Osama Bin Laden shot and killed in Pakistan

[stumpy]

the only way to get world peace is to kill all the humans. that's the simple solution.

Edited May 4, 2011 by stumpy

[Melan]

Post paid for by the Giant Robots for a Better Tomorrow Association?

[7upMan]

Uh oh, America-bashing mentioned. The US foreign policy (during Bush administration) have made anti-american attitudes more popular in Europe. Many see americans as the bully with nukes, interfering in sovereign countries business, having their spoon in other people's soups etc etc.

 

But then again, if I got to choose one world superpower doing what they please with everyone else's expense, I'd choose that superpower to be the US, rather than Russia or China. USA ain't the worst of the bunch, I suppose...

 

You don't happen to have heard of the term "neo-liberalism", have you? Apart from nukes, which are effectively banned from modern warfare, this ur-american "export article" is way more dangerous, as it threatens everyone. Besides, why choose anyway? I know Russia, and I know quite a bit about China, and I sure as hell would not want to be under their influence. But the same goes for the US. They are not one bit better than the former mentioned superpowers - they just have the better PR department.

 

 

Post paid for by the Giant Robots for a Better Tomorrow Association?

 

P.S.: Giant Robots? BattleTech FTW!!!

 

 

[Springheel]

You, being American patriots, may not like to hear about it, but facts speak for themself.

 

I'm an American patriot? News to me. I'm Canadian, and quite happy to bash America when they deserve it.

 

However, those countries don't have an armada of warships, armed with nuclear weapons and cruising around the world, and they also are not attacking formerly friendly states (as Saddam's Iraq was in the 80's) because of fictional weapons of mass destruction.

 

What do any of those things have to do with OBL?

[7upMan]

What do any of those things have to do with OBL?

 

Please re-read my post no. 20. Supporting terrorists (even unofficially) who sooner or later will turn against you will create more problems than you can hope to solve.

[Midnight]

Supporting terrorists (even unofficially) who sooner or later will turn against you will create more problems than you can hope to solve.

Remember though, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The Mujahideen were considered freedom fighters when they had the support of the US. Other examples of supporting dictators and the like are of course more clear cut, so your point still stands.

 

I've got to say though that I'm feeling quite optimistic about current US foreign policy. Following the recent revolutions they seem to be more willing to stand back and simply point out that the fundamentalist idea of creating Islamic states through acts of terrorism has been proven ineffectual (as it always has been), and the realisation of this will mean fewer recruits for extremist militant organisations.

 

 

 

[ocn]

I don't subscribe to that "man is inherently evil and selfish" theory. You only have to look at our children to see why. They're free, they're innovative and completely stripped of prejudice. They run laughing where there are no trails or paved paths. It goes wrong when we as adults put them straight back on our convenient roads to the factories, the banks and the malls, and provide them with toys that are all but stimulating to the imagination- they do everything for them. There are too much difference in the world. Your opportunities at happiness and prosperity is pretty much defined by something as random as where you are born. Of course people are going to fight for their own equality and they are going to fight to have as much as those who have most, noone is going to fight to have less. These differences are completely unnatural. We're all born naked, innocent and truthful. And in the end that's all we're going to have left.

[Springheel]

Please re-read my post no. 20. Supporting terrorists (even unofficially) who sooner or later will turn against you will create more problems than you can hope to solve.

 

Yes, I read your post. But in your "I'm not America bashing" paragraph, the list of things you are blaming the US for (having nuclear warships, invading Iraq) have nothing to do with OBL, as far as I can see.

 

I'm not arguing that the US has made some bad foreign policy decisions, but the attitude that "if the US would stop meddling all the bad people would go away" is a bit naive, IMO.

 

I don't subscribe to that "man is inherently evil and selfish" theory. You only have to look at our children to see why. They're free, they're innovative and completely stripped of prejudice.

 

You don't have children, do you.

 

Trust me, children are not inherently sweet and innocent. It takes a significant amount of work to teach children to restrain their natural human impulses to take what they want and lash out at anyone who gets in their way.

[Sotha]

Ocn:

I love you lack of cynicism. I was once like that too. Then I got interested in politics... ;D

 

I agree that children are without prejudice. I agree we are born innocent, but also we are born without empathy and sense of what is right and wrong. So we adults also teach the children how to behave in addition to the bad things.

 

Kids are innocent and without prejudice, yes, but life will expose them to all kinds of nastiness. They learn not everyone is to be trusted. They develop prejudice. They learn that not everyone cares about their interests. They develop selfishness.

 

And with reasonable amount of these they will fare a little better in the world than with total innocent blue-eyeness.

[Fidcal]

Remember though, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

 

Yes, there may be a blurred line and one man may see it differently to another but let's define the difference out of respect for those who fought and are fighting for their freedom.

 

A freedom fighter is someone who is not free and fights his oppressors covertly while trying to avoid harming innocents. Example: French Resistance during the 2nd world war.

 

A terrorist is someone who often has freedom of speech and opportunities to work for legitimate change but chooses instead to specifically murder innocent people out of group hatred. Example: 9/11.

 

The distinction may be blurred here and there but they are totally different in character and morality.

[7upMan]

Yes, there may be a blurred line and one man may see it differently to another but let's define the difference out of respect for those who fought and are fighting for their freedom.

 

[...]

 

The distinction may be blurred here and there but they are totally different in character and morality.

 

Then where do the Mujahideen stand in this regard? Zealots who murdered for the right to enslave their women and live like in the Dark Ages? A progressive government was definitely a threat to their ideals. Tricky, tricky...

 

 

Yes, I read your post. But in your "I'm not America bashing" paragraph, the list of things you are blaming the US for (having nuclear warships, invading Iraq) have nothing to do with OBL, as far as I can see.

 

LOL What, you didn't know that Saddam was supporting OBL and hiding him? Plus, he did have weapons of mass destruction, didn't he?

 

You don't have children, do you.

 

Trust me, children are not inherently sweet and innocent. It takes a significant amount of work to teach children to restrain their natural human impulses to take what they want and lash out at anyone who gets in their way.

 

 

Well, I have two children (2 and 4 years old), and while they - like all children - have difficulties to restrain themselves, they for example don't have any prejudice against different ethnic or social backgrounds. It just isn't on their radar, unless their parents tell them that "we don't play with the black/white trash kids". Maybe it would be best to differentiate between basic human impulses and aquired behaviour.

 

 

[ocn]

Oh, I'm a cynic to the bone actually. I regard anything any head of any state says as absolute bullshit until

proven scientifically otherwise.

 

I do have a stepdaughter, but I came into her life when she was ten years old, so I haven't experienced the toddler stage. But I think Sir Anthony Hopkins had a point when he pointed out what the first thing we say to a newborn is: "Boo!" Although this is obviously meant to be humorous, it does show that already we are subconsciously introducing the world as a hostile and unfriendly environment. Life is something to be feared, not enjoyed. Personally, I believe that this has a profound impact on a child's psyche and leads to opposing behaviour quite early. They just can't express "Dad, you're so wrong. And you've been wrong for, like, ever on, like, soo many levels." in a way that's acceptable to an adult, until they get to that magical age when statements like that are all too common. And even then it doesen't seem to be acceptable. It doesn't neccessarily mean that dad is wrong in this particular instance, but seeing the state of society, someone is obviously wrong somewhere.

 

And let's not forget that our children are growing up in a largely artificial world. Full of man made inventions that ironically are supposed to make life easier. "Don't touch that, it's bad... very bad." "Don't put your hand in there, you'll get it chopped off!" Of course the kid's going: "Why the fuck did you make our home a death trap?!" Parents get mad beacause the child won't listen coupled with fatigue of the sometimes inhuman requirements that are put on them on a daily basis. And the child gets frustrated because everything seems to be dangerous and not allowed. It's a funny old world, innit?

[Midnight]

Yes, there may be a blurred line and one man may see it differently to another but let's define the difference out of respect for those who fought and are fighting for their freedom.

I'm not sure why you felt you needed to define the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, I was simply responding to the assertion that the US was supporting terrorists, which they weren't (at the time). I certainly wasn't suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers could be considered freedom fighters in any sense just because some of their number may have originally been part of a resistance movement.

[Fidcal]

Then where do the Mujahideen stand in this regard? Zealots who murdered for the right to enslave their women and live like in the Dark Ages? A progressive government was definitely a threat to their ideals. Tricky, tricky...

If their freedom was restricted and if they fought for freedom mainly against their oppressors and if they generally avoided harming innocent bystanders then they were freedom fighters. What they did with that freedom is a separate issue. If however, they already had some freedom of expression, freedom to vote, freedom to speak and raise awareness of issues but instead chose to murder and terrorise innocent people in order to get their own way then they were terrorists. In fact the latter also defines terrorists whether they have freedom or not.

 

It's simple really.

If a group are fighting their oppressors for freedom they are freedom fighters.

If a group are fighting innocents they are terrorists. In this sense, a government which provides reasonable freedom of expression and freedom to vote is an innocent.

[Sotha]

It's simple really.

If a group are fighting their oppressors for freedom they are freedom fighters.

If a group are fighting innocents they are terrorists. In this sense, a government which provides reasonable freedom of expression and freedom to vote is an innocent.

 

It can't be that simple.

• US govt does military operations on sovereign countries' soil
• US govt authorizes secret prisons
• US govt authorizes torture of prisoners
• US govt authorizes air strikes that kill civilians
• US govt allows its citizens reasonabe freedom of expression and freedom to vote.
• US govt is... Innocent?

I just wanna bring up the idea that terrorism/valiant warfare depends just on which side's perspective you look it at.

 

Eugen Schauman (lone gunman suicide attack against a russian leader) was/is a fricking hero in Finland, but in modern terms the russians would think he was a terrorist.

[Fidcal]

• US govt does military operations on sovereign countries' soil
• US govt authorizes secret prisons
• US govt authorizes torture of prisoners
• US govt authorizes air strikes that kill civilians
• US govt allows its citizens reasonabe freedom of expression and freedom to vote.
• US govt is... Innocent?

If the US govt is generally and intentionally harming innocent bystanders as a policy (ie not unauthorised individual criminal acts by US soldiers) then yes that is the equivalent of terrorism. Torture is an aspect of terrorism even if against positively-proven guilty. A grey area is if innocents will suffer or die if information is not extracted.

 

If, however, the US govt. are generally and primarily trying to help and support people to gain their freedom then they are freedom fighters.

 

Chose one of the above. I'm not stating my opinion only trying to define the principle whereby one might try to form a reasonable opinion.

 

I just wanna bring up the idea that terrorism/valiant warfare depends just on which side's perspective you look it at.

Well there are different views of course just as there are about the flatness of the earth but the basic principle seems sound: freedom fighters prefer to fight their guilty oppressors rather than intentionally kill innocent people in revenge for their predicament. In fact they would prefer to submit rather than intentionally murder people of any race, religion, sex, age, nationality, etc. just because they happen to be in a building in the country they see as an enemy.

 

Eugen Schauman (lone gunman suicide attack against a russian leader) was/is a fricking hero in Finland, but in modern terms the russians would think he was a terrorist.

Applying the same principle to your example, I don't know the details of this but as I understand it Finland was oppressed by Russia. Eugen Schauman did not kill and terrorize innocent people out of hate nor did he have the freedom of speech or vote to change the system of authority. His only recourse to fight for freedom was to attack his oppressor represented by the Russian Governor-General Nikolay Ivanovich Bobrikov. That makes him a freedom fighter. I would hold the same opinion if it had been a British Governor-General and Britain was forcibly controlling Finland. (but we've never done things like that of course. )

[Sotha]

If, however, the US govt. are generally and primarily trying to help and support people to gain their freedom then they are freedom fighters.

 

But they aren't really interested in helping out of their good will. They have their own interests. And because of that they have funded terrorists or future terrorists. From this POW plus the Bush rationale on terrorism makes the US themselves terrorists: those who fund terrorists are terrorists too.

 

Well there are different views of course just as there are about the flatness of the earth but the basic principle seems sound: freedom fighters prefer to fight their guilty oppressors rather than intentionally kill innocent people in revenge for their predicament. In fact they would prefer to submit rather than intentionally murder people of any race, religion, sex, age, nationality, etc. just because they happen to be in a building in the country they see as an enemy.

 

You can scientifically prove the world is not flat. You cannot scientifically prove who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. When it comes to warfare, things will get ugly and atrocities will be made on both sides.

 

It is all a very human mess. And you how you see it depends whose side you are on. That is my main point.

 

We are the good guys, they are the terrorists/enemy/child-eating-monsters. We think like that, and the opposite force thinks they're the good guys fighting a justified fight too. It is an important point to realize. One should try to see the situation as objectively one can as the world is not black and white.

[7upMan]

It's simple really.

If a group are fighting their oppressors for freedom they are freedom fighters.

If a group are fighting innocents they are terrorists. In this sense, a government which provides reasonable freedom of expression and freedom to vote is an innocent.

 

By this definition, the Mujahideen were terrorists, as your third definition clearly applied for them. The US govt. supported them. So the US govt. is terrorist too?

 

 

You get the point. I feel that you are caught in the Bush/Blair way of thinking, that "we" are the good guys and "they" are bad. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, things are never as black and white as our dear leaders (and FOX News) would like us to believe.

 

Also, the French resistance had their fair share of killing innocents, or rather those who we would feel were innocent. For example, anyone who was suspected of being a collaborator (or even friendly with the Germans) was murdered. In a way, this was understandable too, because the German troops were feared and hated, but killing someone who cooperates with the occupying force (and yet NOT selling out fellow countrymen) is murder too, from where I stand.

 

You can rationalize all you want, but the truth is that things are never as black and white as our leaders would have us believe.

 

 

[Tels]

If the US govt is generally and intentionally harming innocent bystanders as a policy (ie not unauthorised individual criminal acts by US soldiers) then yes that is the equivalent of terrorism.

 

In a war, soemtimes "innocent bystanders" get hurt. But generally, you are in war. (I mean I do not condone this, but war is messy, so sometimes bad shit just happens).

 

However, if you look at what f.i. the US is doing in Iraq, or in Pakistan, than they do:

 

* start an automated drone in the US (yep)

* fly it half aroud the world (yep)

* let it cruise for an hour over the hills of say Pakistan or Iraq

* let it shoot a missile, which blows up a house, or a car

* let it fly home

 

The "deploy helicopters and Navy seals, let them blow up shit and kill people" is the same pattern, only in a different flavour.

 

Now, in this situation, there is:

 

* no declared war (so someone could argue that anyone killed is actually an innocent bystander, or how would you actually know their status?)

* and war or not, other people (f.i. family of OBL? some guy in the same house? the woman who cleans the floor? the taxi driver etc?) are almost certain to die (esp. with the missile strickes)

 

I have a hard time accepting this as anything else as a terrorist attack under the definitions that the US and other countries regularily throw around.

 

Just imagine Germany would deply the Sondereinsatzkommando in the Rocky Mountains and kill a few people in a remote house... just because the German government believes some of them are a suspected terrorist...

 

(Incidentily, in Germany the "Sippenhaft" has been abolished, meaning family and relatives of a suspect are not automatically guilty, too, just because they are related. That is an important thing in the way the law works... just think back to concentration camps to see WHY this is important.)

 

If, however, the US govt. are generally and primarily trying to help and support people to gain their freedom then they are freedom fighters.

 

Well, the question hre is not only "generally and primarily trying to help and support people to gain their freedom", but also how. If the "trying to help" starts with imprisoning people forever, or worse killing them, without a fair and fast trial, then they already lost the "freedom fighters" label in my book.

[Fidcal]

There is a misunderstanding here that somewhere in this thread I have given my opinion about whether I think the US govt are terrorists or not. I have not. You do not know my opinion about the US.

 

I have only given my opinion about what seems a reasonable definition of the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. I believe there is a profound difference in fact, in reality, and not merely as a viewpoint or concept, and I have described that.

 

The reason I felt the need to define the difference was because a great many good men have given their lives for the freedom of their fellow man by fighting the evil-doers themselves and I don't want their memory tarnished by comparing them with the repugnant terrorists who destroyed the twin towers and lots of innocent people. They are not on the same page morally as true freedom fighters. Yes, there may be a blurred grey line between some groups and some actions but the general definition stands imo: terrorists and freedom fighters are different. (I use the previous definition I gave of freedom fighter here.)

 

But they [uSA] aren't really interested in helping out of their good will. They have their own interests. And because of that they have funded terrorists or future terrorists. From this POW plus the Bush rationale on terrorism makes the US themselves terrorists: those who fund terrorists are terrorists too.

Agreed. If the US have knowingly supported terrorism then they are terrorists. If so we would both chose option 1 in my previous post. In the degree that any government harms or helps to harm innocents in that degree they are terrorists (in this context.)

 

You can scientifically prove the world is not flat. You cannot scientifically prove who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter. When it comes to warfare, things will get ugly and atrocities will be made on both sides.

 

It is all a very human mess. And you how you see it depends whose side you are on. That is my main point.

 

We are the good guys, they are the terrorists/enemy/child-eating-monsters. We think like that, and the opposite force thinks they're the good guys fighting a justified fight too. It is an important point to realize. One should try to see the situation as objectively one can as the world is not black and white.

Yes it is very blurry but I have to stand by my own conviction that there is a distinct difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. I leave it to you guys which groups you assign to which type.

[rich_is_bored]

If this incident is terrorism I hope the terrorists are taking notes. I would love nothing more than to know exactly who the target is 10 years in advance.

[OrbWeaver]

You only have to look at our children to see why. They're free, they're innovative and completely stripped of prejudice.

 

Sure, children have absolutely no prejudice. Unless you are another child who is fat, short, ugly, ginger, wears glasses, has a learning disability, is too smart or is in any way different from the norm. Then you will get to experience precisely how "sweet and innocent" children are.

[Springheel]

Yes, I read your post. But in your "I'm not America bashing" paragraph, the list of things you are blaming the US for (having nuclear warships, invading Iraq) have nothing to do with OBL, as far as I can see.

 

 

LOL What, you didn't know that Saddam was supporting OBL and hiding him? Plus, he did have weapons of mass destruction, didn't he?

 

Once again, that has nothing to do with bearing responsibility for OBL's actions, which was what you originally insinuated. The invasion of Iraq happened well after OBL's repeated terrorist attacks against the US, so it's hardly causal.

 

And let's not forget that our children are growing up in a largely artificial world. Full of man made inventions that ironically are supposed to make life easier. "Don't touch that, it's bad... very bad." "Don't put your hand in there, you'll get it chopped off!" Of course the kid's going: "Why the fuck did you make our home a death trap?!"

 

Do you seriously think life is more dangerous for children now than it was in medieval times? Or during the neolithic period? There has never been a time in history where children have been as sheltered and protected as they are now.

[7upMan]

Sure, children have absolutely no prejudice. Unless you are another child who is fat, short, ugly, ginger, wears glasses, has a learning disability, is too smart or is in any way different from the norm. Then you will get to experience precisely how "sweet and innocent" children are.

 

...unless these kids are already part of the accepted group.

 

Also, of course it's the responsibility of parents to work against negative tendencies, if their kids have them. It becomes a problem if the parents are indifferent to those tendencies or exhibit them themselves. Kids of course need a moral guidance that teaches them tolerance - if they actually need it, since kids are different and some are easier to show negative behavior than others.

 

 

 

[7upMan]

Once again, that has nothing to do with bearing responsibility for OBL's actions, which was what you originally insinuated. The invasion of Iraq happened well after OBL's repeated terrorist attacks against the US, so it's hardly causal.

 

OBL's role in his fight against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan granted him support of the US govt. Without this aid with weapons and money, things might and would have gone a different way.

 

Weren't you the one who said "It all boils down to a simple formula"?

 

 

LOL I get your point. But my point was that if we followed that simple but utopic fantasy of "If you don't hurt each other then all will be well", life would be much more peaceful. I know how that sounds, no need to remind me. Reality, however, is not black and white, because no-one seems to have any intention to follow that simple formula.