[PUG] Osama Bin Laden is dead Part II

[myself]

This is stupid.

Why a burial at sea?

They probably didn't want people to see his body
for fear humans might still have some sympathy left in them...

I can hardly believe how people can seem so intelligent, yet they buy into all of this bullshit.

All the talk about how this is uniting us...
All the headlines filled with hate...

It's just people making money... people manipulating people...

It's gross.

I want it to stop.

 

[Stu]

This morning I heard some blow hard on the tv talking about how there is no protest of the disregard of Pakistani sovereignty like there was with the secret bombing of Cambodia.

I left my jaw slack.......tens of thousands of innocent people were killed in the blanked bombing of Cambodia,

 

[Candice_XX]

It's interesting that the American government are so quick to point out the number of innocent lives that Osama is responsible for ending, yet completely ignore the countless civilians they have killed while trying to capture him or take over Iraq...

+1! I put it in another more extreme way, I can not see why people in America think that terrorists are responsible for the decision they took to go to war. Revenge means death, that simple. There are no victims in a war (apart from the civilians of the place where the war takes place, of course, and that is the only form of defense, overseas operations is nonsense).


But anyway, personally I don't care at all, that will not help me pay my bills.

 

[Stu]

..................I can not see why people in America think that terrorists are responsible for the decision they took to go to war. Revenge means death, that simple. There are no victims in a war (apart from the civilians of the place where the war takes place, of course, and that is the only form of defense, overseas operations is nonsense).
.

Do you really not see the inevitability of a military response, a war, to the destruction of 9/11, I am sure al Queda did.

And furthermore, in war there are only victims.

 

[Chamomile]

I personally don't believe it.

No DNA evidence currently and a 'burial' at sea?

nah.

either he was dead ages ago and this is some stunt to either get Obama reelected or to bring closure, or there's strong evidence to suggest that it's not Osama and a body double, which he has been known to use.

I can see the doubt, but considering the amount of criticism the government has received for not having found/killed him before, I think this would have happened earlier if that was the case. They have been wrong about killing him before, not to mention the amount of crap that would come crashing down on their heads if they were wrong. The US is not the only country with intelligence monitoring the area closely. If any other country realized he was alive, I think they'd call bs on it and that would only lead to even more criticism for the government.
I can definitely see why the burial at sea seems suspicious, but it is also really important in Islam to receive a proper burial and not doing that (to some Muslims, not allowing him to go to heaven) would hugely piss off lots and lots of extremists. That would just be scary, so I'd be pissed if they didn't bury him in some way. I also think giving his remains back to extremists would just be odd, not to mention having a grave site. That would just creep me out. The only thing that makes me raise an eyebrow is that they've only had the remains a week. I'm sure that there wasn't much left, but if there was enough to identify remains with DNA, I'd imagine there could have been enough for a ME or forensic anthropologist to learn a few things about his life (it doesn't take much)? But I have no idea about the amount of remains left, so meh.


A few have suggested Obama isn't getting enough credit of some kind for Osama's death... I mean, go him I guess, but I know he's not an intelligence officer putting in the hours and focus has been there long before he was in office. What made me suspicious was him saying he had made Osama a top priority (I might have just missed this, but I couldn't find anything supporting that). But now Osama dies and he's kind of stepping up and saying 'yep, that one's all me.' THAT I feel like is a publicity stunt and it makes me uncomfortable somehow. He has allowed an earlier effort to continue, and thats about it, in my opinion. I personally don't think just because intelligence officers found out information they've been hunting for a decade should be a reason he should get bonus points for re-election. Thats like the CEO of a company getting all the credit when a lowly employee does something amazing, IMO. Everyone hates that.

 

[Kgal]

It bothers me that it took so long for his death to be announced. When Sadaam was killed it was immediate and public (albeit against orders).

It's true that Osama was essentially the financier of the terrorists attacks - not the real leader.

My ex and I were speculating this morning if Osama went - or was forced - underground - so they get could secrets from him.

It's possible with Osama gone - the funding will slow down. But if people think terrorism is going to stop - I think they are mistaken. Killing Osama will only feed the Hydra and more heads will emerge.
Hence - I believe he is really gone - one way or the other.
Because "they" know - more terrorist acts will follow.

And yeh.... cheering in the streets and dancing for joy just because they think he's dead seems wrong to me. It feeds the hatred wolf in people. It feeds the fear monster in people.

 

[Galileo]

I see the inevitability of it, though I do not see at all why the USA went to war with Iraq and dragged a few other countries along with them...

I still want to know where the weapons of mass distruction are...

just because I see the inevitability however doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
I do know that civilian casualties are likely in war, but that doesn't mean that I think it's ok, or that those civilians lives are any less important than the people who died in 9-11 or than the soldiers who died in Iraq or Afghanistan, no matter what side they were on.


for the most part they were poor people fighting the war of rich people.

 

[Norton]

It's interesting that the American government are so quick to point out the number of innocent lives that Osama is responsible for ending, yet completely ignore the countless civilians they have killed while trying to capture him or take over Iraq...

So, you're saying that the US was wrong to pursue and kill Osama Bin Laden? We should have turned the other cheek and allowed him to kill more of us?

When someone kills 3,000 people in a powerful nation, it should be no surprise when that nation responds with resolute determination to eliminate future threats. And, when that killer of 3,000 hides among women and children, it should be no surprise that innocents are killed. When that happens, are we the only ones to blame?

I rejoice that Bin Laden is dead. I, an American, and many Australians rejoice that Imam Samudra, Amrozi Nurhasyim, Dulmatin, and Huda bin Abdul Haq, of the horrible Bali bombing of October, 2002, are dead, too.

 

[TigersGoRAWR]

I dont know whether to believe all this or not.

However, if all this is true, I dont know whether its a good thing or a bad thing. Sure, Americas most wanted and #1 terrorist has gone, but it's not like he was going alone or anything.
Im sure he would have allies, and they aren't going to rest now that their leader has gone. They will want revenge. I dont think this is the end. If anything, I think Obama has set himself up for a nightmare.
Many people are still grieving after everything Osama did (if it was him, that is).

These were my first thoughts about the situation.

 

[Candice_XX]

[MENTION=1939]Dave[/MENTION] Well no, I see that every action is our choice, nothing is inevitable, and especially the USA has the most choice of all nations of the worlds of how to make practice its will.
There have been worse crimes in other countries that did not cause war. And there have been better ways to react in order to protect interests (see economy, equality, border control, establishing better relations with other countries). If it was to kill each other every time some crazy man was doing a religious crime here in Europe we wouldn't exist.
Probably that was the most efficient way to occupy a place but it was not the only choice as to protect people.

I see what you are saying, war is so bad that we should even feel pity for the Nazis, but I don't. If you choose to die for your ideas your are not a martyr, you have the same approach as the Muslims, only from the other side. They were also saying they had no choice to harm their oppressors. I am not with any side.

I do not mean to offend you, or anyone. It's just another perception of the world.

 

[Kgal]

A few have suggested Obama isn't getting enough credit of some kind for Osama's death... I mean, go him I guess, but I know he's not an intelligence officer putting in the hours and focus has been there long before he was in office. What made me suspicious was him saying he had made Osama a top priority (I might have just missed this, but I couldn't find anything supporting that). But now Osama dies and he's kind of stepping up and saying 'yep, that one's all me.' THAT I feel like is a publicity stunt and it makes me uncomfortable somehow. He has allowed an earlier effort to continue, and thats about it, in my opinion. I personally don't think just because intelligence officers found out information they've been hunting for a decade should be a reason he should get bonus points for re-election. Thats like the CEO of a company getting all the credit when a lowly employee does something amazing, IMO. Everyone hates that.

I can see where you'd feel like this. But the US placed the blame for 911 squarely on Osama - went over to Afghanistan - blew up some countryside - then dropped the ball. George and company really wanted an excuse to take over Iraq and get revenge on Sadaam. So they made war over there - cost us millions of dollars - and thousands of lives - all based upon lies. When all the time - the real cause of terrorism (allegedly Osama's financing) was still alive and terrorizing.

At least Obama didn't try to Stop finding Osama - like George did. hwell:

 

[Galileo]

I can understand the US going after Afghanistan, though I myself did not want to see my own country dragged into it.

I do not however see the point of the Iraq invasion.

I don't rejoice that Osama is dead, or that the people murdered in any terrorist bombings are dead, or anything like that.

I feel that the actions of the US were however overkill. I understand the want to kill Osama for revenge, but I will never see the point of the Iraq invasion. will it all end here? will the USA leave the Middle East alone to govern themselves as they wish?

somehow I don't think so.

 

[Chamomile]

It bothers me that it took so long for his death to be announced. When Sadaam was killed it was immediate and public (albeit against orders).

They'd look pretty dumb if they announced that he was dead and turned about to be wrong. DNA results take time. It eats away at their credibility when they're wrong about things like that.

 

[~jet]

I can understand the US going after Afghanistan, though I myself did not want to see my own country dragged into it.

I do not however see the point of the Iraq invasion.

I don't rejoice that Osama is dead, or that the people murdered in any terrorist bombings are dead, or anything like that.

I feel that the actions of the US were however overkill. I understand the want to kill Osama for revenge, but I will never see the point of the Iraq invasion. will it all end here? will the USA leave the Middle East alone to govern themselves as they wish?

somehow I don't think so.

It would certainly be in our own best economic interest if we did. Not so much in the interest of the oil companies, defense contractors, and the like who employ such a large army of lobbyists (the only people who can really afford even a small detached house in Arlington or Georgetown.)

 

[Stu]

[MENTION=1939]Dave[/MENTION] ................ nothing is inevitable, and especially the USA has the most choice of all nations of the worlds of how to make practice its will......................


There have been worse crimes in other countries that did not cause war......................... .

absolutely no offense taken, as an American I am flattered that you believe we have the kind of restraint it would have taken not to invade Afghanistan.

In my opinion, a President who would not do that would have been impeached. The military reaction by the United States was politically inevitable. I am not arguing that it was right or just, or that it was not right or unjust, just inevitable.


Perhaps I am brainwashed but, what was the "worse crime that did not cause a war", other than the purges that take place internally (inside countries) through out history, {Holocaust, Stalin's imposition of famine on Ukraine, Mao's cultural revolution.....}?

 

[Galileo]

It would certainly be in our own best economic interest if we did. Not so much in the interest of the oil companies, defense contractors, and the like who employ such a large army of lobbyists (the only people who can really afford even a small detached house in Arlington or Georgetown.)

it would be in the best interests of the entire world I think.

or perhaps the oil companies could just learn to trade with the Middle East in a civilised manner, rather than forcing them into deals where they made money in exchange for basic human rights like food....but that would probably be too much to expect...


what I do not understand is how people can be so brainwashed to actually believe that this is all for the benifit of the middle east so that they can have democracy and freedom etc, when the USA is perfectly happy to limit or ignore the freedom of so many others because their corrupt leaders support them, or simply because they have nothing of benifit to the US.

 

[Chamomile]

In my opinion, a President who would not do that would have been impeached. The military reaction by the United States was politically inevitable. I am not arguing that it was right or just, or that it was not right or unjust, just inevitable.

+1. I don't remember many people at all being against it at the time of invasion. I would have been SO pro-impeachment if any president had been like 'Yikes, this sucks. But lets all just take a deep breath and move on.' I also do not think attacks would have ended there by any means.

Of course that's all speculation on my part, which I think we all need to remember that a lot of what we're saying is just that. Not doing so can lead to a lot of useless bickering.

 

[Candice_XX]

[MENTION=1939]Dave[/MENTION]

Thanks for the in-sight!

As for things that do not cause war I had in my mind race and cultural extinctions and economic extinction, but you know what these situations: either take place through the years and suddenly you realise your minority does not exist (see Balkans in general),
or either were done to very poor nations (see Palestine) or nations "under construction" (see Armenian genocide).

3,000 deaths at once was a big hit. So big I can see the people's reaction. But if this would happen to Africa that would be cool. It was just the hit for America.
But why the war didn't stop after a few bombings?


Add: Anyway, I think that what Europe has done is that it has prevented wars. I am sure there would have been many more deaths if there was not cooperation between the states. That was what I had in mind as well.
The United Nations were assumed to play a similar role. But people in America do not feel connected with Afghanis as the Europeans (have to) do. A terrorist attack is not something you prevent, but the reaction tells a lot about your future. Managing a failure is the first step to build a success.
Remember that Europe is a construction nobody were friends after WWII.
And India had every right to kill every gentleman on their ground, so this peace thing is much more cultural than random.
It makes sense to react violently under that culture, but it still does not fit in me.

 

[~jet]

it would be in the best interests of the entire world I think.

or perhaps the oil companies could just learn to trade with the Middle East in a civilised manner, rather than forcing them into deals where they made money in exchange for basic human rights like food....but that would probably be too much to expect...


what I do not understand is how people can be so brainwashed to actually believe that this is all for the benifit of the middle east so that they can have democracy and freedom etc, when the USA is perfectly happy to limit or ignore the freedom of so many others because their corrupt leaders support them, or simply because they have nothing of benifit to the US.

Well that's my point;

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Whether for profit or power, these tactics are still in play, and people will always fall for them.

 

[bamf]

Nearly ten years and billions upon billions of dollars to kill tens of thousands of civilians in response to 3000+ civilian deaths is completely asinine and irresponsible in my opinion. To celebrate this like a victory makes me angry.

Hooray, an asshole is dead, and his death has done absolutely nothing to end the fruitless "War on Terror." If anything, I could see it reinvigorating American civilian support for armed "intervention" to continue in Afghanistan and to be started elsewhere.