wiggin, you make many *shrugs* when you post. Is that your way out in case you're proven wrong?
wiggin, you make many *shrugs* when you post. Is that your way out in case you're proven wrong?
Maybe. But really, what's expected? Does anyone think an attempt to capture him and keep him in prison for life was likely? Maybe killing him would provoke retaliatory action, but keeping him in prison would certainly also provoke violent action, and might well have done so for a more extended period of time. And if the death penalty was going to be applied we're right back here, but with the addition of the effects from however long he spent in prison. And does anyone think he would or even should have just been left free?Originally Posted by Bitter Jeweler
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't think he should have been left free.
I guess, ten years after 9/11, I don't feel the same as if they would have got him in 2002.
Yeah, facebookies are now all a flutter with patriotism and flag profile pictures. *sigh*
There ought to be some national expectations, dammit. If the last decade was spent hunting down the "Master Mind" behind 9/11, and DHS and TSA has spent all this time on the effort, and treating everyone as a possible participant in their schemes....when can we expect a return to sanity?
Bin Laden being killed means a return to sanity? Or do we just continue treating the snake body whose head has been severed, and nothing will really change? FFS, I'm hearing officials from military and security branches basically saying "yay, a figure head is dead, but nothing has really changed".
I've got fucknuts defecating Bible verses left and right.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!Fast track departure from Iraq and Afghanistan. Bring all troops home NOW. Let the US return to protecting her citizens and borders, and end military interventions in other nations by calling it The War on Terrorism.
Time to end this shit. No reason to stay for "Nation Building" efforts, either.
Has anyone actually claimed that our main reason for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was to capture bin Laden?You are the queen of non-sequiturs.
Hope is the denial of reality
I thought she was just reposting Facebook crap. Lol?
Yeah, I'm probably the only person who can recall Bush saying we will hunt down Bin Laden, and bring him to "justice". Or that he was the figure head for Al Qaeda, or our domestic anti-terrorism policy when we deployed troops. Surely that had nothing to do with the changing face of America's security and international travel. Or our intelligence gathering, either. Probably had nothing to do with creating Homeland Security or TSA screenings. Or foreign policy connecting Iraq and Afghanistan, or Pakistan and Iran. It was all just my imagination, or something from a nightmare. Because I'm crazy.Has anyone actually claimed that our main reason for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was to capture bin Laden?
You must have missed the part where Bush also said that we're there to destroy al-Qaeda and international terrorism in general, not just to capture one individual.So yes, it was just your imagination.
Why is everyone here into giving people the benefit of the doubt?It's almost never warranted.
Hope is the denial of reality
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Come to think of it....Loki and many others here weren't even old enough to DRIVE in 2001, and were still in high school.
Okay, so you were just a teenager then. But your university education and considerate thought since then should tell you how utterly futile Bush's goals were. There is no way to combat international terrorism by deploying military troops. Guns, bullets, and tanks can kill Bin Laden or destroy people pledging alliance to Al Qaeda, or Taliban, or any other extremist group, but military force can't destroy an ideology.You must have missed the part where Bush also said that we're there to destroy al-Qaeda and international terrorism in general, not just to capture one individual.
And you and many others were apparently too old to have accurate memories. Coincidentally, if you're going to be condescending, at least do it to an intellectual inferior, though that's easier said than done.Come to think of it....Loki and many others here weren't even old enough to DRIVE in 2001, and were still in high school.
And how's this relevant to the price of strawberries in Palau?
Hope is the denial of reality
Why don't you turn on the television and see the thousands of people (mostly students) amassing in Lafayette Square, cheering and celebrating the death of Bin Laden. Acting as if it's the end of an era. Happy that some Mission has been Accomplished. Then remind again me how I'm the crazy one.
No time to actually follow the news, but I think this is very good news though long overdue. I can also understand people celebrating this.
What is flabberghasting to me is that I hear people say this operation took place inside Pakistan?
Congratulations America
Oh stop it, Loki. You want me to be too old to remember things accurately, but just old enough to sound condescending to younger people. *All the while inferring someone is smarter or dumber than the other.* Give it a rest before this thread starts sounding like a food fight in the lunchroom for 5th graders, like the other thread about the middle east.
Last edited by GGT; 05-02-2011 at 05:31 AM. Reason: *
The State Department has now issued a warning to any US citizen traveling anywhere in the world for any reason.
But combat and destroy are two different things. You certainly can combat international terrorism militarily. Terrorism is not an ideology, it's a behavior and a process, a tactical and operational tool to achieve a set of ends *which may or may not be ideological* and it is entirely apropos to use military force to disrupt or spoil such activity. Many countries use military or paramilitary forces to counter or respond to large-scale terrorism campaigns. It is somewhat less common in the 1st world which heavily utilize police in an environment predicated on the rule of law, but isn't really all that rare even there. Such campaigns involving the US prior to 9/11 always involved military deployments overseas so you may not consider them relevant analogs, but the French used military conscripts to combat the insurgency and terrorism in Algeria when it was a colony, Britain made use of the SAS in Northern Ireland and I know they participated in a counter-terrorism operation in Gibraltar.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 05-02-2011 at 06:05 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
"Terrorism" is too broad of a category, if we're going to be pedantic, Fuzzy. "Terrorism" may be a behavior and a process, but it's not limited to hijacking planes, or flying them into buildings as a suicide mission. You might say any black market syndicate uses "Terrorism" as a tactical tool for their own purposes (drug trafficking, sex trafficking, illegal border crossings, etc).
IMO it's silly to declare a War on certain things like the War against Drugs, or the War against Extremism. Especially since they're not really wars in the traditional sense. It's a misuse of the word War.
Well sure, but you said one can't combat international terrorism by deploying troops, and that the task Bush Jr. laid out *combating terrorism* was futile. Neither of these things is remotely true. Rhetorical phrases like "war on terrorism" are not meant as nor should be interpreted as literal statements.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Disturbing image of Osama bin Laden's body:
Spoiler:
Guess the US sites do not publish all the images?Well, here is the photo proof at least.
Also a good source is a guy that was Twittering about the raiding as it took place without knowing it was about Osama Bin Laden's capture and kill.
http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual
It happened in Abbotabad in Pakistan. There were a few choppers in the air, and then there was a 4-5 minute gunfight between the ground forces and presumably, Bin Laden's protectors.
Lol, and this is how the area looks now:
http://twitpic.com/4s8nfq
Edit: The photo above was reported fake. The U.S. states that they buried him in the ocean. They claim DNA tests as evidence, yet for technological reasons, doesn't it take a looooong time to get such test results? This is almost starting to sound fishy.
Last edited by Kazuha Vinland; 05-02-2011 at 10:38 AM.
Tomorrow is like an empty canvas that extends endlessly, what should I sketch on it?
^^That's somewhat disturbing..could you put in spoiler tags please?
Anyway I heard this on the radio today and didn't immediately believe it. I'm not sure if I still do. Could be Obama trying to boost his popularity.
It is also the eight anniversary of:
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Please, molecular biology has gotten a lot more sophisticated in recent years. They probably could have had data within an hour of getting it to a forensics lab (which I'd bet they have several of in military bases in Afghanistan).Edit: The photo above was reported fake. The U.S. states that they buried him in the ocean. They claim DNA tests as evidence, yet for technological reasons, doesn't it take a looooong time to get such test results? This is almost starting to sound fishy.
... and since this operation had been planned for quite some time, you can bet there'd be the appropriate apparatus set up to confirm the identity of their man.
Deterrence? It takes ten years for the most powerful nation in the world to find their most wanted person - that doesn't sound very deterring to me to be honest.
..or at least the appropriate apparatus to fake it
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
An action need not be coupled temporally with a response as long as there's a clear connection between the two. Furthermore, perhaps the length of time they've been gunning for OBL (~13 years at least) speaks to the fact that once you're on our shit list, we don't give up.
That being said, I don't view this as 'deterrence' in the classic sense of the word that it's going to stop future terrorists or AQ leaders from attempting to carry out attacks. Rather, it will change their behavior in a way that may make it more difficult for them to carry out operations and may make them more agreeable to political rather than military solutions.
You mean that the hunt caused him to stay underground, disrupting his operations? Fair enough.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
