Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[BubberMiley]

So I give the money to them. That's not in my self-interest; buying that something I've always wanted would be in my self interest. But I know the right thing to do is to donate the money, so I do.

No, you're helping to create a world where people help each other when they need to. You may need help yourself some day and will be glad to be living in such a world.

You also might consider yourself a very nice person for giving the money, giving yourself the credit you seem to feel you deserve. This makes you feel better about yourself, making this nasty, brutish existence that much more tolerable.

[Guest American Woman]

No, you're helping to create a world where people help each other when they need to. You may need help yourself some day and will be glad to be living in such a world.

You also might consider yourself a very nice person for giving the money, giving yourself the credit you seem to feel you deserve. This makes you feel better about yourself, making this nasty, brutish existence that much more tolerable.

What you're doing is applying what you think is in the best interest of people and ascribing those beliefs to everyone else and claiming that they act solely for those reasons. And you're wrong. Not everyone sees things the same way or acts for the same reasons. People don't always act for the good, they sometimes act in negative ways, so your ideas of "in the best interest" don't apply to all. Some couldn't care less if they help other people; they most definitely act in their interest, and you are saying it's no different from people who do good. And neither one is better than the other by your way of thinking, because they are both acting in their interest. Everyone does, after all. Whether it be good or bad, selfish or giving -- it's all the same, acting in one's interest.

[BubberMiley]

Whether it be good or bad, selfish or giving -- it's all the same, acting in one's interest.

One person might consider it in their self-interest to mug an old lady to get money; another person might consider it in their self-interest to prevent such things from happening. I'm not arguing that the mugger is no less "good" than the person who prevented the mugging.

Obviously, mugging old ladies is bad, but that doesn't change the fact that the mugger thought he would benefit by the crime.

Obviously, preventing the mugging of old ladies is good, but that doesn't change the fact that the rescuer thought he was making his world a better place by preventing the crime.

[Guest American Woman]

One person might consider it in their self-interest to mug an old lady to get money; another person might consider it in their self-interest to prevent such things from happening. I'm not arguing that the mugger is no less "good" than the person who prevented the mugging.

Obviously, mugging old ladies is bad, but that doesn't change the fact that the mugger thought he would benefit by the crime.

Obviously, preventing the mugging of old ladies is good, but that doesn't change the fact that the rescuer thought he was making his world a better place by preventing the crime.

But bottom line. The person who mugged the little old lady and the person who prevented the mugging of the little old lady were both acting in their interests, and that's how you would see it. That would be your take on it. That would be your reaction. That would be your view.

[Black Dog]

Other oddities include, that they have know his location for some time and were tracking OBL through a courier. And questions were raised when the compound was built 5+ years ago. A building 8x the size of most of the other structures in the area. And close to a Pakistani Military base.

What's off about that?

Al-queda is not dead by a long shot. The way I see it, the USA has just emboldened their enemies with this recent kill. They say they assassinated him to prevent him from being a martyr. He will become a martyr anyways by those who support him and his movement.

You know how people become martyrs, right?

And the USA and other countries are now going to use this for another clamp down on freedoms and rights. We have to be more diligent than ever now because of reprisal attacks for killing OBL.

The people of the USA will suffer at the hands of this through more TSA like gestapo entities and procedures. And Canada is not safe from that either. I have not really looked into it, but I am sure we will see more TSA-like procedures when travelling.

Fuck's sake. Getting a pat down or walking through a metal detector is not "Gestapo like". If you want to be taken seriously, stop using such ridiculous hyperbole to get your point across.

It's no longer to prevent terrorism, or it's about our governments terrorising us with these 'threats'.

DAMMIT ... lost my tin foil hat again. I bet the government knows where it is. I mean they can easily track me through my GPS app induced smartphone. .. Oh there is my tin foil hat. I left it on the table.

It is funny how you went from "yeah right they assassinated him" to "OMG, they assassinated him!!1!"

[BubberMiley]

But bottom line. The person who mugged the little old lady and the person who prevented the mugging of the little old lady were both acting in their interests, and that's how you would see it. That would be your take on it. That would be your reaction. That would be your view.

Uh...yeah. That's what we do here. State our views.

[Guest American Woman]

The people of the USA will suffer at the hands of this through more TSA like gestapo entities and procedures.

How about you let the people of the USA determine if they see airline security as suffering or as looking out for their well being when they board a plane?

You do realize that the gestapo acted in their best interests while the TSA is acting in the interests of those getting on the planes, right? The TSA workers aren't the ones getting on the plane. It's not benefiting them. I think the people on the planes on 9-11 would have rather "suffered at the hands of the TSA" than at the hands of the terrorists who boarded their planes that day.

a thousand times over.

[GostHacked]

What's off about that?

Well it seems that the CIA and I am going to say the ISI knew where Bin Laden was hiding for some time. If they've been tracking him through a courier over the years. Osama would have done better in a small hideout that does not draw so much attention.

Fuck's sake. Getting a pat down or walking through a metal detector is not "Gestapo like". If you want to be taken seriously, stop using such ridiculous hyperbole to get your point across.

I've tried it the other way too. But that never really got the point across. Check out the TSA thread I started and then come back to me. Actually check out some of the stuff on youtube. It is gestapo-like when you do a full pat down for a 6 year old girl. It's all about control.

It is funny how you went from "yeah right they assassinated him" to "OMG, they assassinated him!!1!"

Well, I still think he has been dead for years.

[Guest American Woman]

Uh...yeah. That's what we do here. State our views.

Uh....yeah, it is. So would that be your view? That's what I asked and now I'm waiting for your answer. If someone were to post about someone preventing the mugging of a little old lady and someone else posted about the mugging, would you respond to both with "they were acting in their interests?"

[BubberMiley]

If someone were to post about someone preventing the mugging of a little old lady and someone else posted about the mugging, would you respond to both with "they were acting in their interests?"

I would say they were each acting according to what they perceived to be their interests. I would disagree with the mugger that mugging the old lady is in his interest.

[Black Dog]

Well it seems that the CIA and I am going to say the ISI knew where Bin Laden was hiding for some time. If they've been tracking him through a courier over the years. Osama would have done better in a small hideout that does not draw so much attention.

It's possible the ISI knew, but Pakistan's hardly a trusted ally here. As for years, the official story says they knew about the hideout since August last year. Seems to me that if the target is as big as this, you would take the time to make sure you have the right guy (which is the same reason they sent in a team versus an earlier plan to simply flatten the compound with JDAMs.)

I've tried it the other way too. But that never really got the point across. Check out the TSA thread I started and then come back to me. Actually check out some of the stuff on youtube. It is gestapo-like when you do a full pat down for a 6 year old girl. It's all about control.

Gestapo-like would be taking the six year old from her bed at night and putting a bullet in her head.

Well, I still think he has been dead for years.

Right, because of the timing. Before the all-important...uh...um?

[WIP]

It seems to me that instead of waving flags and chanting "USA" "USA" for the success of a targeted assasination, the U.S. needs to stop planting the seeds that create more bin Ladens! Stop invading and occupying foreign nations, and installing puppet governments.

[Michael Hardner]

It seems to me that instead of waving flags and chanting "USA" "USA" for the success of a targeted assasination, the U.S. needs to stop planting the seeds that create more bin Ladens! Stop invading and occupying foreign nations, and installing puppet governments.

I don't think that was the government waving flags and chanting.

As for changing how they operate - it seems to have already happened.

[WIP]

I don't think that was the government waving flags and chanting.

You know what I mean! Some people think that there would be no terrorism without Osama bin Laden.

As for changing how they operate - it seems to have already happened.

I have really become cynical about how closely the Obama Administration has followed in the footsteps of the Bush Administration when it comes to the Iraq War, and the rest of the war on terror, and U.S. policies like secret prisons, indefinite detention without trial, use of torture, targeted assasinations....all policies that Obama condemned as a candidate and even threatened to prosecute members of the Bush Administration for, and has whole-heartedly adopted as the President.

This has meant that Bush policies have been consolidated, including going to war by executive order, and are not criticized in any mainstream media, since Obama is as far left as they will tolerate.

[jbg]

It seems to me that instead of waving flags and chanting "USA" "USA" for the success of a targeted assasination, the U.S. needs to stop planting the seeds that create more bin Ladens! Stop invading and occupying foreign nations, and installing puppet governments.

I don't think that was the government waving flags and chanting.

As for changing how they operate - it seems to have already happened.

I think that you are both over-simplifying. If the countries in which Osama took refuge were ready for independence and were not failed states there would be no need for Western involvement. The face is that the West's safety and prosperity depends upon some military presence in "foreign lands".

[bush_cheney2004]

....This has meant that Bush policies have been consolidated, including going to war by executive order, and are not criticized in any mainstream media, since Obama is as far left as they will tolerate.

There has been criticism in MSM, you just haven't noticed it. President Obama will be tolerated just like any other president, and come election time, Americans will get to double down or make a change. As for being a Bush clone, not quite, but then again Mr. Bush was the American president too. Read the job description.

[Moonlight Graham]

That's your take on it. It's not always the case. I might have x number of dollars and would love to buy something for myself with it, something I've always wanted, but I see a request for donations for a family whose house burned down. So I give the money to them. That's not in my self-interest; buying that something I've always wanted would be in my self interest. But I know the right thing to do is to donate the money, so I do.

One could argue by a popular line of thinking that donating is in your best interest because it makes you feel good, which is in your self-interest. If you kept the money and bought something nice for yourself the benefit of that would likely be eclipsed by the negative feelings of guilt & shame you would feel...which is not in your self-interest.

I see merits in both yours and this argument. Maybe it all depends on what the priorities of your self-interests are? Some self-interests only benefit yourself, others benefit both yourself and others. Personally i think the latter maximizes the good and happiness in this world.

[bloodyminded]

That's your take on it. It's not always the case. I might have x number of dollars and would love to buy something for myself with it, something I've always wanted, but I see a request for donations for a family whose house burned down. So I give the money to them. That's not in my self-interest; buying that something I've always wanted would be in my self interest. But I know the right thing to do is to donate the money, so I do.

By your way of thinking, you can never give anyone credit, can never criticize anyone. Because everyone is acting only in their interests.

People act selflessly all the time. It's quite normal, and is excellent.

As for the US getting rid of bin Laden, or of entering WW2, etc...I don't care if there are selfish motives, so much, if the results are positive and aligned with what most of us feel is "right." I think, being complicated entities, countries can have several motivations at once, all mixed up...and that some of these motivations are good. Why not, eh?

Edited May 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Gestapo-like would be taking the six year old from her bed at night and putting a bullet in her head.

Just so. The hyperbole is not helpful to anyone's argument.

Right, because of the timing. Before the all-important...uh...um?

Canadian election!

[bloodyminded]

One could argue by a popular line of thinking that donating is in your best interest because it makes you feel good, which is in your self-interest. If you kept the money and bought something nice for yourself the benefit of that would likely be eclipsed by the negative feelings of guilt & shame you would feel...which is not in your self-interest.

I've thought about this, but it might be a chicken-or-egg argument; perhaps we feel good because we give, not the other way around.

[Scotty]

President Obama has "kicked" plenty of ass....America has a leader, whether you like or dislike his politics. This man does not have Jimmy Carter disease.

Bush cheney is now a fan of Obama?

[Scotty]

In respecting Muslim tradition of how they treat their dead, the US administration (and by extension Americans) gains respect in its own right. Well done US of A.

I would've taken him up in the helicopter to about the same height as the ninetieth floor of the WTC, then blown him out the door with a flame thrower so he got to feel what it was like for those desperate people who jumped that day.

[Guest American Woman]

One could argue by a popular line of thinking that donating is in your best interest because it makes you feel good, which is in your self-interest. If you kept the money and bought something nice for yourself the benefit of that would likely be eclipsed by the negative feelings of guilt & shame you would feel...which is not in your self-interest.

Plenty of people buy the thing they want without any feelings of guilt or shame whatsoever. But there's a difference between feeling good about something one does and doing it solely to feel good.

I see merits in both yours and this argument. Maybe it all depends on what the priorities of your self-interests are? Some self-interests only benefit yourself, others benefit both yourself and others. Personally i think the latter maximizes the good and happiness in this world.

Of course it does, but I think sometimes people do something because it's the right thing to do, not "purely for their interests;" and that's the idea that I've been responding to.

[Guest American Woman]

People act selflessly all the time. It's quite normal, and is excellent.

Agreed. And I don't think they do it solely for their interests; to feel good. I believe they do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

As for the US getting rid of bin Laden, or of entering WW2, etc...I don't care if there are selfish motives, so much, if the results are positive and aligned with what most of us feel is "right." I think, being complicated entities, countries can have several motivations at once, all mixed up...and that some of these motivations are good. Why not, eh?

I agree. I was responding to the comment that the reason the U.S. respected Islam's traditions and gave bin Laden a proper Islamic burial was "purely for U.S. interests." I believe the U.S. did what it felt was the right thing to do, just as Canada did when it took in the planes for the U.S. on 9-11. I never for one minute thought that Canada was doing it "purely for Canadian interests."

[BubberMiley]

There's a difference between helping a friend and respecting the beliefs of a vile terrorist though.

But in any case, it certainly wouldn't have been in Canada's interest to tell the U.S. to piss off.

But the chicken and the egg analogy is absolutely correct.

Edited May 4, 2011 by BubberMiley