Jump to content

Osama Bin Laden is Dead


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I honestly wonder where people are coming from sometimes, especially since it seems a lot of these same people seem to say that the Pentagon was a legitimate military target on 9-11. Yet now we have to justify killing a cold-blooded murderer of innocent civilians during a military operation in a declared war. It was a clean kill in that most people were left alive. That required care and precision on our part. Yet we are the ones who did wrong.

The Pentagon is a military installation. So yes, in terms of attacking the military infrastructure of the military, the Pentagon is fair game. The WTC is not a military target, and not part of the military infrastructure. But this was a 'terror' attack, so any target is valid, according to those who took them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Crystal clear.

Good. Glad you were finally able to understand what I was saying. I would have thought it was crystal clear the first time around, but glad to have obliged and helped you along.

You're a moron.

:rolleyes: When one sees nothing but criticism coming from someone, when someone sees everything negatively and finds fault with everything, expecting nothing but criticism from that someone doesn't make one a moron. Your lesson for the day. Hope it was stated clearly enough for you to understand. :)

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The Pentagon is a military installation. So yes, in terms of attacking the military infrastructure of the military, the Pentagon is fair game. The WTC is not a military target, and not part of the military infrastructure. But this was a 'terror' attack, so any target is valid, according to those who took them out.

So the Pentagon was "fair game" to attack, even though those who were in the Pentagon were unarmed, many civilians who happened to work there. Wouldn't it follow that attacking his compound and killing bin Laden was fair game? Yet so many people who say the Pentagon was fair game say bin Laden was killed in cold blood. Why is one "fair game" while the other is "in cold blood?" I'd seriously like an explanation for that double-think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Pentagon was "fair game" to attack, even though those who were in the Pentagon were unarmed, many civilians who happened to work there.

That is what is called 'collateral damage'. It is a term used by the US, NATO and UN when attacking countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, ect ect ect ect ... It does suck when your country is on the recieving end of it all. Top brass are located in the Pentagon, so yeah, I'd attack it as well in a terror or military campaign. If I was attacking the US, then sure, it is fair game.

Wouldn't it follow that attacking his compound and killing bin Laden was fair game?

I don't have a problem with him being gone. In the end I am glad he is dead.

Yet so many people who say the Pentagon was fair game say bin Laden was killed in cold blood. Why is one "fair game" while the other is "in cold blood?" I'd seriously like an explanation for that double-think.

Well, no where have I expressed that the attack on him was wrong. I just think the whole story is bogus to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

That is what is called 'collateral damage'. It is a term used by the US, NATO and UN when attacking countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, ect ect ect ect ... It does suck when your country is on the recieving end of it all. Top brass are located in the Pentagon, so yeah, I'd attack it as well in a terror or military campaign. If I was attacking the US, then sure, it is fair game.

The top brass weren't armed at the time any more than bin Laden was, so either both were legitimate from a military standpoint or neither were, which was the only point I was making. And for the record, I've never cared for the term collateral damage; civilian deaths are just that, and are a part of war. Always have been, always will be. Unfortunately. Targeting them, however, desiring to kill them is a different matter.

I don't have a problem with him being gone. In the end I am glad he is dead.

Same here. My comments were in regards to those who do have a problem with it and those who say he was killed in cold blood.

Well, no where have I expressed that the attack on him was wrong. I just think the whole story is bogus to begin with.

I didn't say you did express that the attack on him was wrong, but you responded to my post in reference to those who are saying it, so I elaborated on my position.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top brass weren't armed at the time any more than bin Laden was, so either both were legitimate from a military standpoint or neither were, which was the only point I was making.

In a terror attack, any target is valid, that is why it is called terrorism, it does not follow any rules of any war (if there really are any) However in a stright up declaration of war between two countries, let's say the US is one of the participants, then the Pentagon is still a valid target. You compromise the opposing forces capacity by taking out the top commanding echelon. Civilians would just be a 'bonus'.

Let's talk about Iraq for a second for comparison. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, and used Haliburton/KBR to build the bases and military supply lines, they used civilians from all over the planet. Before this point, these jobs were handled by military personelle themselves. These bases got attacked by insurgents and some civilians and military personelle were killed. Regardless of the civilians working there, it is still a military operating base and a valid target in times of war. What makes the Pentagon different in terms of being a valid military target in times of war, or a valid target in terms of a terror attack?

And for the record, I've never cared for the term collateral damage; civilian deaths are just that, and are a part of war. Always have been, always will be. Unfortunately. Targeting them, however, desiring to kill them is a different matter.

Again, must point out the fact it was a terror attack and does not follow the conventional rules of war. Any target is valid if you want to do a terror attack.

Same here. My comments were in regards to those who do have a problem with it and those who say he was killed in cold blood.

Fair enough.

I didn't say you did express that the attack on him was wrong, but you responded to my post in reference to those who are saying it, so I elaborated on my position.

Again, fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

In a terror attack, any target is valid, that is why it is called terrorism,

"Any target" is not "valid;" that's why it's called terrorism when targets that aren't legitimate are hit.

... it does not follow any rules of any war (if there really are any) However in a stright up declaration of war between two countries, let's say the US is one of the participants, then the Pentagon is still a valid target. You compromise the opposing forces capacity by taking out the top commanding echelon. Civilians would just be a 'bonus'.

The U.S. hadn't made a straight up declaration of war when the Pentagon was attacked, but since bin Laden had made his intentions known, it was a legitimate military target for the reasons you state, and many people have no problem recognizing that. I see that in direct conflict with those from that camp who are now saying bin Laden was killed in cold blood, as if the SEALS actions were not legitimate. That's been my point. Especially when the weapon of choice in attacking the Pentagon was not military ammunition. Imagine if the SEALS had used innocent Pakistani civilians, bringing them to their sure death, in order to kill bin Laden. Yet we hear how the Pentagon, because the target was the military personnel, was a legitimate target, while killing an unarmed bin Laden was in cold blood.

Again, I'm speaking of those who hold this view. That's what I've been posting in response to.

Let's talk about Iraq for a second for comparison. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, and used Haliburton/KBR to build the bases and military supply lines, they used civilians from all over the planet. Before this point, these jobs were handled by military personelle themselves. These bases got attacked by insurgents and some civilians and military personelle were killed. Regardless of the civilians working there, it is still a military operating base and a valid target in times of war. What makes the Pentagon different in terms of being a valid military target in times of war, or a valid target in terms of a terror attack?

I'm not the one saying there is a difference, even though there was no declaration of war at the time of the attack. The ones saying targeting the Pentagon was legitimate while bin Laden's death was in cold blood because he wasn't armed are the ones who apparently see it as "different." As already stated, I'd like to know why it's different. The military personnel weren't armed any more than bin Laden was armed. They weren't running around the Pentagon carrying AK 47's. So I'd like to know why they are seeing the Pentagon as a legitimate target while accusing the U.S. of killing bin Laden in cold blood.

Again, must point out the fact it was a terror attack and does not follow the conventional rules of war. Any target is valid if you want to do a terror attack.

I'm not speaking in terms of what terrorists see as valid (although I wouldn't be surprised if they/their followers would be the first to object to, and try to get the world riled up over, an unarmed bin Laden 'being killed in cold blood.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the record, I've never cared for the term collateral damage; civilian deaths are just that, and are a part of war. Always have been, always will be. Unfortunately. Targeting them, however, desiring to kill them is a different matter.

They haven't always been a part of war. When Monarchies were paying mercenary armies to go to war townspeople were known to go to the battle field and watch the proceedings. Weapons today are so destructive it is almost impossible to avoid "civilian deaths".

As tothe matter of acting in "self-interest". Everyone does. It seems your interest is in placing a higher emphasis on doing the right thing than and that is your "self interest". Probably because you think the world should be that way and it is how you think others should be.

I generally agree that people act for their own self-interests. Would there ever be a time when you would abandon what you feel is right for your own self-interests? If not then your self-interest is doing the right thing above your own personal benefit and your belief is that the world, all others, should see that it is in their self-interest to sacrifice and do the right thing always.

We do not all have one self-interest. We have many, We have some that are so important we will never abandon them for any reason. THe person who determines to climb Mt. Everest. It is in his own self interest because he has set it as an objective. Most of us would view climibing Mt. Everest as an exercise in stupidity. WE cannot assume that we understand a person's self interest. We have to understand at what point he will sacrifice himself for his interests and abandon his interests to save himself. If we have common values, mores and sense of ethics we can understand most people's actions. We cannot understand as easily those with different values, mores and ethics. They have different self interests. Self interests are not necessarily selfish interests.

We would have trouble understanding someone deciding to commit sucide as a self-interest. Pain, emotional and/or physical may make that the best choice in the persons eyes and bring it within what the person considers his own best self-interest. In cases where we do not understand behavior we are not privy to the information upon which the decision was made. The behavior may seem odd to us. Your mistake is that you assume everyone's actions should make sense to you from your sense of values, ethics and mores.

Western civilizations used to hold their values and sense of ethics higher than they do today. Today they will abandon them for selfish interests such as welfare, because they are entitled and there is nothing wrong with accepting welfare, i.e. getting something for nothing. The world you want, of people doing the right thing above selfish-interests, is destroyed because you ask them to abandon what they know is right and do waht is wrong - getting something for nothing. Receiving something for nothing is not criminal but demanding it is - which makes welfare, when considered as a "human right", wrong.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: When one sees nothing but criticism coming from someone, when someone sees everything negatively and finds fault with everything, expecting nothing but criticism from that someone doesn't make one a moron. Your lesson for the day. Hope it was stated clearly enough for you to understand. :)

You're right I should just accept the official version at face value. Wait: which official version are we talking about now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right I should just accept the official version at face value. Wait: which official version are we talking about now?

What exactly is the issue you're having trouble with? Bin Laden's dead, move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is the issue you're having trouble with? Bin Laden's dead, move on.

But that is part of the whole problem Shady. The story has changed so much since Sunday night, it's not even really the same story. The devil is in the details. More questions now than answers. And this is not the first time you've seen this happen.

Why did they not wait until they got all the facts and trot out one story and be consistant? Does this remind you of the crap with WMDs in Iraq? The Obama admin is trying to pull a fast one over everyone, and it seems to be failing.

A good deal of people I talk to are not buying this story at all. I stopped in at a pub last night on my way home from work for a brew and some wings, several conversations going on at the same time, all about this Bin Laden story. None of these people were buying it either.

Something stinks here Shady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is the issue you're having trouble with? Bin Laden's dead, move on.

'Zactly...even Al Qaeda has accepted Bin Laden's fate. What so complicated about shooting him in the head? Anybody who has problem with that or with the government's story has another agenda entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Zactly...even Al Qaeda has accepted Bin Laden's fate. What so complicated about shooting him in the head? Anybody who has problem with that or with the government's story has another agenda entirely.

Actually it's the government with the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think I have time to read through 17 pages of Bin Laden deather speculation?

For a poster who has started more threads on Obama than anyone on here, I thought you might relish in another screw up by Obama. I had pictured you drooling while reading this thread just to have another tastey morsel to spit back at Obama.

But anyways, you jumped part of the way into the conversation, some consider that rude! :D

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

But that is part of the whole problem Shady. The story has changed so much since Sunday night, it's not even really the same story. The devil is in the details. More questions now than answers. And this is not the first time you've seen this happen.

So what has you so confused since we were told the initial story was not the way it went down? Bin Laden wasn't armed, there really wasn't much resistance, a couple of other people were killed, bin Laden's fifth wife took a shot to the leg, the children, wife, and others in the compound were bound and left behind and were picked up by Pakistani authorities. One of the helicopters crashed beforehand, so they only had one to take the body and all the computers, etc. that they confiscated back with them. Bin Laden's body was taken, buried at sea within 24 hours, according to Islamic tradition. Photos were taken but not released. Is that really so difficult to follow? And it's been the official story since shortly after we heard the initial reports. The story hasn't changed since then. It's not all that difficult to follow. Seriously. What questions have not been answered?

Why did they not wait until they got all the facts and trot out one story and be consistant? Does this remind you of the crap with WMDs in Iraq? The Obama admin is trying to pull a fast one over everyone, and it seems to be failing.

How, exactly, is the Obama admin trying to pull a fast one with shortly coming forth and saying parts of the initial report were wrong? How is that pulling a fast one? What do you think they gained?

A good deal of people I talk to are not buying this story at all.

Yes, we know. The timing was a distraction, yet you have no idea why.

I stopped in at a pub last night on my way home from work for a brew and some wings, several conversations going on at the same time, all about this Bin Laden story. None of these people were buying it either.

So what does that have to do with anything? Do they find the timing to be a distraction, too, without having any idea why a distraction would be necessary? Are they confused because some of the facts in the initial report were wrong and corrected shortly after? Do they, like you, believe he's been dead for years? Or are they not buying it 'just because?'

Something stinks here Shady.

Yeah, something does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

For a poster who has started more threads on Obama than anyone on here, I thought you might relish in another screw up by Obama.

I'll ask again. How did he screw up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

You're right I should just accept the official version at face value. Wait: which official version are we talking about now?

How about you present me with the multitude of official stories that have been told so I can get some idea why you're having such a difficult time knowing what the official story is?

But interesting that you see it as having to either accept the official version at face value -- or conclude that it looks like a big operational fuck up. There's always the option of waiting to make such a determination. You claim you don't know what to believe, so I can't understand how you can think it looks like it was an operational fuck up. How would you know if things didn't go down exactly as planned if you don't know enough about it to know what happened? So I'll ask again. What about it makes it a big operational fuck up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about you present me with the multitude of official stories that have been told so I can get some idea why you're having such a difficult time knowing what the official story is?

Interesting that above you present the current version as though it's unchanged from the original. It's not and you know it.

But interesting that you see it as having to either accept the official version at face value -- or conclude that it looks like a big operational fuck up. There's always the option of waiting to make such a determination.

Waiting for what? They aren't going to say "we meant to capture him alive, but things got hairy and we ended up popping him instead".

You claim you don't know what to believe, so I can't understand how you can think it looks like it was an operational fuck up.

Because a few of the pieces don't add up, as I explained at length upthread.

How would you know if things didn't go down exactly as planned if you don't know enough about it to know what happened?

Because a few of the pieces don't add up, as I explained at length upthread.

So I'll ask again. What about it makes it a big operational fuck up?

See upthread. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Interesting that above you present the current version as though it's unchanged from the original. It's not and you know it.

What?? I clearly said that shortly after the initial reports they said there were some corrections, and clearly stated what they were. That's the current version. It was changed once. Again, what about that is so difficult for you to follow? What makes it so difficult for you to understand what the current "version" is? You make it sound as if the official version has changed so often that you have no idea what to believe. There's the initial story and the corrections that came out shortly thereafter. Not really that hard to follow for most people.

Waiting for what? They aren't going to say "we meant to capture him alive, but things got hairy and we ended up popping him instead".

So in other words, your determination that it looks like it was a big operational fuck up is based on what how YOU think it was planned vs how it went down? Seriously? 'This is how I think they planned it and it didn't go down that way, so it looks like they fucked up royally.' Again. Seriously??

Because a few of the pieces don't add up, as I explained at length upthread.

No, you haven't "explained" anything.

Because a few of the pieces don't add up, as I explained at length upthread.

No, you haven't "explained" anything.

See upthread. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Thank God for small favors. Hopefully you'll never again repeat that it looks like it's a big operational fuck up because it didn't go down the way you think it was planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...