osama bin laden is dead

[Dr. Boogie]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WhiteRat

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.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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]

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

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.

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.

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?

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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?

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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.

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

Originally Posted by Zhukov

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]

You're cracking me up here.

Originally Posted by Pentegarn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.