target out of ourselves. OBL's stated reason for the 9/11 attacks was the US's support for Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I also say OBL hasn't planned Al Qaeda's actions for some time now, and has only been releasing videos from seclusion. A figurehead, basically. I have trouble rejoicing over bin Laden's death, and I have trouble saying that he deserved it for attacking us first. That's exactly what he would say about us. To summarize:

OBL claims to attack the WTC as a response to the killing of innocent people in Lebanon. People cheer on the streets. Bush claims to invade Afghanistan as a response to the killing of innocent people. People cheer on the streets. Obama orders SEALs to kill OBL, who by this time is basically a figurehead. People cheer on the streets, and think, "It's okay because he won't kill any more innocent people." Both sides can keep this up indefinitely by interpreting history so they're always the victim and never the aggressor. "We killed innocent people too? Well that doesn't count."

Well I certainly don't know about the situation with Lebanon but I would like to note that in this situation, Al Queda's taking out their retribution on any loosely affiliated parties available while Barak Obama's ordering the SEALS to go directly against the man who's directly responsible. Also forgive me for being skeptical in thinking that a man who can wait 19 years for a chance to take action is a threat that can be safely neutralized solely through the passage of time. Besides that, figurehead or not, Al Queda on the whole has it in for the entirety of western civilization and he's still a member of it. I don't see how your statement makes mine any less true anyway, since it's not like we went directly from 82 to 01. I'm saying if we went after Al Queda in '93 after we knew their intent, that they wouldn't be there to try anything anytime thereafter.

Quote

Not being American, I'm afraid can't pretend to be well-versed on the rights of the fifth amendment.
But, I think your argument of 'willing forfeiture' of one's human rights is basically the same argument as my 'justified violation' - but from different angles.
- That is, if I understand correctly, you are saying his actions constituted a forfeiture of his rights and therefore no wrong was done.
- The way I view it, his actions caused a justification in the violation of his rights, and therefore the wrong committed by the American troops was vindicated.
We both seem to be agreeing that the right thing was done - but differ on whether the American action was 'a righteous act' or 'a necessary evil'. and I guess you are right about that boiling down to probable values dissonance.

Well the fifth is constitutional law and the constitution exists mostly to tell the federal government what it's comprised of and what it may or may not do in the course of its responsibilities. Post-vindication in violations thereof doesn't really work out because any infringement would be a vast abuse of authorial power which could be used to set up a precedent against the people. Therefore they wrote the one exception they found strictly necessary straight into law. Having an open policy such as the fifth makes is important as it easier for the people to judge the happenings around them and compare those to what should be happening, just in case there's any need for doubt. Due process pretty much means nothing without a process to adhere to.

Quote (SweetDude)

To the US.


Want to know something strange? If Bin Laden was within the EU none of the countries could extradite him to the US because he would face certain torture and death, and that's strictly against the European Convention on Human Rights. There was a debate over transferring Julian Assange to Sweden because there was a question over whether the US would storm in and take him mid-transit. Isn't that appalling? Will you ever consider that current US foreign and domestic policy with regards to war and human rights is utterly, utterly wrong?

I fail to see how harsh realities of life don't apply elsewhere in the world. I'm assuming even the British have police and military to protect themselves, no? Also the Assange situation is a bit horrific. The man simply used his first amendment rights, which don't have an escape clause like the fifth does. Granted that makes the whole confidentiality and counter-espionage stuff in the name of national defense a bit tricky to perform but on the other hand if we trust people with such loose lips that a civilian can get confidential information out of them through a Wiki, such information wasn't very secure in the first place now was it? I mean, does the government even know how Wikis work?

Quote (R51)

It's a bit hard for me to give your theory that much credence when you're a year off on when Obama will actually stand for re-election. Sure, there's some campaigning going on right now from both major American parties, but the next president won't be elected until November of 2012, not 2011. If this was a political sham, why wouldn't they have either held it until closer to the election, or, as BlitzSage said, use it earlier, while Obama's party was on the rocks six months ago? I also don't understand what this has to do with 2008, either, for what it's worth. Did Obama claim to have killed bin Laden in a debate?

Well first off if there really was a conspiracy, don't you think it'd be a bit conspicuous to go "Hey gaiz! Osama's Dead!" in the months just prior to the campaign? This really seems to be the closest he can get without rising too many eyebrows, while still having it fresh in people's minds at the polls. Aside from that, who says it's really the U.S. who killed him? It seems like they're not going to us the body and the photo is a fake.

Now this is just hearsay insofar as I know but I've heard Benazir Bhutto was assassinated shortly after saying Osama was killed in 2007 by Saeed Sheikh. Kinda makes sense Bush wouldn't announce Ladin's already bin dead if he didn't kill him doesn't it? I mean assuming he even knew, it'd make the whole screwing around in Iraq thing look even worse if somebody else did the one job he should've really been doing.

On a closing note: I never read Orwell's 1984 but remind me not to bring the Wizard of Oz to the next CoNvention guys, or invite any of you to passover.

Edit

Quote (BlitzSage)

And for someone to imply otherwise, well, those people do not understand why prejudice forms in the first place.

I don't wanna go too deeply into this here either but somehow I doubt anybody knows for certain why prejudice forms. Just as prejudice can be born out of abuse, abuse can also be born of prejudice, which is part of what makes it such a vicious cycle. Are we really so ready as to conclude the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first or from whence either of them came to begin with? I dunno about you but I'm not. The only thing I think we can do to stop prejudice now is try to treat everybody equally, based upon on their personal actions...

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 6th May 2011 02:36

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (Tonepoet @ 5th May 2011 20:43)

Quote

What do you mean it applies poorly? We used national security as an excuse to invade a country. And keep in mind that when I say civilians, I mean people not armed for combat. We invaded a country, causing a humanitarian crisis that killed over 100,000 people and that doesn't apply?

Here's the schpeal. I was suffering from allergies and in trying to figure out why you were quoting me and brining up something else read your statement as a directly contradictory point to mine, rather than as an ironic addendum. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have written that portion of the post at all. Please do forgive my stuffy head over that. I personally think the humanitarian crisis really started when Saddam got in power, which as you so astutely pointed out the U.S. is in part responsible for but speaking solely for myself, I'm not entirely certain how relevant Iraq is to the topic at hand. (Which isn't to say it's irrelevant altogether...)

No problem. I would never try to pick a fight with someone. I just feel that it's important to have this kind of discussion, moreso than any other thing we discuss here, and to go from this discussion into other areas involving politics, as all things political are connected in some form.

As for Iraq's relevance to this disussion, in some ways I think it's obvious; Iraq is in the middle point of the region, and it is the second largest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia.

But I do believe you are right. The humanitarian crisis started long before both wars in Iraq. Saddam was savage to his people. But my point is: like Mubarak, we supported him while he was doing this. We sold him weapons, just like we did Egypt. So I do feel that it's pertinent to the discussion. And it's relevance is simple. If we support democracy, we can't continue to support dictators. It makes what we say a lie.

Quote

I don't wanna go too deeply into this here either but somehow I doubt anybody knows for certain why prejudice forms. Just as prejudice can be born out of abuse, abuse can also be born of prejudice, which is part of what makes it such a vicious cycle. Are we really so ready as to conclude the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first or from whence either of them came to begin with? I dunno about you but I'm not. The only thing I think we can do to stop prejudice now is try to treat everybody equally, based upon on their personal actions

At some point there was an egg which started the whole process. When Columbus conducted genocides he was doing so for economic reasons. It's power that is the issue. The only way we can treat people equally is to give them power equally. A lot is personal action, but a lot more is collective governmental action.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Tonepoet @ 6th May 2011 01:43)

Quote (SweetDude)

To the US.


Want to know something strange? If Bin Laden was within the EU none of the countries could extradite him to the US because he would face certain torture and death, and that's strictly against the European Convention on Human Rights. There was a debate over transferring Julian Assange to Sweden because there was a question over whether the US would storm in and take him mid-transit. Isn't that appalling? Will you ever consider that current US foreign and domestic policy with regards to war and human rights is utterly, utterly wrong?

I fail to see how harsh realities of life don't apply elsewhere in the world. I'm assuming even the British have police and military to protect themselves, no? Also the Assange situation is a bit horrific. The man simply used his first amendment rights, which don't have an escape clause like the fifth does. Granted that makes the whole confidentiality and counter-espionage stuff in the name of national defense a bit tricky to perform but on the other hand if we trust people with such loose lips that a civilian can get confidential information out of them through a Wiki, such information wasn't very secure in the first place now was it? I mean, does the government even know how Wikis work?

He's Swedish, so he didn't use first or fifth amendment rights because they don't apply anywhere but in the US, unless you want to count US soldier abroad, but without knowing I would say they don't otherwise the Guantanimo Bay prison wouldn't exist. The harsh realities of life are only there because people allow them to happen, this is exactly what the point is. Don't you think people used to say in the colonial era and in the time of slavery that they were the harsh realities of life? We move on.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 5th May 2011 22:38)

Don't you think people used to say in the colonial era and in the time of slavery that they were the harsh realities of life? We move on.

They did more than that. I present George Fitzhugh. This man was one of the social theorists which reasoned that slavery was a justifiable and moral act. Such is the case up to today, as people gave arguments justifying the destruction of Vietnam and de-unionization. Beware of arguments that seem reasonable, but use systems of false logic.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (MogMaster @ 4th May 2011 19:43)

It seems I'm the lone tinfoil hat guy who thinks Osama has been captured and killed for a long time and that this is all a suspicious media-circus.

Well, if he wasn't dead, he definitely is now. Shifty burial at sea complete. In a twist of fate, I agree with the Catholic first response.

Either way, if we wanted to take him alive we would have. With military technology being what it is at this point, it seems ridiculous that we couldn't set our phasers to stun and not kill. Seeing as how Osama wanted to die in a hail of gunfire, it seems like an epic-facepalm is in order. If Sun-Tzu wasn't rolling over in his grave before, he is now.

Edit

Ah, another tinfoil hatter posted while I was writing this!

'nother words:



--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (Narratorway @ 5th May 2011 23:50)

incredibly pointless image macro

Well, no pics, but perhaps the man's own followers confirming his death will do?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/0...hpt=T1&iref=BN1

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Rangers51 @ 6th May 2011 09:18)

Quote (Narratorway @ 5th May 2011 23:50)

incredibly pointless image macro

Well, no pics, but perhaps the man's own followers confirming his death will do?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/0...hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Yeah, well, it's just sad that their confirmation comes with a vow for vengence and continued jihad.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote ("Tonepoet")

Well I certainly don't know about the situation with Lebanon but I would like to note that in this situation, Al Queda's taking out their retribution on any loosely affiliated parties available while Barak Obama's ordering the SEALS to go directly against the man who's directly responsible. Also forgive me for being skeptical in thinking that a man who can wait 19 years for a chance to take action is a threat that can be safely neutralized solely through the passage of time. Besides that, figurehead or not, Al Queda on the whole has it in for the entirety of western civilization and he's still a member of it. I don't see how your statement makes mine any less true anyway, since it's not like we went directly from 82 to 01. I'm saying if we went after Al Queda in '93 after we knew their intent, that they wouldn't be there to try anything anytime thereafter.

Well, I agree that your way of looking at things is pragmatic.

However, the way the US treated the Middle East in the previous decades is entirely to blame. The US was often Israel's sole supporter, and we spent a lot of money backing Israeli expansionism throughout the 20th century. That's not what I would call a loosely affiliated party. The CIA spent boatloads of money funding and training mujahideen in the 80s (called Operation Cyclone), and were very directly responsible for Al Qaeda's birth. It's not enough just to kill one guy (and a few unarmed bystanders). Someone else will step up, and not every attack can be stopped. We need to take away their reasons for attacking instead.

Quote (jtdurai @ 7th May 2011 15:29)

Quote ("Tonepoet")

Well I certainly don't know about the situation with Lebanon but I would like to note that in this situation, Al Queda's taking out their retribution on any loosely affiliated parties available while Barak Obama's ordering the SEALS to go directly against the man who's directly responsible. Also forgive me for being skeptical in thinking that a man who can wait 19 years for a chance to take action is a threat that can be safely neutralized solely through the passage of time. Besides that, figurehead or not, Al Queda on the whole has it in for the entirety of western civilization and he's still a member of it. I don't see how your statement makes mine any less true anyway, since it's not like we went directly from 82 to 01. I'm saying if we went after Al Queda in '93 after we knew their intent, that they wouldn't be there to try anything anytime thereafter.

Well, I agree that your way of looking at things is pragmatic.

However, the way the US treated the Middle East in the previous decades is entirely to blame. The US was often Israel's sole supporter, and we spent a lot of money backing Israeli expansionism throughout the 20th century. That's not what I would call a loosely affiliated party. The CIA spent boatloads of money funding and training mujahideen in the 80s (called Operation Cyclone), and were very directly responsible for Al Qaeda's birth. It's not enough just to kill one guy (and a few unarmed bystanders). Someone else will step up, and not every attack can be stopped. We need to take away their reasons for attacking instead.

I think you're very much correct. You must end the source, which is a history of negative foreign policy decisions. Everything else is simply short-term reactions to long-term policy decisions. A destroyed Iraq not only creates a hideout for extremists, it also further fuels anti-American sentiment. All that we do to stop Al Qaeda can only be temporary solutions, if they are solutions at all (which they ultimately are not). I think that people know that the real way to end terror is to support democratic systems. That is not being done. It's done through rhetoric (Obama will say something good about democracy and freedom), but in reality nothing has been done to support democracy.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!