OscarGuy wrote:He has guards presumably all over the place.
Probably, but then why only four others were killed (including one woman and Bin Laden's son)? Doesn't sound like a big battle to me. And where are these other corpses now? Also in the deep blue ocean?
We all know that he could have been taken alive. The truth is, as I think Big Magilla said, that they wanted him dead from the beginning. It's a choice - but I think it's my right to criticize it.
Plus, the new version is that the Pakistani government wasn't even informed of the attack.
It's too complicated for you to understand, Moviewes, really. In some parts of the world Americans are seen as responsible of certain big problems. And America IS - at least partly - responsible, through direct or less direct influences. It's not a saintly country - its foreign politic has been aggressive in many ways.
Were those 3000 actually guilty? Of course not. But just for being American, and for having democratically elected presidents who acted in a certain way, ALL Americans are considered guilty by some. Believe it or not, this is the situation as seen from parts of the world, Moviewes, where you'll never go. And you'd become a completely different human being, and not a worse one, if you'd go there at least once.
It would be folly to believe that bin Laden was murdered in his sleep. He has guards presumably all over the place. He wasn't going to be staying in that house alone. So, the gunfire alone would have waken him. And we're talking about a man whose warped faith would suggest that becoming a martyr would bolster his cause, not hinder it. So, I have little doubt that logically or psychologically he would not have picked up again and made it clear that he was not going to be taken alive.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't know if it's language barrier, or the fact that you're practically drunk on righteous indignation right now, but you aren't making any sense, Marco.
ITALIANO wrote:According to some people, Dws, Americans aren't that innocent, unfortunately. I may not agree with them, but this is a fact.
Are you on drugs or something??? Those people in the Twin Towers were completely innocent!!! What the fuck dude??? Why, even if you don't agree, would you bring that up as a rebuttal???
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Yes, a lot of obvious things completely unrelated to the point I had tried to make. I was just trying to explain how Americans tend to look only at certain things - those which happens to them, without a larger look at the context. I guess you unintentionally proved me right though.
And of course, since, strangely enough, there isn't a body to examine - they were very fast in getting rid of it - the typically American "heroic battle" version can be doubted I guess.
MovieWes wrote:He wasn't executed, he was killed in battle.
Again! But do you really believe this version? Have you checked his corpse? There are things called "lies" my God, and there are many dark aspects in all this story. Can't you for one moment have a doubt - just a fleeting one - about an "official version"?
Killed in a battle, right. Sounds much more honorable.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy, you know. Some things are as they say they are. Would saying that we gunned him down in cold blood have lessened the impact of his death? I don't think so. I think that most people, in this case, would not care whatsoever.
I must say, however, that if this is the only part of my argument that you were able to pick apart, I must've done a good job. Because I said a lot in that post.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
dws1982 wrote:The people who celebrated on 9/11 celebrated the death and murder of innocents. Bin Laden was not an innocent; he had the blood of many thousands of people on his hands. While I would not have been out dancing in the streets over his death, I don't see any moral equivalency between the people who danced in the streets on 9/11 and the ones who did last night.
And yes, anyone who even remotely believes that Bin Laden would have ever allowed himself to be taken alive is probably the biggest idiot of all.
Ah right. So he cowardly threw himself against the bullets in order to be killed. Dws is American, isn't he? Riiiiight.
According to some people, Dws, Americans aren't that innocent, unfortunately. I may not agree with them, but this is a fact.
MovieWes wrote:He wasn't executed, he was killed in battle.
Again! But do you really believe this version? Have you checked his corpse? There are things called "lies" my God, and there are many dark aspects in all this story. Can't you for one moment have a doubt - just a fleeting one - about an "official version"?
Killed in a battle, right. Sounds much more honorable.
The people who celebrated on 9/11 celebrated the death and murder of innocents. Bin Laden was not an innocent; he had the blood of many thousands of people on his hands. While I would not have been out dancing in the streets over his death, I don't see any moral equivalency between the people who danced in the streets on 9/11 and the ones who did last night.
And yes, anyone who even remotely believes that Bin Laden would have ever allowed himself to be taken alive is probably the biggest idiot of all.
Damien wrote:Don't the yahoos who were dancing in the streets realize that they're behaving the same way as some in the Arab world who danced and celebrated on 9/11, filling Americans of every stripe with revulsion and anger?
This is exactly what I thought. And they also thought that justice had been done - that evil America had finally been punished.
I found that behavior atrocious back then. I don't see why I should consider THIS behavior better today.
There is huge a difference, ITALIANO, between people rejoicing over the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians and celebrating the death of the man who orchestrated those deaths.
Edited By MovieWes on 1304371526
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Damien wrote:Don't the yahoos who were dancing in the streets realize that they're behaving the same way as some in the Arab world who danced and celebrated on 9/11, filling Americans of every stripe with revulsion and anger?
My guess is that, yes, they were, and they wanted to throw it right back in their faces.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
ITALIANO, when I made the comment that basically stated that only an idiot would consider the deaths of 3,000 people in one day minor, I wasn't referring to it from a historical context -- as in (and I'm sure this is what you mean) the ENTIRE history of the world in the last two millennia. I mean that RIGHT NOW, in the modern age, in this time and this place, 9/11 was and continues to be a huge deal. And if you're curious about my age, I'm 28, so I wasn't around to witness the Moon Landing and wasn't old enough to really be affected by the fall of the Berlin Wall. But I thought we were talking about atrocities, not historical events in general. Regardless, it would probably fall into both categories for me, but perhaps it's because I am an American. I can't say how much I would have felt it had I been from another country.
True, there are many atrocities that happen around the world, and not just in the United States. I'm well aware of the genocide that has taken place in parts of the world such as Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Cambodia. I'm completely aware of the Holocaust, I know about the Balkan Wars, and I am familiar with tyrants such as Chiang Kai-shek and Hirohito. And that's just the 20th century! I've read about the Crusades -- in fact I have about 8 books on the subject. It's a topic that I find fascinating.
But that doesn't lessen the fact that 3,000 innocent people were senselessly murdered while they were sitting at their desks just trying to earn a living to support their families. I know that millions of people weren't killed in these attacks, but, really, how is that even relevant? It WAS a major turning point in our history. The attacks have changed the way our government operates, have polarized our citizens in dramatic and profound ways, has changed our way of living, has changed the way other countries perceive us, has produced deep-rooted prejudice (in some people) towards people of a particular race and religion, has directly affected our stock market, and has been the cause (at least indirectly) of two wars that have dragged on for almost 10 years and cost 5,000 American lives in the process (and no telling how many other casualties of troops from other nations and civilians).
It was also a turning point in the history of the world. It's changed the way people travel, it has directly impacted the world economy, and has had major implications on religion throughout not only the United States, but Europe, Africa, and the Middle-East.
And as for your question: "Shouldn't Osama Bin Laden have been judged by those other countries as well?"... there was no way that Osama Bin Laden was going to be taken alive. As has been pointed out by OscarGuy, this was a military operation where the only possible outcome was his death. This was an actual battle with both sides shooting at each other. He wasn't executed, he was killed in battle. And why should we have to ask the permission of the other countries when he is within our grasp? Were we to just let him go because we hadn't consulted other governments? Do you honestly believe that other governments wouldn't have done the same thing if they were in our position? We saw an opportunity and we took it. And I guess that the fact that this was a joint effort between the U.S. and Pakistan is completely lost on you. As Magilla pointed out, he's not only responsible for the deaths of Americans on 9/11, but the deaths of over 50,000 Muslims (plus God knows how many other people in different parts of the world).
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Sonic Youth wrote:Alas, a caricature is what you remain.
And - again - you are an idiot. Always been, but now it's time to say it openly.
I didn't say that American are always barbarian or uncivilized. Not ALL Americans at least. But like for example I'd say that Italians are generally corrupt, and I wouldn't feel offended though I am Italian (for the simple reason that I know that I am personally NOT corrupt), I'm sure that if I were a civilized American I wouldn't feel hurt. But the problem is that when they act like this, Americans show their sadly uncivilized side - and that unfortunately you aren't a civilized American, Sonic Youth.
And also, how can you be so naive to blindly believe word-by-word the Americans' version of the attack - and of Bin Laden's reaction? I swear that I don't want to say again that you are an idiot, and I won't, but come on...
Sonic Youth wrote:How would anyone who is a caricature know whether they were one or not? I suppose I'm one to you, maybe?
Not really, a poor idiot maybe, but unfortunately not a caricature.
Alas, a caricature is what you remain. Again, so sorry that you feel insulted, but you were the one who first used the words "uncivilized" and "barbarian". I blame myself, however. I always forget that you believe such rhetoric is the way to begin a civil discussion. Forgive me.
Now that the preliminaries are out of the way, here's the last thing I'll say about the matter before I step away for the evening. Bin Laden didn't have to fire back upon the special ops team. He could have surrendered, or he could have run if he felt he had a chance (which he probably didn't). But once he did fire, they were obligated - or at least, well within their rights - to respond in kind. I'm sure you'll argue "But why couldn't the uncivilized, barbaric Americans hold back their fire, or at least shoot a toe or something, rather than kill him?" I could respond that ordinary street criminals rarely face such restraint from the police under similar situations, but I suspect you wouldn't believe me. In any event, I doubt you're even interested in the details. It was just a fortunate opening for you to criticize America again in the guise of discussion. I don't particularly mind. That's who you are, and I've made my peace with it years ago. I just find it ironic that you call for "original" ideas when you can't seem to alter your shtick any.
