I-Mockery Forum

I-Mockery Forum (http://i-mockery.com/forum/index.php)
-   Philosophy, Politics, and News (http://i-mockery.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   osama bin laden is dead (http://i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69706578)

Evil Robot II May 1st, 2011 11:47 PM

osama bin laden is dead
 
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

Esuohlim May 1st, 2011 11:55 PM

I HEARD THE NEWS ON MARLEE MATLIN'S TWITTER

Dimnos May 2nd, 2011 12:22 AM

America fuck yeah! :picklehat

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 01:10 AM

I feel safe

kahljorn May 2nd, 2011 01:30 AM

no more pink boots :(

Zhukov May 2nd, 2011 04:47 AM

“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

"justice has been done"

When a man is executed without a trial, then justice has been done, apparently.

I'm no fan of Bin Laden; just playing devil's advocate here.

Mockery May 2nd, 2011 05:36 AM


http://www.i-mockery.com/blabber/201...-accomplished/

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 06:11 AM

lol Good job inventing an idiot trap RoG

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 07:00 AM

Apparently there's a bunch of malware sites set up with this topic title

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 718925)
“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

"justice has been done"

When a man is executed without a trial, then justice has been done, apparently.

I'm no fan of Bin Laden; just playing devil's advocate here.

Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

The 6th Amendment is for US citizens, which Bin Laden is not one of

Killing Bin Laden is a military action

The unprovoked attack on the world trade center that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for cost 3000+ people their lives and ruined countless other lives that were associated with it. Bin Laden however is one man

In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 07:08 AM

All that being said, I have heard this pronouncement before and I will believe he is dead when his corpse is paraded in front of me

Zhukov May 2nd, 2011 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 718933)
Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

The 6th Amendment is for US citizens, which Bin Laden is not one of

Killing Bin Laden is a military action

The unprovoked attack on the world trade center that Bin Laden has claimed responsibility for cost 3000+ people their lives and ruined countless other lives that were associated with it. Bin Laden however is one man

In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.

Ok, I don't think admitting a crime means that it's ok to dispense with a trial. I think it would have been justice to capture him, get him to admit his crime in front the international courts, then sentence him. I don't see the laws allowing the inhumane treatment of accused (not proven) 'terrorists' as justice, and I don't see the on the spot execution of a wanted man as justice either, no matter how bad a crime he has done.

Am I going to lose sleep over Osama not getting a fair trial? Hardly, but the world is getting more and more lax on what exceptions it can take to it's morals.

Evil Robot II May 2nd, 2011 11:05 AM

lol @ rog for editing the common spelling mistake

The Leader May 2nd, 2011 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 718933)
Let's take it further then:

Bin Laden admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks.

But... He didn't. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did.

10,000 Volt Ghost May 2nd, 2011 12:00 PM

Did Saddam get a fair trial?

Esuohlim May 2nd, 2011 12:36 PM

did youguys hear micheal jackson died

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 12:56 PM

What did Gilbert have to say on the issue?

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 718934)
All that being said, I have heard this pronouncement before and I will believe he is dead when his corpse is paraded in front of me

Only possible if you like deep sea diving in the Arabian Sea.

@-Rog- Very nicely done. :lol

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 718963)
What did Gilbert have to say on the issue?

AFLAC!

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 718925)
“After a firefight they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body”

AFTER the firefight they killed him... so basically executed, then.

I wonder if there was a deleted phrase, such as "After a firefight they (found they had) killed Osama ....". It's more likely to have happened that way. :Occam'sRazor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 718933)
In a twisted way, I agree, justice was not served, 3000 lives for one evil life is not justice. There's probably no way justice will ever be served.


That's not twisted at all; sadly, it makes perfect sense. :(

Zhukov May 2nd, 2011 02:02 PM

Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

I can't see Osama fighting on the front lines during a battle, anyway.

10,000 Volt Ghost May 2nd, 2011 02:58 PM

Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

WhiteRat May 2nd, 2011 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 718970)
Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

I can't see Osama fighting on the front lines during a battle, anyway.

Osama tactical expert found!

edit! oopsies!

Zhukov May 2nd, 2011 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost (Post 718974)
Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

:lol

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost (Post 718974)
Now that Osama K. Rool is defeated the U.S. can get all the golden bananas back in their proper place.

Damned, I must be getting too old for this forum. I know this is funny, yet I can't see the punchline for the trees. :tear

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 718970)
Hmm, I would have argued that Occam's razor backs my theory better.

You honestly believe the soldiers wouldn't rather have had him alive, so they could parade him in front of the world as CAPTURED!! like they did with KSM and Saddam?

Still it's a moot point, and one not really worth arguing, in my opinion.

Seven Force May 2nd, 2011 03:59 PM

Idk if it's been mentioned yet but we killed Osama the same day that Bush had that "Mission Accomplished" speech. 8 years to the day. Kinda funny.

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 04:03 PM

I still feel safe

KevinTheOmnivore May 2nd, 2011 04:21 PM

Woot!

KevinTheOmnivore May 2nd, 2011 04:25 PM

It's funny, but I-Mockery was one of the first websites I came to when I got the news about 9/11. I was with my girlfriend at the time, and we had slept in that day; until around 10am, I think. (I was in college then, so that probably wasn't "sleeping in" so much as just waking up as scheduled.)

Seemed appropriate to pop in here and, I dunno, do a dance of joy. Or something.

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 04:36 PM

It was my ex-wifes birthday. I remember waking up and she's all "The whole world is going to shit today" and I was all "What's new?" Then we watched the second tower fall. I also did an amazing photochop the night before on Fark and was mad that Osama took away my prize. Fucking jerk. I never entered a contest after that.

Seven Force May 2nd, 2011 04:41 PM

I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

Geggy May 2nd, 2011 05:07 PM

I JUST POSTED A BUNCH OF PICTURES,

STRANGELY ENOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING,

THANK GOD TADAO WAS HERE TO EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TEXT.

Seven Force May 2nd, 2011 05:22 PM

Thanks goodness cause if he didn't...

Tadao May 2nd, 2011 05:25 PM

All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

WhiteRat May 2nd, 2011 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 719025)
All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"


Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 719025)
All I can picture is Obama doing a little dance a screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW?"

Some dude at a gas station I was at today said almost that exact same thing

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteRat (Post 719033)

:lol

KevinTheOmnivore May 2nd, 2011 06:25 PM

I'M GLAD TO SEE GEGGY IS STILL HERE.

kahljorn May 2nd, 2011 08:03 PM

who knows if it was really osama bin laden, anyway. also who knows if he really did it or if he just said he did or if it was just some dude that looked like him that said it.

no way of knowing now that he was executed (if we could've even known then).

Gotta agree with the trial comment although I also think jerks should just be killed. ITS A DILEMMA

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 09:17 PM

Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

Esuohlim May 2nd, 2011 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Force (Post 719008)
I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

SO WAS I, OLD BALLS

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Force (Post 719008)
I was a freshman in high school. I feel fuckin old.

I was at work when it happened

I didn't have grey hairs then though

Pentegarn May 2nd, 2011 10:40 PM

So my brother says toi me, "I'm just picturing a family having a nice day on the beach and all of the sudden Bin Ladin's body washes ashore"

I :lold

Colonel Flagg May 2nd, 2011 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719063)
I was at work when it happened

I didn't have grey hairs then though

So was I, but I had grey hair then too. :(

Pentegarn May 3rd, 2011 12:16 AM

Yeah I couldn't speak for your hair ;), but I was sure you were working too

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719057)
Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

Are we not men?

Spoilers!


2 Wrongs make a Wright.

Zhukov May 3rd, 2011 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719057)
Did those 3000 people get a trial from Al Queda when they were killed for being Americans?

:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

Seven Force May 3rd, 2011 01:41 AM

id "like" your post if I could

elx May 3rd, 2011 01:57 AM

I was in fourth grade on 9/11! it was awesome :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Force (Post 718988)
Idk if it's been mentioned yet but we killed Osama the same day that Bush had that "Mission Accomplished" speech. 8 years to the day. Kinda funny.

same day hitler was found dead too, just 66 years later

WhiteRat May 3rd, 2011 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719080)
:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

kahljorn May 3rd, 2011 06:04 AM

I don't think you realize how the LAW works. Even if you think he's a foreigner or whatever so the six amendment didn't apply to him or whatever theres still certain ways to treat other soldiers in war ;/ PLUS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER THAN THEM
and yea if we can just kill osama whats to stop us from just killing people like saddam without a trial? Or any other leader of a country that we deem wrong? Or anybody really. All we gotta do is attack our own country, put a fake beard on some dude and some 80's boots and be all, "I HATE AMERICA AND IM THE ONE THAT DID IT" and we have a license to kill?

plus how are we any different than them? Not like he didn't see it as an action of war when he attacked us: attacking something that might have been perceived as an important part of our infrastructure, which could be said to be endemic of his problems with us (globalization), and luring us into a war that fucked our economy over (and maybe the world trade center being sploded added to that).

anyway i dunno why I'm arguing this i dont care :( well a small part of me cares

WhiteRat May 3rd, 2011 06:16 AM

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.

Best watch yo back.

Pentegarn May 3rd, 2011 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719080)
:lol oh fuck off. You're basically arguing that NOBODY should ever get a trial.


Did the petrol station attendant get a trial when he was held up at gun point?

etc etc

You can argue whether it is justice to kill him or not after you prove his guilt. If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.

As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

Those 3000 people killed were an act of war.

Killing Bin Laden (which as it turns out was an act of self defense on the part of the troops as he was shooting at them after all) was part of the war he started.

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://portal.wowway.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9MVHBPG0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1 018&page=4
Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they'd likely find bin Laden's family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?

So maybe, before you tell people to quote 'fuck off' and basically put words in my mouth that I never said (you are saying that nobody should get a trial) in a very weak attempt to make me look bad, you should use that thing between your ears eh?

kahljorn May 3rd, 2011 11:06 AM

Quote:

I don't think Al Qaeda would appreciate you marginalizing OBL as just another soldier in a war.
Well if you unmarginalize him I'm pretty sure it just makes my point stronger...

Geggy May 3rd, 2011 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geggy (Post 719016)
I JUST POSTED A BUNCH OF PICTURES,

STRANGELY ENOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING,

THANK GOD TADAO WAS HERE TO EXPLAIN IT IN SIMPLE TEXT.

sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

Seven Force May 3rd, 2011 11:41 AM

It sounds retarded I know, but we should of just went ahead with the trial if it was possible. I think everyone deserves a right to due process, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly against that person. Even if they're not a citizen. Killing the guy won't bring the countless dead back, it just satisfies our lust for revenge. We need to rise above that if we want to claim we're a civilized society.

On the other hand, if people think that Osama was going to go without a fight they'd be sorely mistaken. Odds are he wanted to be a martyr. It sucks but sometimes that's how shit goes down.

Seven Force May 3rd, 2011 11:46 AM

Whiterat: I don't think with a fair trial he'd go free. There really wouldn't be any chance of that happening with a mountain of evidence against that (not including his little homemade videos). People would be outraged, and they'd have a right to be, especially the families of the victims, but I think they'd get over it once they find him guilty in international court and kill him anyway.

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geggy (Post 719121)
sometimes pictures say thousand of words. either the fake picture of dead osama was an error or a failed psyop. the latter wouldnt surprise me after what we have seen in past ten years. like on 911 it only took one media to announce osama as prime suspect within few hours after the attacks other media picked it up and assumed guilt.

Most of the time words say more than pictures. Like just now, when you expressed your thoughts on the matter.

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 12:38 PM

The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 01:49 PM

When Sadam was sitting in court rooms being tried, the whole word believed that he was captured. Even though he is know for having multiple doubles. The point is that moving pictures captures little tells, photos show nothing viable. Most of the world believes Sadam is dead.

What we have here is a bunch of ammo for the Tea Party and Birthers to go on and on about how there is no proof and how do we really know. Yay! I wanna hear that for 4 more years.

I believe that our government is fully capable of faking this whole thing to get 'Merica up and running again. Do I care? No, not really. At this point in Americas life, this is probably the best thing for us, real or fake. It's just stupid that they didn't take every measure to prove to the Arab and Western worlds that he was defiantly captured and defiantly dead. :conspiracy

Esuohlim May 3rd, 2011 02:00 PM

osama bin laden is dad

Esuohlim May 3rd, 2011 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719064)
So my brother says toi me, "I'm just picturing a family having a nice day on the beach and all of the sudden Bin Ladin's body washes ashore"

I :lold

All scarin' the kids :(

All ruinin' the meticulously built sandcastles :(

Seven Force May 3rd, 2011 02:10 PM

Those kids are gonna be messed up somethin' fierce I tell ya

Zhukov May 3rd, 2011 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteRat (Post 719096)
Can you imagine the shitstorm of biblical proportions that would amount had they brought him to trial? Do you honestly believe that the US would allow him even the slightest possibility of going free? You can't possibly be that naive, the only course of action in this situation was for him to die. Like it or not, it was the only way for this to go down. An entire country (and arguably an entire world) had their lives directly and indirectly altered by his actions. To sit here and post about the US needed to prove his guilt in a court of law tells me that you don't realize the scope of his actions.

And on a personal note, those that believe that he didn't deserve to go out like this are really just giant pussies that simply don't realize how fucked up the world and the people in it really are.

Am I naive enough to believe that Osama would have gotten an un-biased trial and that he would have had a fair chance of being found not guilty? No. Am I sick of world leaders talking about justice when they in fact mean a lack of it? Yes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719105)
As usual, you have missed the point, but nice attempt to place words in my mouth to make up an argument (when I said nice I may have misspelled 'lame' there.)

What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

Quote:

You speak of law, but this is not a police action, it was a military action, and even if it was a police action, police shoot criminals in the course of defending themselves all the time, even in your country. Or are you now arguing that police and military have no right to defend themselves and those they are charged to protect? (see what I did there? I put words in your mouth to make you look heartless. how does it feel?)
You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.


Quote:

Now as I read that, it occurs to me that the SEALs were shot at while trying to capture bin Laden. So what do you suggest, the SEALs die so you can blend the justice system inappropriately with war?
We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by moi
If he was killed in the heat of battle then fair enough.


Tadao May 3rd, 2011 03:11 PM

If I remember correctly, he was wanted dead or alive.

Zhukov May 3rd, 2011 04:05 PM

Doesn't really change what I said. If he was executed then that isn't what your country should be parading as justice.

If he wasn't executed then whatever. No argument.

Actually, no, wait; killing someone on the battlefield isn't justice either - that's just dying.

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 04:13 PM

Why shouldn't we parade executing him as justice? I mean this is only out of curiosity. I know what I would do to someone who killed my family, and I would call it justice.

Zhukov May 3rd, 2011 04:31 PM

Because that's not what you pretend your country is based on. This isn't what you would do to someone who killed your family, this is how a system of morals and ethics of an apparently progressive country should treat someone.

Seriously though, it's Osama bin Laden. I'm not surprised he's dead, I'm not angry he's dead, I'm not that interested on defending his personal rights in the eyes of the USA; it's more the comment that justice was done. That gets a scoff from me.

WhiteRat May 3rd, 2011 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719151)
That gets a scoff from me.

Why I never!

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 05:36 PM

I wouldn't trust the US penal system to punish the guy who killed my family. I would try to kill him before he got captured.

kahljorn May 3rd, 2011 05:53 PM

maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

WhiteRat May 3rd, 2011 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn (Post 719172)
maybe this is a small step towards america just fuckin killing all those fuckers! DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MIGHT AS WELL RIGHT?

Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.

Pentegarn May 3rd, 2011 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719139)
What was your point? My point was that an execution of a wanted man (I wasn't sure if it was an execution at the time of comment, and am still unsure now, I merely commented on if it hypothetically was an execution) was not 'justice', since there was no sight of what a government should mean when they talk about 'justice' (laws, equality, fairness), instead there being a good chance for a revenge killing. You stated that 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial either. No, they didn't. Did you have a point to that comment other than to insinuate that Osama didn't deserve justice since he didn't give justice to his victims? If you are insinuating that, then it follows that you only deserve justice if you give justice; most murderers, rapists, muggers and thieves generally don't deal out fair trials and a fair go.

phew.

And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719139)
You're going to start arguing the loop-holes of law and the semantics of it all aren't you? Once you (general) start (and most countries already have, thank you) pushing the envelope on what your military can do in times of 'war', and directed at 'enemy combatants' or 'terrorists' then you really are just changing the laws to suit your own ends. Is that the justice that America's founding fathers spoke of? Is that the cliche that I'm looking for?

Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719139)
Anyway, it was a military action against... another countries military? No. Essentially it was to do with international law. Pakistani more than anything.

So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719139)
We don't know if the SEALs were trying to capture him or assassinate him. I argued that if the SEALs captured him then he shouldn't be executed, and that:

And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.

Pentegarn May 3rd, 2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao (Post 719127)
The point of having him on trial is to show the world we have him and then hang him in front of them. Not show a picture and then remove any trace of his body.

I can see merit in this. Killing him and dropping his corpse in the sea only makes the "lack of evidence is evidence" crowd have ammo. And in this case I am inclined to agree with them, I want to see his dead ass for myself so I know he is dead.

kahljorn May 3rd, 2011 07:40 PM

Quote:

Bin Laden was a special case, surely you knew that.
Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 07:41 PM

Like we did for Saddam. ;)

WhiteRat May 3rd, 2011 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn (Post 719189)
Well since we can just make special cases we should just make one against the whole middle east.

9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!

kahljorn May 3rd, 2011 08:25 PM

:lol

Quote:

Like we did for Saddam. ;)
Almost said that but then decided somebody might say, "BUT SADDAM GOT A TRIAL" and then I'd have to say more stuff i dont wanna.

Esuohlim May 3rd, 2011 09:12 PM

WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DEBATE IF OSAMA WEREN'T FOUND, TALK ABBOTTABAD PLACE TO HIDE HUH :rolleyes :rolleyes

Tadao May 3rd, 2011 10:21 PM

I don't know if I should hug you or punch you.

Pentegarn May 3rd, 2011 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteRat (Post 719192)
9/11 really ain't no thang.

As for the middle east WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM AND WE'VE GOT TO NUKE THEM NOW!

Buddy of mine once said "Hey, if you nuke the middle east till all that sand is just a solid sheet of glass, it'd be easier to see through that glass where all the oil is"

I :lold

Tadao May 4th, 2011 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIMBERLY DOZIER and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110504/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Wednesday he's decided not to release death photos of terrorist Osama bin Laden because their graphic nature could incite violence and create national security risks for the United States.

"There's no doubt we killed Osama bin Laden," the president said in an interview with CBS News. Obama said he had seen the death photo and there was no need to release the photograph or gloat. "There's no need to spike the football," he said.

The president said that for anyone who doesn't believe bin Laden is dead, "we don't think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference."

"There are going to be some folks who deny it. The fact of the matter is you won't see Osama bin Laden walking on this earth again," said Obama.
The president made his comments in an interview Wednesday with CBS' "60 Minutes". Presidential spokesman Jay Carney read the president's quotes to reporters in the White House briefing room, ahead of the program's airing.

Here we go. If you have evidence, show it. This is not they way you deal with an information hungry society. All that transparency shit? Yeah fuck you. You've got to be hiding something. You say that it might insight retaliation? There will be retaliation either way, but now there will be more terrorist that believe he is still alive and more everyone else who believe you faked the whole thing.

If you did in fact kill Osama and you want to pull troops from those areas, then this is the dumbest thing to do. So now I have to think that there are lots of hidden agendas going on. All the way from faking it to get re-elected to with holding proof so that Al Qaeda gets riled up.

Fuck you government. Fuck you in the ass!

Pentegarn May 4th, 2011 05:44 PM

I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.

I do agree that a simple photo is not enough evidence because of how easy it is to photoshop things, which is why I say have a 'here's bin Laden's corpse on a marionette' parade

As for the "Spiking the football" comment, I think that falls short of the point. The reason we want the photo out there is not to quote 'spike the football' (though I am in favor of allowing people who want to to spike what's left of his head like a football) but because this is not the first time the government has claimed to have killed bin Laden. Their track record in accuracy regarding the living status of bin Laden has always been suspect at best. So why not put the evidence you have out there? You have had his body, show it off

Tadao May 4th, 2011 06:11 PM

It's like saying to the people "Here is the good thing that we did, now here is the ammo to say that we didn't do it."

WhiteRat May 4th, 2011 06:18 PM

Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.

kahljorn May 4th, 2011 10:08 PM

the really stupid thing is that osama has like 50 million look-a-likes. the only way they could prove it is if: dudes got a dental record, his fingerprints are in a system o rhis dna. Maybe a birthmark?

only other way is if his organization collapses but i dunno even about that ;/

Quote:

I am more interested in how they think the bin Laden pic would incite violence.
i dunno about that man i think almost anything can incite muslim extremists to violence. but maybe im just being a jerk.

Dr. Boogie May 4th, 2011 10:59 PM

Yeah, the whole "now the terrorists will really hate us" bit just seems like belaboring the obvious. It's not like we were about to sign some big accord with Al Qaeda.

Shyandquietguy May 5th, 2011 01:46 AM

I think they should've put him in jail with a house arrest band you see in the movies and if Al Queada would ever break him out they would have to find hotel after hotel until they can break off the band. That way Osama learns a lesson and Al Queada can say Osama's awesome.

Then we get oil.

Well, I'm on the fence about the whole if Osama was given a chance to stay alive. Al Queada would probably be shit storming like hornets getting their nest wiped with a dick and be hurling bags of bombs in the streets until they get results or until we raze their last monster generator. But the question would be if that increase in violence would be worth letting the fucker go insane in solitary.

God damn it. I'm finally getting out of a political shell and all I have for security quality is the damn TSA thinking I was either drunk or holding a cough from a bad joint while I was being sent on medical leave from school due to a mid-life meltdown.

Fucking assholes.

Zhukov May 5th, 2011 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719179)
And if this were under the jurisdiction of the police, and the criminal were a citizen of the USA, and his crime were not an act of war against the US, your point might have merit. However since that is not the case, your point is empty anti America agenda driven bilge that I have gotten used to seeing from you.

What it was in fact was a military action, taken because Pakistan pretended to be helping the US track bin Laden but in reality at least part of their government was sheltering bin Laden. Or was the fact that this building he was in being mere miles from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point military academy lost on you?

It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

Quote:

And to answer your "what was my point" question it was that people like you love defending criminals but don't give a damn about their victims
Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


Quote:

Except in the constitution it states that America's laws are for American citizens. So your point is utter bullshit. We didn't bend the laws to suit our means, we constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda which was both voted on and ratified by all branches of government as stated in the US Constitution. If you really want to start talking law (specifically US law), I suggest you actually know about it first.
I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.


Quote:

So because Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign nation they are immune to being a military target? Really? Are you listening to yourself? Who should the US have sent then Mr. US Law expert? The Coast Guard? The Salvation Army? The Village People? Wouldn't matter who was sent because as long as it involves the US, you are going to side against whoever they are fighting.
No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.


Quote:

And who cares if they weren't sent in to capture him or not? If you have an issue with the US calling this justice, you'd better go back in time and get on Churchill's ass because in his day he said kill Hitler on site because he didn't want Hitler to be captured alive and use his trial as yet another propaganda forum. Which is why bin Laden being killed without a trial for a crime he publicly copped to is justice. It might not be equitable justice because he can only die once as opposed to thousands of times for every life he has been responsible for ending, but it is still justice.

The issue I think you have Zhukov is you are confusing justice as a concept with justice in a court of law. If a man who killed thousands, admitted to it, and then was killed by a guy who had the opportunity to end that monsters life is not justice to you, then I think we are done discussing this because your views on justice are skewed. It seems though you are splitting hairs because President Obama called it justice, and in your mind you think he means he feels bin Laden was given a fair trial by a jury of his peers. That was not what he meant by justice however.

Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteRat (Post 719291)
Wikileaks will have everything in a year or two. We're just gonna have to wait.

Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.

kahljorn May 5th, 2011 03:18 AM

i was gonna say, we should've told pakistan to arrest him and charge him with a crime. If they didn't then we would have an excuse to blow them up. Is there any kind of international law for aiding and abiding terrorists?

Although the crime was committed on american soil so i guess that gives us jurisdiction or whatever.. i dunno i dont know how that works exactly. Pakistan prolly should've extradited him to us. Personally i think putting pressure on Pakistan would've been more worthwhile than putting Osama to death.

Pentegarn May 5th, 2011 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719319)
It was military action against an international terrorist group, not war against another nation (no, not even Pakistan). Either way, morals still apply, and the laws that should pertain to war and war crimes should also still apply. Why? Because that would be what a president can call justice.

Oh, right, this makes perfect sense. I forgot about how I don't care about the victims. What a stupid point to pretend you originally meant; you are the type of person that wants an eye for an eye, aren't you? Applying common rights and acts of decency to those guilty of crime does not mean you are denying empathy to their victims.


I didn't mean to imply that the US government broke laws to suit their agenda, I meant that they created laws to suit their agenda, which "constitutionally created an Article of War against Al Qaeda" sounds like to me.

I'm not talking US law, I'm talking international laws which the US says it upholds.

George Washington saying that every US citizen is equal, and deserves a fair trial, and deserves the right to vote, and deserves the protection of the police, military and legal arms of the government makes it a cop out when you can also just say "oh, that only applies to US citizens, we can do what we want to other people". Once again, I am not being technical on what the law states, and what actually happens in the reality of things, I'm talking about what should be justice, and what should be the standards that a nation created on aspiring to freedom should be attempting to achieve with how they deal with the whole world.


No, they should have sent the military. I don't think you can declare war on terrorism, that's all, and I think you still need to apply the laws that you apply to yourself to your enemies. Treat others how you expect to be treated yourself etc.





Justice as a concept is what justice as a law is created to uphold.

This relates to what Tadao said about what you would want if your family was killed. To you, it's justice if your family's murderer is torn to shreds and is burnt alive. But that's not how a government should do things. Revenge isn't a great thing to base your nation's legal system, or foreign policy, on. With Osama it would have really shown that the US is at least committed to a tiny shred of equality in the eyes of the 'law', rather than just getting revenge (especially when most of your country wants revenge in such a way).





A secondary question: how many people do you have to kill (or in Osama's case, be accused of planning their deaths) to forgo a trial and succumb to a revenge killing? Is it a case by case basis?

As an aside, there were terrorist bombings in Bali a few years back that were done by a Indonesian Islamic terrorist group. The attacks were aimed at killing Australians, and 200 people (Australian and Balinese) were killed. Those responsible were put on trial in Indonesia and sentenced to death.

A lot of people in my country wanted the men responsible to be hanged, shot, boiled alive etc etc without a trial. The whole country felt like THEY were connected to the victims of the actual bombing (I'm not saying that is wrong), and that it would be fair to blow up the perpetrators in revenge. Both countries stuck to the format of a trial and punishment, and everyones blood lust was sated in the end.

Would it have been different if it was more people killed? If it was on Australian soil? I'd like to hope not, but in fact I think our military would have taken an opportunity to kill those responsible during a firefight, and get around the fact that we don't execute criminals anymore.



Haha, good point. I'd tend to only believe a government 100% if the information was taken from them anyway.

I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.

And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously

By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.

Zhukov May 5th, 2011 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719324)
I get it, you hate revenge, problem is justice and revenge are mired together. Otherwise all societies would be pacifists who would forever let all criminals off with warnings and slaps on the wrists. There would be no executions, no prison terms, and no law, which is of course what I think you want.

A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.

Quote:

And trust me I am 100% sure you believe everything wikileaks says what with how you worship them religiously
:lol


Quote:

By the way, the reason I say you don't care about the victims is not some sudden epiphany I came to in the last 24 hours or that I just made up, it is because all I ever see you do is defend the criminals and all but ignore the things the victims have done to them, if you have an issue with that, I suggest you change the way you are sir.
Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.

All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.

-------------------------------------

So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?

Tadao May 5th, 2011 12:33 PM

Man I miss the cartoon Heckle and Jeckle.

Pentegarn May 5th, 2011 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719331)
A world without executions... can you imagine it? The horror... the horror... It might seem crazy to you, but yes, that is what I want, being a communist and all.

Oh, and I'm not stupid; I know that justice and revenge are mired together, but not only is that not what your country, my country and most other countries pretend to stand for, but it shouldn't be what is acceptable or something to aim to achieve.

Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this. You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better.

And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719331)
Once again: defending the rights of criminals doesn't mean you somehow take rights away from victims.

You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719331)
All I ever do is defend criminals? Sounds like a television drama. Please name a few of these criminals that I am constantly defending, just for my own personal interest. I think you will say Julian Assange but that's all I can think of off the top of my head, and his 'victims' are arguable.

Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.

-------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719331)
So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?


That's a different discussion altogether, and one I touched on when I said that we have been lied to about bin Laden's living status before. But in the end I agree with how Churchill ordered his troops to handle Hitler. He basically said kill on sight because we do not want him using a trial to further spread his propeganda, we all know what he is,and we all know he needs to go. Just like bin Laden today.

Zhukov May 6th, 2011 03:09 AM

You're cracking me up here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pentegarn (Post 719375)
Your words are empty because you flat out talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say you know justice and revenge are tied together, then raise an objection because the US illustrates this.

No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.

Quote:

You say you want a world without executions, but it is a naive desire. The whole point of a severe punishment is to deter those who might commit violence, but are afraid of the consequences from doing so. Maybe you think if we eliminate punishment then the end of crime will follow, but those of us not living in Fantasy Land know better.
We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.

I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.

Quote:

And as an aside to the whole communist thing, didn't communist Russia start with a whole slew of executions without a trial?
No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.



Quote:

You are wrong, mercy to the guilty is treason to the innocent. There can be no compromise in this. I know you think there can though, so how do you propose we compromise with monsters like this? Talk them down from killing ten thousand people to only five thousand? Asking serial rapists to keep it to no more than one rape a month? You say executions need to be eliminated but you don't offer a solution that works to replace it. You aren't going to either because you know there isn't one, you are just full of wishes that are unrealistic and you point to those saying 'look how good and noble my ideals are' But they aren't, they are foolish, short sighted and dangerous to a cohesive society.
Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.

For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.




Quote:

Assange is a good example, and saying his victims are arguable proves my point about how you don't give a damn about the victims, so thanks for that.
Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.

Zhukov May 6th, 2011 03:16 AM

*note, that list is not ALL the countries that execute. There are countries that retain it but do not use it, and there are countries that have it for 'special circumstances'. There are 41 countries that regularly use it, that list was the main offenders.

Pentegarn May 6th, 2011 07:09 AM

Ah so it was a selective list used to try to make America look bad, i.e. you're posting MO in the philo board.

Pentegarn May 6th, 2011 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
You're cracking me up here.

Trust me, you are cracking without my help

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
No. I say I know that they are mired (your word, good choice) together, and I raise an objection to the US pretending that this is the pure and good justice that a decent country should aspire too.

So now you object to them calling it 'pure and good' justice. I recall the word justice use, but not the words pure and good being used in the sentence you initially objected to. Well if you are not making your point, why not change what it is mid debate? Good strategy. Here's some irony/hypocrisy for you, remember when you posted this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
So now they are saying that Osama wasn't defending himself and that he had surrendered. The official story seems to change a lot, How can you trust these people?

Seems your official story just changed. Funny you took that line of debate then did the very same thing just now

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
We don't have executions in my country, and our violent crime rate is much, much lower than in the USA. There are many, many factors, but executions certainly aren't the deterrent that you think they are. Are you saying that executing Osama will have scared radical Islamic terrorists into lowering their weapons? Surely not.

I like how you selectively read what I say, did I not say the war on terror is like the war on drugs? A pointless endeavor? But that is besides the point, I never claimed executing him would stop terrorism, I said it was a justified thing to do. Did hitler dying stop people from practicing Nazism? No. Did Hitler need to be killed? Yes, and the only reason he never was was because he beat his hunters to the punch and killed himself (allegedly)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
I don't think that the elimination of executions will end crime, no.

Funny, you could have fooled me. But this goes back to that whole talking out of both sides of your mouth thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
No, revolutionary Russia had a lot of executions without trial, during a civil war. Start another thread if you want to talk about this, because I don't think you are interested in hearing what I have to say about the matter, you just want to get what you think is a low blow in at me.

No I was making a point about your inconsistent views, of course you would try and excuse/justify how communism's ugly birth was executed. (pun intended)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
Uh, that is a very, very hardline point of view. NO MERCY TO CRIMINALS. I don't think it's worth me arguing about it with you since all I can say is "mercy to the guilty is NOT treason to the innocent".

How do I propose to control violent crimes without executions? Hmmm, I guess you could try lengthy prison sentences. God knows if that would ever gain popularity in any nation's legal system - but one day it might just happen.

and America does that too with many more criminals than it executes, but I notice how you seem to ignore that little fact

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
For everyone else out there, here is a list of countries that execute:

China
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
USA
Yemen
Sudan
Vietnam
Syria
Japan
Egypt
Libya
Bangladesh
Thailand
Singapore
Botswana
Malaysia
North Korea

You are keeping good company, America. I guess every other country in the world just doesn't run as cohesive societies as these marvelous nations on the list.

I already pointed out how selective you are, no need to mention it again


Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov (Post 719522)
Assange is a bad example - who are his victims? Plus it's only one. Constantly defending criminals might require more than just Osama and arguably one more example. Jesus would have invited Osama over to his house and broken some bread with him, I think saying he should have gotten a trial is quite basic on the 'defending a mass murderer' scale.

I already established his victims more than once, you ignore them because they some of them are American business owners and to you they have no rights for the crime of (gasp!) being rich

But as I said, you care about criminals, not victims, otherwise why fight so hard for bin Laden? Who fights this hard for a monster anyway? What sort of depraved human really takes the line you are taking? What went so wrong with you in your life that this... this is how you think and feel about society?

Kitsa May 6th, 2011 08:48 AM

"They Knew he was There"


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.