|
Keep it civil guys.
Alright I am sick of warning people: Trolling, flame baiting, and derailing will result in insta bans.
The same goes for conspiracy theorists and stupidity generally.
Confirmation was as follows
- On-site DNA test which came back as 99% positive.
- photos of face sent to CIA and confirmed with photo analysis
- confirmed by 20 year old wife who live in pakistan.
This thread is specifically dedicated to the details surrounding the raid/his death. |
you can't deny it's a violation of Geneva convention. Just that your country doesn't give a shit about it, 'cause now you can do it.
|
It will be interesting to judge the historical question of whether a backlash from killing him will make things worse than had he just petered out.
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware.
|
On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad.
I agree. The loss of a human life is sad no matter what that person did since they all believe they are doing the right thing. This celebration is just going to raise the determination of the terrorists to counter-attack. Killing someone is not justice since it will just incite more violence.
|
On May 02 2011 19:25 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:23 HwangjaeTerran wrote:On May 02 2011 19:12 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:11 HwangjaeTerran wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. So it's okay to start killing American's in random ? That's pretty crazy, as the poster on the last page said: he believes in peace and justice for all! Considering that they do have some control over their own Defence Force. + Show Spoiler +still not hating, just pointing out flaws in logic! What? I don't understand what you mean. Who's 'killing American's in random?" Well, anyone can as you have no rights by your own definition. I do agree with your logic to some extent but it does have a whole bunch of flaws. When one man commits heinous crimes, gets caught and loses his human rights, whole democracies do it and hide it all with their "justice" ? Sounds like it's essential to pick the right side. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Everybody, by default, has rights. If you make the choice to destroy the lives of other people, you are no longer entitled to those same rights. I know that corporations and government are crooked, but that's for an entirely different conversation.
I understood you well enough.
Government has no power of it's own, people give them the power through democracy.
Now I don't believe in democracy but people still have the power to stop any wars and mass murders.
Watching civilians die and their lives destroyed because of your own holy wars...
I'm not sure how that is different from Hitler not physically being there throwing jews in the furnace or Bin Laden being there hijacking planes.
It sounds a bit pacifistic, maybe it is.
|
On May 02 2011 19:29 Imres wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. You, sir, are an enemy of democracy and human right. I don't know how to spell it in english, but human rights cannot be ignore/forgotten, it's their privilege and nature.
If you want to deal in absolutes and absurd oversimplifications, then go ahead. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your exact definition and opinion on what human rights should be isn't perfect? Or even the opinion of the UN?
Just because I think horrible crimes against humanity should strip you of total equality as a person, I'm an enemy against human rights and democracy? Grow up.
|
On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler? And you throw a party?
I am guessing some people did indeed throw a party after Hitler died.
And stop with the stupid hate against the American people celebrating.
|
On May 02 2011 19:28 zZygote wrote:
At first I thought a trial was more appropriate, but for a man of his actions and being the "figure" that represents all terrorism, I'm kind of glad it was done this way. I wouldn't condone this act as being the most appropriate, but it is definitely a way that has the least chance of having a biased trial.
Justice isn't something the courts can always handle. There was always a bounty on his head whether we liked it or not as a democratic society. I just personally see this more fitting because it put an end to a man who was:
a) already old
b) very ill
A bullet was very fitting to put an end to it to say the least. It would be just overkill to do anything else.
Here is the thing: your individual sense of justice is not relevant (or should not be). As someone in thie thread brilliently put it "your justice is not mine". The whole sense of a state under the rule of law (as the US is) is that you have an insitution who handles issues of law and justice based on a specific code (i.e. the written law). If you live in such a state then executing people at will because they are the bad guys is the grossest possible violation of your own core principles.
I want to point out that, according to what I have read, the Navy SEALs who klilled Bin Laden understood that which is why they tried to caprute him alive and killed him only after he refused to surrender and attacked them.
But the main point still stands: if a state defines itself as a democratic country under the rule of law it is quintessential that those laws are obeyed, even if it comes to prosecuting the most terrible criminal on earth.
|
On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler? And you throw a party?
You're damn right I do.
I get hookers and blow because that guy was an asshole.
|
5930 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler?
Nice strawman there.
|
On May 02 2011 19:35 Imres wrote:
you can't deny it's a violation of Geneva convention. Just that your country doesn't give a shit about it, 'cause now you can do it.
Killing Bin Laden violated the Geneva conventions? How?
|
It is really annoying that people spam the news everywhere. The man's significance was overblown anyway.
|
On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware.
Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq.
|
On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either.
It is. However that's not necessarily a bad thing. Every western country places certain limits on speech, ie for screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre or child pornography.
Recognizing certain rights as universal =/= recognizing them as unconditional.
|
On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Are you mentally retarded?
User was warned for this post
|
the people bickering in this thread are absolutely absurd. the geneva conventions? WWII? justice? torture? LOGIC? none of that was in the original post. and honestly im not sure anything i read made anysense. granted i didnt read the entire thread or even a large portion. war is insanity. and trying to use logic to justify it is absurd. because no one can be correct in that argument.
my personal view is that all life on earth should be peaceful and everyone should get along, no one should have to live in poverty and all should work and live equally yaddya yaddya yaddya. however as of right now, that would be a naive way to think about the world. governments, organizations, people fight. everyone fights. people arguing about torture, justics etc, sorry to burst your bubble but the world doesnt exist in some idealized vacuum.
osama got what he had coming to him. he killed my cousin whom was a firefighter, as well as thousands of others. all for a false cause and misguided principles. but thats life. maybe one day society will man the fuck up and learn that war is useless. until then the bloodshed continues.
|
On May 02 2011 19:37 partisan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:35 Imres wrote:
you can't deny it's a violation of Geneva convention. Just that your country doesn't give a shit about it, 'cause now you can do it. Killing Bin Laden violated the Geneva conventions? How?
People are talking about several different topics in this thread. A lot of the replies are fairly confusing because of this. I think he wasn't talking about Bin Laden but torture in Abu Ghraib.
|
On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq.
Since when has war been a legal matter?
|
What happens when we get a topic where EVERYONE believes they have the know how? This - a clusterfuck of coinciding opinions completely straying away from the original point of the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
