Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby bldavis » Mon May 02, 2011 10:10 pm

/derail

mew wrote:I liked all the comedy facebook status updates yesterday. My favorite two were:

"Why did they have to go do that? He was living in caves and now he gets to fuck virgins for eternity."


why would you want 70 virgins....
hell give me one woman that knows wtf she is doing and ill be happy! :twisted:

... :shock:

there might be a reason i am engaged to someone with 2 kids...and im going to stfu now... :oops:
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Dorvan » Mon May 02, 2011 10:37 pm

laterna wrote:After reading chapter 5, as you said, I still stand unsure on what exactly you are trying to prove. Its a goverment document backing up a goverment claim. No shown recording of conversations, phone bills, wire transfers as the document claims? 30ish pages of history but no documents? The extend to which chapter 5 goes into is phenomenal. They knew just how much funding went into each part, but they didn't predict that 9/11 would happen?

I don't have sufficient evidence to believe 9/11 is or isn't Al'Qaeda's fault.They could have done it, but I don't know if they did. I'm a prick when it comes to convincing me. Unless hard evidence are shown, I don't let my opinion change. Giving me a goverment report on a goverment claim, makes me want to reference back to my earliest posts and say "look, its there, so its right". Exactly the same claim, but still phenomenally stupid.

If you want an outline of what happened in my opinion, here it goes

9/11 happens Afganistan gets invaded, in what was heralded as a 18 month operation.
10 years later, the head of Al'Qaeda gets killed, heralded as the mastermind behind 9/11.

Thats it. I don't hold extremist views as you try to portrait. I don't believe Al'Qeada wasn't or was behind 9/11. Insufficient evidence both ways. A goverment report holds no merit in my eyes, unless it shows evidence.


...but it's not just a government claim...it's a claim made by several Al Qaeda members both in and out of custody, such as Muhammad Khalil Al‐Hakaymah and Ayman al-Zawahiri (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm ... if you think the BBC is under the thumb of the US government feel free to check out any other several other stories on that tape, among others). When both attacker and victim agree on who is responsible, it seems foolish to remain undecided and aloof if one has no evidence for an alternative theory of the crime.

You're welcome to live in a world of extreme skepticism if you choose, of course...though I find that most even skpetics become far more decisive when the matter at hand actual has personal implications. Regardless, however, even a skeptic should not confuse their indecision with defined legal standards: it's not difficult to find plenty of cases where it's true that both conspiracy theorists still have doubts and there was a conviction.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby laterna » Tue May 03, 2011 12:49 am

I still don't think you get my point. If he was taken to trial, all it would take for him to be found non guilty would have been 1 jury believeing the tape to be false.

If you want to take it to legal matters, even the wiki link you gave me shows just how much trouble "personal logic" brings when you're trying to come to a conclusion in a legal case. I'm not entirely sure how jurors are picked in the US, but if its random chance then the outcome of the trial would be random.

Again, even if Al'Qeada did do 9/11, proof is scarce. Unless the US is witholding tapes, photographs, bank records from the public (quite possible to be) then they aren't showing much in the way of persecution. Writing a report on who did it, and then using it as a backup claim is just stupid. If they have all the relative evidence, then yes, what you say is correct. If not, then it could just be a well dressed Spacegoat.

Try and see my point. All of this could have been easily orchestrated if need be. Someone was going to have to bite the bullet for the 9/11 events. That someone being the military ruler of a terrorist group half-controlling afganistan, a country with an estimate oil reserve of 1-2 billion barrels, just seem awfully convienent to the outside viewer. The fact that his supposedly 2nd in command posts tapes and recordings online quite often as BBC says, seems odd to me in regards to a person who is hiding for his life at this point. These guys are gunning for publicity. Either they are looking for martyrdom in the Islamic world, to spark a larger terrorism society, or they are simply planted. Either way works for me.

About my skepticism. I was on vacations in Tibet when the Chinese incident happened in 2008. I witnessed a scene, where a BBC crew paid a chinese officer to parade his 3 tanks in town, with a setting resembling that of a warfront. My mother called me to ask how I was, if I had survived. Being there when the "hostilities" occured, made it no different than every day. It was a peaceful engagement par for 1 evening in the worst part of town. When I came back to my own country, I couldn't believe the scenes depicted by BBC. Don't take everything you see or read for granted. Publicity is money, proganda is also money. Whatever channel or newspaper makes something appear worse, gets the most views, solely because as humans we thrive on drama. Tell me what you would think of any newspaper you read after such a blatant display of fact-fixing by BBC.
laterna
Moderator
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Hokahey » Tue May 03, 2011 12:51 am

Osama bin Laden in particular wasn't terribly popular outside of Islamic extremist circles (and even there, only those who liked his particular brand), nor was Al Qaeda. The gravitation of people to extremism probably had more to do with the abusive behavior of the West in general, and the United States in particular, than Osama's personal charisma. He may be painted as a martyr for Islamic extremists, but that won't change much in their behavior. Those that were willing to die for their cause will remain so. Those that weren't, won't.

For those doubting his involvement in 9/11 in particular, it should be known that Al Qaeda was involved in several terrorist attacks against the United States even prior to 9/11. Even if you would like to argue how strong the evidence was for involvement in the 9/11 attacks (which is ludicrous, at this point), the fact is, for roughly a decade before that, Al Qaeda was an enemy of the U.S., both in rhetoric and action. Osama bin Laden had this coming *already*, before 9/11.

Allowing him to continue living would have been a catastrophic mistake, because it demonstrates that the United States is either incapable or unwilling to take action against those who harm us. In all honesty, a trial would have been pointless, except perhaps to ease the personal conscience of a nation. A trial, even a sham trial with no real hope of anything but a guilty verdict, says, "Actions might have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and try to make you talk to us about it. Then we'll decide what needs to be done, all the while giving you a public platform to speak on."

The trial wouldn't suddenly make his supporters realize what he and they did was wrong. It certainly wouldn't scare them any more than being killed. It would show would be imitators that there might possibly still be a way to escape, even after captured. The lack of a decisive end, or a drawn out political one, just convinces them that they have a chance of getting away with it. Killing him outright demonstrates the correct message: "Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and kill you, no matter how long it takes. We are willing and able to do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our interests."

Its a shame that we took so long to do it. That's the only error here. It really should have happened 8 or 9 years ago. We've missed the mark on "Swift", but at least we nailed "Certain".
Hokahey
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby laterna » Tue May 03, 2011 12:57 am

Bend one law, to facilitate "terrorists getting what they deserve" and its a steep slope. Laws are there for a reason. Why should laws be bend to kill Bin Laden and not any other common criminal who shoots a guy for his money? Are you willing to go tell a widow that buries her husband and sees the killer free, that your cause is higher and more noble than hers? Simply because of the number of how many died?
laterna
Moderator
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby RedAces » Tue May 03, 2011 1:40 am

hey,

@Laterna: Agreed.

hokahey wrote:"Actions might have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and try to make you talk to us about it. Then we'll decide what needs to be done, all the while giving you a public platform to speak on."

You're not a fan of laws and trials, are you?
Corrected version:
"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and if we can prove you did it, you'll get the consequences."


hokahey wrote:"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and kill you, no matter how long it takes. We are willing and able to do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our interests."

translates to:
"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and kill you, no matter how long it takes and no matter if we are really sure you did it. We are willing and able to do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our interests (even if we just want to distract from something else or gain a few dollars)."


Bye, RedAces.
Image
User avatar
RedAces
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:39 am
Location: Germany

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Melathys » Tue May 03, 2011 1:52 am

or you can think of it like this.

Subject has a warrant for his arrest. They go to try to effect an arrest with the warrant. Subject uses deadly force to try to evade arrest, deadly force is then authorized for the protection of those effecting the arrest. Standard Use of Force policy.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Hokahey » Tue May 03, 2011 1:55 am

laterna wrote:Bend one law, to facilitate "terrorists getting what they deserve" and its a steep slope. Laws are there for a reason. Why should laws be bend to kill Bin Laden and not any other common criminal who shoots a guy for his money? Are you willing to go tell a widow that buries her husband and sees the killer free, that your cause is higher and more noble than hers? Simply because of the number of how many died?


Because there is a distiction between a criminal suspect who may have broken a law of the community/state/nation that they reside in, and a foreign enemy combatant who attacks a community from the exterior. "Terrorist" is not some special designation that grants you freedom to attack foreign nations without violent reprisal. It is strictly a denotation of the preferred method that you use. He did not surrender. He did not attempt to negotiate for peace. As an active member and apparent leader, he did not cease his organization's aggressive action, nor demonstrate any desire to do so.

There is no slippery slope here. No law is being bent. Osama bin Laden did not consider himself subject to the laws of the United States, and by extension, any of the protections afforded to those suspected of breaking it. There is no reason to disagree with his assessment, as he was not a citizen of the U.S., or even performing these actions from within the borders of of the country.

Nobility has nothing to do with it. It is necessity, in order to best preserve the safety of a people. Yes, one person's desire for personal justice is outweighed by the security of a nation from foreign attackers. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. I am a fan of the old "speak softly and carry a big stick", with the addendum that when forced to swing the stick, you swing it with such extreme violence and precision that all onlookers understand the price of not listening is very high.
Hokahey
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Hokahey » Tue May 03, 2011 2:10 am

RedAces wrote:hey,

@Laterna: Agreed.

hokahey wrote:"Actions might have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and try to make you talk to us about it. Then we'll decide what needs to be done, all the while giving you a public platform to speak on."

You're not a fan of laws and trials, are you?
Corrected version:
"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and if we can prove you did it, you'll get the consequences."


hokahey wrote:"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and kill you, no matter how long it takes. We are willing and able to do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our interests."

translates to:
"Actions will have consequences. Attack us, or coerce others to, and we will hunt you down and kill you, no matter how long it takes and no matter if we are really sure you did it. We are willing and able to do what needs to be done to protect ourselves and our interests (even if we just want to distract from something else or gain a few dollars)."


Bye, RedAces.


I can understand the political rhetoric that has skewed your perception of events here. However, you're assuming that there's a reasonable doubt that Al Qaeda was a foreign terrorist group that was engaged in aggressive action against the United States and its people for the last 20 or so years (despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary), and/or that said groups should be treated as American citizens, even when they aren't, and even when they're not captured on American soil.

Are you really asserting that claim?
Hokahey
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby laterna » Tue May 03, 2011 3:09 am

Its a man right to be judged in a court of law. No matter how bad he is, he has to be judged and found guilty for any sentence to pass. If he's captured by US soldiers, he should be judged by US laws no? Are US soldiers allowed to use whatever laws please them when they are at war with another country? Does this mean that if I'm a US soldier, I'm allowed to do anything I want?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-08/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

American citizenship has nothing to do with being judged by us law. If I come on a visit to the US, and kill 5 guys, I'm being taken to a US court of law despite being a UK citizen. If I fled the states and went to the UK, they'd publish an international warrant and come get me. Then drag my ass to the US and judge me there.

US law applies to anyone being taken into custody by US forces. If the FBI comes knocking at my door in the UK now, with a valid UK warrant, to take me into the US, I'm pretty sure either UK or US law applies, and not "whatever pleases me right now law"

You speak of mountains of hard evidence. I'm not being sarcastic but I'm not seeing it. All I saw in the 9/11 report, was a report of events that occured, and a lot of stuff that supposedly happened. No actual evidence if it really happened or not.
laterna
Moderator
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby RedAces » Tue May 03, 2011 4:16 am

hey,

Hokahey wrote:I can understand the political rhetoric that has skewed your perception of events here. However, you're assuming that there's a reasonable doubt that Al Qaeda was a foreign terrorist group that was engaged in aggressive action against the United States and its people for the last 20 or so years (despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary), and/or that said groups should be treated as American citizens, even when they aren't, and even when they're not captured on American soil.

Are you really asserting that claim?


Ok, so there was a trial (in his absence) where all evidence was brought and a jury found guilty? I thought this was against the law, the accused had to get the subpoena in order to validly hold a trial? (Oh man, this is hard to explain in english sorry ^^)

@Melathys: I'm sure he resisted and I really really hope he got killed by accident, as well as I hope the US forces wanted to bring him to a court. If this is the truth we (the normal people) will maybe never know.
(Or wikileaks will leak a few documents soon?! ^^)

Bye, RedAces.
Image
User avatar
RedAces
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:39 am
Location: Germany

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Hokahey » Tue May 03, 2011 4:53 am

laterna wrote:Its a man right to be judged in a court of law. No matter how bad he is, he has to be judged and found guilty for any sentence to pass. If he's captured by US soldiers, he should be judged by US laws no? Are US soldiers allowed to use whatever laws please them when they are at war with another country? Does this mean that if I'm a US soldier, I'm allowed to do anything I want?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-08/worl ... s=PM:WORLD

American citizenship has nothing to do with being judged by us law. If I come on a visit to the US, and kill 5 guys, I'm being taken to a US court of law despite being a UK citizen. If I fled the states and went to the UK, they'd publish an international warrant and come get me. Then drag my ass to the US and judge me there.

US law applies to anyone being taken into custody by US forces. If the FBI comes knocking at my door in the UK now, with a valid UK warrant, to take me into the US, I'm pretty sure either UK or US law applies, and not "whatever pleases me right now law"

You speak of mountains of hard evidence. I'm not being sarcastic but I'm not seeing it. All I saw in the 9/11 report, was a report of events that occured, and a lot of stuff that supposedly happened. No actual evidence if it really happened or not.
RedAces wrote:hey,

Hokahey wrote:I can understand the political rhetoric that has skewed your perception of events here. However, you're assuming that there's a reasonable doubt that Al Qaeda was a foreign terrorist group that was engaged in aggressive action against the United States and its people for the last 20 or so years (despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary), and/or that said groups should be treated as American citizens, even when they aren't, and even when they're not captured on American soil.

Are you really asserting that claim?


Ok, so there was a trial (in his absence) where all evidence was brought and a jury found guilty? I thought this was against the law, the accused had to get the subpoena in order to validly hold a trial? (Oh man, this is hard to explain in english sorry ^^)

@Melathys: I'm sure he resisted and I really really hope he got killed by accident, as well as I hope the US forces wanted to bring him to a court. If this is the truth we (the normal people) will maybe never know.
(Or wikileaks will leak a few documents soon?! ^^)

Bye, RedAces.


You people are either utterly clueless, fail horribly at reading comprehension, or are trolling. Probably a combination of the 3.
Hokahey
 
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:42 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby Skwigelf » Tue May 03, 2011 5:19 am

Image
User avatar
Skwigelf
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:07 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby djlar » Tue May 03, 2011 5:21 am

Posting a day late (no access to MT)...

10 years too late IMO.. but we finally got him..
Image
djlar
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:30 am

Re: Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Postby laterna » Tue May 03, 2011 5:57 am

Hokahey wrote:
You people are either utterly clueless, fail horribly at reading comprehension, or are trolling. Probably a combination of the 3.


Care to elaborate? The point is quite valid, with no trial happening, us forces executed a man outside the law. Granted the man was a wanted terrorist, but is that still not outside the law?

Its one thing to declare full out war against a country that blatanly attacked you, and its another to invade a country in order to stop a terrorist cell in that country, proceed to murder the leader without any resemblance of a trial and then come out saying "he deserved it". No trial occured, means no right to shoot him. Explain to me how this is wrong. How do you justify leaping over the law for any case. Who has the right to leap over the law then ? Can I use that right to kill anyone and get away with it?

There is a certain irony for you to say "America the land of freedom and hope", and then say "Screw the law, I'm doing it this way because I want to"
laterna
Moderator
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest