|
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. |
On May 02 2011 19:56 EternaL_9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:47 vyyye wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 EternaL_9 wrote:On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote: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'm sure parties were thrown when Hitler was killed. Hitler, along with Osama, were mass murderers of innocent people. He's the leader of Al'Qaeda, the people we are AT WAR with. Killing their leader DOES mark an achievement and step forward in the war. If Al'qaeda killed Obama it would be an achievement for them too. People aren't celebrating the mere FACT that he was killed. They're celebrating the fact that this is a step forward in the war, at least at a moral standpoint. Americans, who've had friends / neighbors over seas fighting everyday in this war DESERVE to celebrate this achievement. Saying otherwise is pretty idiotic, and is just a way for you to get attention by flaming this thread. If I were to say to every jew back when Hitler was killed who was elated, "how dare you celebrate this MANS death! Shame on you!" is fucking stupid. TLDR there's a bunch of attention whore's in this thread who have found a way to get attention - by ridiculing anyone who is happy Osama is gone. That's not a fair comparison. Hitler was seen as (and was a) threat to the world and people were afraid of a Nazi occupation, of course celebrations were had when Germany was defeated. People weren't afraid of Osama? the man who essentially killed thousands of americans? it's a fine comparison.. No, people were not afraid of a Taliban occupation and of Osama committing genocide. Sorry, they're just different ball groups. 3000 dead is obviously a tragedy, but don't compare Osama's terrorism to World War II.
|
On May 02 2011 19:57 Fraidnot wrote:Well it weakens al-Qaeda for starters, and acts as an example to others who hope to attack America and get away with it.
Because the goal of fundamentalist is to "get away with it".....
No offense sir but this attitude is exactly why these terrorists still target the USA. Some of your people actually belief that you can go to war against people who have absolutely nothing to lose and win. Violence will never be the answer to terrorism because all it does is creating more terrorists. You much rather have to persuade the people they live with that you are of no danger to them and help them to recover economically. This way all radical elements would lose their support and could not sustain their actions. Or you can go fight another 50 wars and just kill a few billion people.
|
On May 02 2011 19:54 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:48 FliedLice wrote:On May 02 2011 19:39 Fraidnot wrote:On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote: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: [quote]
"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? Since the UN and the international court in den haag? Oh, wow somebody who actually believes in the power of a system that has absolutely no power over it's strongest members.
We believe in what the UN and the international court stand for. It's sad that some governments ignore it, but if every country would just join the UN and follow its laws and rules, there is no doubt in my mind that the world would be a far better place. The strongest members should be the ones standing closest to the rules, not the ones ignoring them because noone can't do anything about them breaking the rules anyways. "From great power comes great responsibility", etc.
Killing Osama might have been the easiest way, but it was definatly not the best way. It was an act of vengeance, not justice... and we all know that vengeance never came to a good end.
Also, with the "throw a party because Hitler/Osama is dead" comparisions: - Hitler killed himself, Osama was killed. - Hitlers death ended a war, Osamas death probably started one.
|
So I heard Emmanuel Goldstein is dead?
|
On May 02 2011 20:07 DoXa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:05 Roggay wrote:On May 02 2011 20:01 fearus wrote: I bet someone is going to claim that $25 Million reward. And be the target for terrorists? It would be pretty stupid. They for sure have a way to do it anonymously. And it was raised to $50 Million not to long ago.
As far as i know these rewards do not include the capture by soldiers. Was the same with Saddam.
|
I guess this is exactly what Obama needed, now I will say I'm not very updated in the current polls(?) in the US but from news over here I've heard that they don't favour Democrats at least as clear as the election when he won.
Also imagine being the guy who pulled the trigger. as a post before me mentioned he would be a target for Al-Qaeda but a Hero in the west, what to do, what to do.
|
@cdhstarbuck
Sorry, but saying that outlawing child pornography is compromising the (UN) human rights by any means is just ridiculous. The opposite is true. You should probably read them.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 02 2011 20:02 cdhstarbuck wrote: So if I am excluding Bin Laden from the human rights declaration (in the sense he didn't get a trial because thats what the discussion is about; I know he was shot and killed in a firefight) I am against human rights in general? What the f**? By that logic, a ton of governments around the world don't give a *** about the human rights declaration. Just thinking about free speech and governments censoring politically wrong views or child pornography. Wikileaks also pops to mind.
Don't get me wrong, some things are bad - out of the examples above child pornography should be censored in my opinion. However I very rarely see people complain about the censoring of those things. Even more rare are the people who say that the governments are against human rights altogether because of that.
Summary: Saying that people are against human rights because they make exceptions in extreme cases is ridiculous.
I highlighted the relevant words. Yes, it does mean exactly that. Generality of human rights means that you cannot make exceptions. The fact that many people and nations do, is truly sad, but it does not change the fact that if you truly subscribe to the idea of general human rights, they MUST necessarily apply to everyone.
|
On May 02 2011 19:51 Awesomeness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:43 Fraidnot wrote:
Locke died along time ago. Just because someone believes that someone shouldn't have human rights doesn't mean he can't believe that other people should have them. no. You either believe in universal human rights or you don't. If you exclude anyone from them, they become meaningless and you can justify just about anything, because you are following your own moral code. Once again: Bin Laden was killed in a gunfight, so this rules don't apply here so his rights were not violated by this standards. That's not true, because "your own moral code" (which may be shared by many people) is still a moral code that has rules and restrictions that don't allow for the justification of everything. Universal human rights was written up by a man, he was just about as authoritative on the issue as just about any other man, and so it doesn't make it a universal law that all men should blindly follow his moral code.
|
On May 02 2011 20:06 Electric.Jesus wrote: Could we please stop the Hitler comparison? This is totally stupid for two reasons:
a) compared to Hitler Bin Laden was only a minor Pain in the ass. Sure, he killed 3.000 people in the US which is a vicious crime and a human tragedy. But lets face it, Hitler had a whole nation and several allied nations behind him which allowed him to produce death tolls in the millions. Whereas a terrorist can only create the fear of killing people on a grander scale, a tyrant leader of a powerful nation can actually do it. b) Hitlers death was a result of Germany and its allies losing the war. He killed himself because all was lost for the Axis. This is not the case with Bin Laden; his network still exists. This is also the reaons why some people here correctly point out that celebrating Hitler's death was essentially celebrating the end of the war, since Hitler's death was symbolic for that. Bin Ladens death, however, is not equivalent to victory over Al-quaeda (even if the media want to convince you of the oppsite).
and we knew hitler was 100% behind the death at the jews. same cannot be said about osama, like i dont know 100% who is truely responsible for 9/11. we just dont kno, and thatz why him dying kinda made me upset (he deserved it ofcouse) since i wanted the man to go on trial and see what he has to say.
|
On May 02 2011 20:02 cdhstarbuck wrote: So if I am excluding Bin Laden from the human rights declaration (in the sense he didn't get a trial because thats what the discussion is about; I know he was shot and killed in a firefight) I am against human rights in general? What the f**? By that logic, a ton of governments around the world don't give a *** about the human rights declaration. Just thinking about free speech and governments censoring politically wrong views or child pornography. Wikileaks also pops to mind.
Don't get me wrong, some things are bad - out of the examples above child pornography should be censored in my opinion. However I very rarely see people complain about the censoring of those things. Even more rare are the people who say that the governments are against human rights altogether because of that.
Summary: Saying that people are against human rights because they make exceptions in extreme cases is ridiculous.
'Cause you seriously think most government give a shit about human rights? Sometimes it's useful (like in Lybia for French president) but most of the time it's bullshit that prevent them from doing what they want to do. An US example, Guantanamo. It's totally against HR, but freaking useful for the US government.
|
On May 02 2011 20:10 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:51 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:43 Fraidnot wrote:
Locke died along time ago. Just because someone believes that someone shouldn't have human rights doesn't mean he can't believe that other people should have them. no. You either believe in universal human rights or you don't. If you exclude anyone from them, they become meaningless and you can justify just about anything, because you are following your own moral code. Once again: Bin Laden was killed in a gunfight, so this rules don't apply here so his rights were not violated by this standards. That's not true, because "your own moral code" (which may be shared by many people) is still a moral code that has rules and restrictions that don't allow for the justification of everything. Universal human rights was written up by a man, he was just about as authoritative on the issue as just about any other man, and so it doesn't make it a universal law that all men should blindly follow his moral code.
.....then what you are believing in isn't universial human rights.
edit: or talking about etc
|
Zurich15326 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:02 Angra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 18:56 mathemagician1986 wrote:On May 02 2011 18:54 LedFarmer wrote: I have lost a lot of respect for Europeans after reading some responses in this thread.
My brother was murdered, and his killer was never put to justice.
I understand that killing the person who killed my brother would not bring him back.
However it would make me feel good knowing that the person who took my brothers life was no longer living.
My guess is a lot of people here in this thread have never had someone close to them killed, or they would have a different perspective on this issue.
Also lots of people are looking at Americans celebrating the death of Osama, actually what is occurring is the celebration of justice, apparently a concept that some people don't understand. Execution isn't justice. But I understand that the US has a different viewpoint on this matter. If Germany were in the exact situation the US has been in with this, Germany's citizens would react in literally the exact same way. Sorry. Now please stop with all this country superiority bullshit. No they would not. Please. Even if that nuke Al quaida is babbling about blows up in Munich Germans will ask for an faster exit out of nuclear power rather than for the death of the attackers. And I am only half joking.
|
Very convenient. Buried at sea, so no proof can be given.
Plus, a lot of contradictory information: he was killed by a shot in the head when he was 'resisting', but the attack was conducted by 2 helicopters? And one of the 2 went down but 'no american was harmed'? And all this happened on friday, but today he has already beed buried (dumped) to the sea?
Given that we have not seen any image of him for the last 5 years, I give much more credit to the reports that he died of tuberculosis back in 2003.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2011 20:10 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:51 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:43 Fraidnot wrote:
Locke died along time ago. Just because someone believes that someone shouldn't have human rights doesn't mean he can't believe that other people should have them. no. You either believe in universal human rights or you don't. If you exclude anyone from them, they become meaningless and you can justify just about anything, because you are following your own moral code. Once again: Bin Laden was killed in a gunfight, so this rules don't apply here so his rights were not violated by this standards. That's not true, because "your own moral code" (which may be shared by many people) is still a moral code that has rules and restrictions that don't allow for the justification of everything. Universal human rights was written up by a man, he was just about as authoritative on the issue as just about any other man, and so it doesn't make it a universal law that all men should blindly follow his moral code.
They weren't produce by a man. They're the produce of modernity and political liberalism, which took, at least 2 centuries and dozens of men.
|
On May 02 2011 20:10 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:06 Electric.Jesus wrote: Could we please stop the Hitler comparison? This is totally stupid for two reasons:
a) compared to Hitler Bin Laden was only a minor Pain in the ass. Sure, he killed 3.000 people in the US which is a vicious crime and a human tragedy. But lets face it, Hitler had a whole nation and several allied nations behind him which allowed him to produce death tolls in the millions. Whereas a terrorist can only create the fear of killing people on a grander scale, a tyrant leader of a powerful nation can actually do it. b) Hitlers death was a result of Germany and its allies losing the war. He killed himself because all was lost for the Axis. This is not the case with Bin Laden; his network still exists. This is also the reaons why some people here correctly point out that celebrating Hitler's death was essentially celebrating the end of the war, since Hitler's death was symbolic for that. Bin Ladens death, however, is not equivalent to victory over Al-quaeda (even if the media want to convince you of the oppsite). and we knew hitler was 100% behind the death at the jews. same cannot be said about osama, like i dont know 100% who is truely responsible for 9/11. we just dont kno, and thatz why him dying kinda made me upset (he deserved it ofcouse) since i wanted the man to go on trial and see what he has to say.
he said in a interview years ago that he wasnt behind the attacks...
|
The 9/11 truthers are here, which means I'm out. It was fun talking to the rational people I disagreed with but all good things must come to an end apparently.
|
On May 02 2011 20:10 Fraidnot wrote:
That's not true, because "your own moral code" (which may be shared by many people) is still a moral code that has rules and restrictions that don't allow for the justification of everything. Universal human rights was written up by a man, he was just about as authoritative on the issue as just about any other man, and so it doesn't make it a universal law that all men should blindly follow his moral code.
I believe the human race should have basic ground rules on how to threat each other that should be followed by everyone.(also by the governments) If everyone would live by his moral code, we would live in an anarchy. I think the UN-human rights are the best paper on setting up this ground rules yet. I would like you to read them and then tell me the article you disagree with.
|
On May 02 2011 20:14 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:10 Fraidnot wrote:On May 02 2011 19:51 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:43 Fraidnot wrote:
Locke died along time ago. Just because someone believes that someone shouldn't have human rights doesn't mean he can't believe that other people should have them. no. You either believe in universal human rights or you don't. If you exclude anyone from them, they become meaningless and you can justify just about anything, because you are following your own moral code. Once again: Bin Laden was killed in a gunfight, so this rules don't apply here so his rights were not violated by this standards. That's not true, because "your own moral code" (which may be shared by many people) is still a moral code that has rules and restrictions that don't allow for the justification of everything. Universal human rights was written up by a man, he was just about as authoritative on the issue as just about any other man, and so it doesn't make it a universal law that all men should blindly follow his moral code. .....then what you are believing in isn't universial human rights. edit: or talking about etc I think that's been established already
|
On May 02 2011 20:15 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:10 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:On May 02 2011 20:06 Electric.Jesus wrote: Could we please stop the Hitler comparison? This is totally stupid for two reasons:
a) compared to Hitler Bin Laden was only a minor Pain in the ass. Sure, he killed 3.000 people in the US which is a vicious crime and a human tragedy. But lets face it, Hitler had a whole nation and several allied nations behind him which allowed him to produce death tolls in the millions. Whereas a terrorist can only create the fear of killing people on a grander scale, a tyrant leader of a powerful nation can actually do it. b) Hitlers death was a result of Germany and its allies losing the war. He killed himself because all was lost for the Axis. This is not the case with Bin Laden; his network still exists. This is also the reaons why some people here correctly point out that celebrating Hitler's death was essentially celebrating the end of the war, since Hitler's death was symbolic for that. Bin Ladens death, however, is not equivalent to victory over Al-quaeda (even if the media want to convince you of the oppsite). and we knew hitler was 100% behind the death at the jews. same cannot be said about osama, like i dont know 100% who is truely responsible for 9/11. we just dont kno, and thatz why him dying kinda made me upset (he deserved it ofcouse) since i wanted the man to go on trial and see what he has to say. he said in a interview years ago that he wasnt behind the attacks...
There are tapes of him bragging about the attacks, where in gods name do you people find this stuff.
|
|
|
|