Bin Laden is Dead - Page 8
Old 05-02-2011, 03:51 PM   #141 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
The evidence provided has suggested it. C'mon man....
Oh man Claudius, you cant believe what you see on tv don't you know.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 03:53 PM   #142 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
Did they cheer afterwards: Yes. Did they say they would do it again: yes. Did they walk into town with the intention: Yes.

Anything more?
Were the people in the town innocent of any wrong doing and did they kill them without prejudice?
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 03:59 PM   #143 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
I'd be curious to hear what you think should have happened and how it should have gone down. Don't forget we're dealing with Pakistan here where, by all accounts and for some strange reason, al-Qaeda is allowed to exist - their leader holed up in a mansion next to retired military personnel.
i have already said multiple times in this thread that i am not sure what could have been done and that i am not passing judgment on things because we don't know what actually happened. that said, i oppose the notion that someone could be 100% ok with his death and with the assasination because it raises some particularly difficult complications that increase instability and risk retaliation. perhaps it is the only thing that could be done, but i don't see how anyone can be so positive. surely questions can be asked, no?

the question is complicated and the answer will have to be complicated too. i was responding, mostly, to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
He was guilty of mass murder and was the head of a whackjob terrorist organization. You take him out. It's as simple as that. No need for a trial, no need to keep him around. No need to get answers. He was clear about what he'd done, why he did it and what his ultimate goal was.
the problem for me there is the lack of any kind of process. it leads, very quickly, to the questions i have raised here about who gets to decide. it's not that i think, necessarily, that this is wrong, just that we have to be ready for the aftermath. i'm not sure that the world is any safer now that he has beeen 'martyred'.

so there's my answer to your question. how about you answer one of mine?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:02 PM   #144 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Member
 
griffthecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: toronto
Posts: 219
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
You sir, are ass backwards. Sure, you could make that video. Would you also put a call out for your followers to rape and kill 14 year old girls wherever they found them? And what if they did? I believe that'd make you guilty of something horrendous.
He's the only militant leader to call for attacks on the US? There will always be someone asking for that. If his followers do it, "he (or He) told me to", is not a valid defense.

My only point is that there is blood on the hands of both sides.
griffthecat is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:11 PM   #145 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Member
 
griffthecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: toronto
Posts: 219
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i have already said multiple times in this thread that i am not sure what could have been done and that i am not passing judgment on things because we don't know what actually happened. that said, i oppose the notion that someone could be 100% ok with his death and with the assasination because it raises some particularly difficult complications that increase instability and risk retaliation. perhaps it is the only thing that could be done, but i don't see how anyone can be so positive. surely questions can be asked, no?

the question is complicated and the answer will have to be complicated too. i was responding, mostly, to this:



the problem for me there is the lack of any kind of process. it leads, very quickly, to the questions i have raised here about who gets to decide. it's not that i think, necessarily, that this is wrong, just that we have to be ready for the aftermath. i'm not sure that the world is any safer now that he has beeen 'martyred'.

so there's my answer to your question. how about you answer one of mine?
Agreed.

The only way you win is by putting this man to trial. You watch him bite his nails, blow his nose, scratch his head, etc. Show everyone how regular he is over a period of time. Hopefully you see him crack. The US have now made this man more of a cause than he previously was and perhaps inspired someone far worse to take his place.
griffthecat is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:23 PM   #146 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,931
Representing:
Default

Questions definitely need to be asked. And all the stuff that drives people to extremes needs to be attended to bit by bit. The torture has to stop. The Palestinian occupation has to come to an end. The new democratic impulses have to be tended to with care, and no longer betrayed by the need to support tyrants for our economic interests.

At the same time, it has to be recognized that the solutions that bin Laden proposed lost a lot of traction, and are not as threatening as they once were. I think the world was already safer without bin Laden dead, and this simply allows for some closure. What happens over the next few years is going to be very important, and I would hope that the US allows for new directions to be taken under international auspices, and not just by the continued exertion of their power, because it is limited (ten years of mess that lies in the wake of 9/11 should make that clear).
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:29 PM   #147 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i have already said multiple times in this thread that i am not sure what could have been done and that i am not passing judgment on things because we don't know what actually happened. that said, i oppose the notion that someone could be 100% ok with his death and with the assasination because it raises some particularly difficult complications that increase instability and risk retaliation. perhaps it is the only thing that could be done, but i don't see how anyone can be so positive. surely questions can be asked, no?

the question is complicated and the answer will have to be complicated too. i was responding, mostly, to this:



the problem for me there is the lack of any kind of process. it leads, very quickly, to the questions i have raised here about who gets to decide. it's not that i think, necessarily, that this is wrong, just that we have to be ready for the aftermath. i'm not sure that the world is any safer now that he has beeen 'martyred'.

so there's my answer to your question. how about you answer one of mine?
I don't know what you're asking me. You say it isn't wrong, I say it isn't wrong. Am I worried about some sort of backlash? Yes. I worried when I saw the college kids hooting and hollering in front of the White House. I worry how that might look to people in the Middle East - the ones who have legitimate grievances with the United States. I do think it would have created a far worse situation had he been tried and that, coupled with the fact he never hid who he was, what he stood for and what he expected his followers to do, makes me believe that it all would have been just for show. He was a Saudi jihadist who hopped around and hid in whatever country was sympathetic and corrupt enough to take him in and support him. He was hated all over the world and viewed as a saviour only by the lunatic fringe. And because of all of that, the lack of process doesn't worry me at all.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:38 PM   #148 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,593
Representing:
Default

these are the questions i was hoping you would answer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i am suggesting that being ok with an assasination means you should probably be ok if one goes the other way. could you tell me how this is wrong? (ie are you ok with one going the other way? if not, what is the difference?)

how can you have a big problem with us intervention into other sovereign nations, but be totally ok with this assasination on foreign soil? is it just because he was a bad guy? what am i missing here?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:41 PM   #149 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,931
Representing:
Default

There was quite a bit of process. The Bush administration gave a huge amount of support, with money and military wares, to a military dictator of basically a failed state, and hoped for the best in terms of cooperation. That didn't just make getting Osama very difficult - it fucked Canadians fighting in Afghanistan, as well as Afghans themselves, it brought destabilization between Pakistan and India, and complicated already difficulted relations with Iran and China as well. The processes that were tried failed miserably. By showing that this guy cannot live out his life with the blessings of a corrupt military regime, the idea of moving towards stability becomes far more of a possibility. Now it's important to come up with much better good-faith alternatives from the start.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:46 PM   #150 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,593
Representing:
Default

i'm still not convinced, even if that is true, that when diplomacy doesn't work the way you want it to the next step should be secretive armed intervention. that sets the kind of precendent that truly does scare me, and it immediately begs the question of what happens when the roles are reversed. this is the question that no one who supports this action has been willing to explain to me. what happens when another nation says that they have not been able to get us cooperation or canadian cooperation, and then carry out an assasination on our soil? is that ok?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:51 PM   #151 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
these are the questions i was hoping you would answer:
If by the 'other way' you mean if something like that were to happen here, I don't know how to answer that, because it would never happen here. We don't have a corrupt government who harbor and bankroll terrorists.

And yes, he was a criminal, being given safe haven by a country supposedly working with the US.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 04:58 PM   #152 (permalink)
a Rhymenoceros

Senior Member
 
NaturallyStoned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 595
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
If by the 'other way' you mean if something like that were to happen here, I don't know how to answer that, because it would never happen here. We don't have a corrupt government who harbor and bankroll terrorists.

And yes, he was a criminal, being given safe haven by a country supposedly working with the US.
I assume you'd be a-ok with a bunch of Chilean and East-Timorean troops storming Henry Kissinger's US residence and shooting him to kill?
NaturallyStoned is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:02 PM   #153 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
If by the 'other way' you mean if something like that were to happen here, I don't know how to answer that, because it would never happen here. We don't have a corrupt government who harbor and bankroll terrorists.

And yes, he was a criminal, being given safe haven by a country supposedly working with the US.
well then, indeed, we have a significant divergence of opinion. i don't think it's ok to decide who is bad and then go and take them out witout any kind of bilateral or international agreement. and i think it sets a terrible precendent going the other way. if sovereign nations are ok to decide who they think is bad enough to assasinate we have just thrown international law out the window.

and don't be quite so sure that we don't have anyone living in canada or the us that another nation would deem to have committed acts of terror. remember that, if we go with the 'assasination attempts are ok' idea, we don't always get to make that distinction.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:14 PM   #154 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,931
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
i'm still not convinced, even if that is true, that when diplomacy doesn't work the way you want it to the next step should be secretive armed intervention. that sets the kind of precendent that truly does scare me, and it immediately begs the question of what happens when the roles are reversed. this is the question that no one who supports this action has been willing to explain to me. what happens when another nation says that they have not been able to get us cooperation or canadian cooperation, and then carry out an assasination on our soil? is that ok?
I would say that there needs to be a means to an end other than assassination that involves international consensus. Right now Spain is trying to get those in the Bush administration tried for war crimes. They clearly have not had support in that process, but they have not been promised support and then had the US actively working against it. And the prosecutors in Spain remain very confident that they will be able to get what they want eventually.

Little by little it is an international consensus that is gaining in strength, while militaristic solutions are seen as being destabilizing from the start. The problem here was so many years of bad-faith agreements that were a problem for everyone other than bin Laden and illegitimate power in numerous places. Even if the US chooses to drag itself into the muck rather than work towards international consensus, there will be a limit to what they can do outside of whatever consensus comes about.

If there were an obviously unsupportable figure the likes of a bin Laden taking refuge in Canada, and Canada promised to do everything we could to find him while accepting financial and military support, but nevertheless did nothing in the hopes of continued benefits - and if Canada had become a state under the constant abuses of war measures with no accountability to speak of - then sure - fire away and get the guy that promises continued acts of death and destruction against innocent people. I'd have no problem with that. As a Canadian I would welcome it. And I think much of the same might be seen on Al Jazeera right now. I just wish I had Al Jazeera.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:30 PM   #155 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,931
Representing:
Default

Here is some opinion and analysis courtesy of Al Jazeera's website- LINK

Quote:
What now?

While it has continued to invoke Islam and Jihad to rally support and to incite against non-Muslims, in reality its organisation and outreach, whether through the web or the use of modern technology, has been at the heart of its appeal as a global network.

Be that as it may, the physical death of bin Laden will no doubt lead to a serious psychological and inspirational setback for al-Qaeda fighters and their causes.

But for the Muslim world, bin Laden has already been made irrelevant by the Arab Spring that underlined the meaning of peoples power through peaceful means.

It is also worth recalling that bin Laden's al-Qaeda and its affiliates have killed far more Arabs and Muslims than they did Westerners.

And it was only after they failed to garner real support in the Arab world that they ran back to Afghanistan and began to target the West.

After long hijacking Arab and Muslim causes through its bloody attacks on Western targets, al-Qaeda has been discredited since 9/11 and its organisational capacity diminished by Western counter terror measures.

Al-Qaeda's bin Laden has provided the Bush administration with the excuse to launch its disastrous and costly wars in the greater Middle East.

As expected, Washington's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan continued to provide al-Qaeda with fresh recruits and support in the Muslim world and perpetuate a cycle of violence that ripped through the region for the last decade.

However, it has been the more implicit and less costly US and Western intelligence services that succeeded to a large degree in curtailing al-Qaeda activities, limiting the movement of its leaders that eventually led to his killing.

So what will this mean for the US war in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Certainly Washington has less reason or justification to wage a war in Afghanistan now that bin Laden is no more.

It might also find more readiness among certain Taliban leaders in the absence of the thorniest issue of al-Qaeda, to make a deal that insures a power sharing arrangement in favour of the Taliban in return for curbing the use of Afghanistan by al-Qaeda to export "terrorism".

Bin Laden will continue to be a distraction for the short term, and especially if some of al-Qaeda groups muster revenge attacks.

But in the long term, it is the historical transformations in the Arab and Muslim world that will eventually close the book on al-Qaeda.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:39 PM   #156 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,931
Representing:
Default

I like this one a lot - does a much better job of expressing what I was after - and improves my vocabulary. It is sad that we have nothing of this level in the west, and little access to Al Jazeera itself (maybe that can change now).

LINK

Quote:
Archaeology of power

Whether Pygmalion or Narcissus, Obama and Osama share a realist's vision of how power is wielded.

As a result, Obama's state and Osama's base (literally, "Qaeda")-less state shamelessly deploy violence. Both are thus in love with a Galatea that is caught in an unstoppable archaeology of death and war-making.

Regardless of victimhood or guilt, both are victims of the ideals and ideas they are in love with, and in their pursuit – a Godly transcendence or the deity of modernism and capitalism – they construct myths, guards, weaponry, and languages to match.

These are the ornaments of power with which they adorn their Galateas.

True, Osama is guilty of mass murder. The 3,000 lives killed heinously, and his mis-reading of Islam confound Shia and Sunni.

Those Muslims who celebrated bin Laden's acts of mass murder are guilty by association. The doctors of Islam should have declared the age of war between Islam and the abode of non-Islam as null and without foundation in the Quran, or in many an exegesis in diverse schools of Islamic thought.

Osama's Galatea was sculpted, conveniently, out of a love with the ideal of "defence" of the "Umma", the global Islamic community.

To that end, he sculpted not an object of love, but maybe a counter-barbarity pitted against the barbarity that he thinks the capitalists, the secularists and their clients heaped on his "Umma", as if he were the "commander of the faithful".

Obama, ex-officio commander-in-chief, another type of faith, may be not as guilty as his predecessor in the grotesque violations of human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, but sculpted his own barbarity out of the rallying myths (for country, sovereignty, compatriots, God, liberalism, democracy) – a brand of "love" – in the name of civility.

Countries had to be invaded (under Bush) and maintained by Obama, an incarceration system had to be invented (Guantanamo Bay), also still continuous under Obama – and a senseless war against "terror", authored by the neo-cons and sustained, in the name of a similar idea of love for country, and its sanctity.

Contemplate, not celebrate

Many Muslims did celebrate when Osama inflicted pain on the US. That was wrong. Many more did not. Today there is a reversal of roles: Americans celebrating as the news of Osama's killing was made public.

The killing of Osama was a secret the Obama administration did well to hide from the world till after Will and Kate's wedding in Britain.

US citizens are free to celebrate as much as they like. But they are also presented with a chance to contemplate. American lives – regardless of numbers – must be placed in terms of value and worth on equal footing with those of all humans regardless of colour, ethnicity, nationality, or creed.

When their elected governments support dictators – Mubarak, Ben Ali, Abdallah Al-Saleh, even Gaddafi – arm them, shield them with undeserved legitimacy and funding, they must contemplate the consequences of the governments they democratically place in the White House.

Of those consequences, the torture regimes, deaths, exiles, exclusion, and war by proxy – in Gaza and Lebanon - the invasion of Iraq and attendant regimes of secrecy, rendition flights, incarceration – in which Americans are guilty directly or by association in the killing of non-American lives.

Their celebration will be more meaningful only if they heed the evil of indifference or ignorance of their successive elected administrations, with varying degrees and under different circumstances, of the acts committed in their name for myths that they cherish and love – but rarely reflect upon.

Celebration of fallen enemies – without self-reflection – may be no more worthy than celebrating a victory at a football match.

Osama no more – Islam is not Osama

Arab revolutions erupted and triumphed in Tunisia and Egypt, partly burying Osama's Galatea. To an extent, they demonstrated in a vivid way that the "abode of Islam" is not blood-thirsty but freedom-thirsty.

But now Osama lays a soulless body, a trophy, already being paraded as a symbol of a hollow victory. Another body amid the countless fatalities in a senseless hubris and duel in which there are no innocents.

Osama's death should – and one prays, will – give Arabs and Muslims a reprieve from chaos and violence, and a moment to take stock that Osama's journeys delivered them against the Soviets but shackled them to systems of language, incarceration, profiling, and violence neither they nor the US and its allies can ever win.

In his stead there are new voices and forces of Islam which are pushing the boundaries of freedom to their most logical conclusion: an Islam in love with new conceptions of Galatea – of toleration, good government, humane treatment of fellow citizens, transparent governance, fair and free competition, gender-friendly politics, and fair slicing of the economic cake. To show that Muslims are in love with a beautiful Islam.

In his stead rises Essam El-Iryan, Abd Elmounim Abou El-Futuh, and Mohammed Mursi among others, suggesting new possibilities for the linkage of Islam and the vision of politics from a Muslim perspective.

Not an end but a new beginning

For now, one chapter has been read in the book of US-Arab relations. In this chapter, Obama killed Osama.

For Osama, as is written in the holy Quran: "Say: The Angel of Death put in charge of you, will (duly) take your souls: Then shall ye be brought back to your Lord." There awaits his judgment.

For Obama, he killed Osama – legally or not is not the point.

The point is that this moment will form a meaningful moment only if the ghosts of hatred, hubris, and violence are laid to rest – with Osama – and the endless witch-hunt for the timeless terrorist Muslim or Osamas re-incarnate is reflected on for the sake of permanent reconciliation and collective healing – and a collective Galatea is sculpted of new futures, new understanding, and new possibilities…
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:51 PM   #157 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Captain Ding Dong
 
Aar_Canada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Catharines
Posts: 4,924
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
well then, indeed, we have a significant divergence of opinion. i don't think it's ok to decide who is bad and then go and take them out witout any kind of bilateral or international agreement. and i think it sets a terrible precendent going the other way. if sovereign nations are ok to decide who they think is bad enough to assasinate we have just thrown international law out the window.

and don't be quite so sure that we don't have anyone living in canada or the us that another nation would deem to have committed acts of terror. remember that, if we go with the 'assasination attempts are ok' idea, we don't always get to make that distinction.
I know what you're saying, I just don't think it applies here at all.
Aar_Canada is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 06:00 PM   #158 (permalink)
a paranoid android

My name is Iņigo Montoya

 
Belsius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 10,547
Representing:
Default

I havent read this whole thread, but I hope someone posted the names of all the innocent people killed in Iraq and afghanistan. But sadly, I dont think the site has enough space for it.

Theres some justice for ya.
Belsius is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 06:07 PM   #159 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,593
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aar_Canada View Post
I know what you're saying, I just don't think it applies here at all.
why?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 06:09 PM   #160 (permalink)
is not changing this sig until we win a playoff series

everyones a critic
 
th3answ3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,305
Representing:
Default

so is it 100% they killed him?
th3answ3r is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24