No joke -- it's on CNN right now. Here's a link.
Posted by Dev Em on :
It's on every station I think...worse than that wedding thing that happened...but at least this one has some meaning.
Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
I am concerned that this will make him a martyr for those radical Islamists. Otherwise, I would say this is nine years too late.
Posted by Power Boy on :
and what, we are supposed to cheer the death of someone?
i suppose it's more of a symbolic victory ... yet a trial or at least an interrogation would be somewhat useful.
bleh!
Posted by Emily Sivana on :
It's too early to evaluate where this could lead.
Posted by cleome on :
Yeah, he was our bestest buddy-- until suddenly he wasn't. I am long over the idea that this country is interested in fomenting peace around the globe rather than war. Oil companies and munitions manufacturers want all war all the time, so that's what we get.
I see nothing here to celebrate. So many other criminals that have done as bad or worse than Bin Laden will never even see the inside of a courtroom.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
I, for one, am not cheering, PB, but it's certainly major news with significant ramifications for the entire world.
I hate to approve of the death of anyone, and I would rather bin Laden have been captured and placed on trial. But, at the same time, I think it's good to have some closure over bin Laden's fate. So long as he was out there, a perception existed that he had gotten away with 9/11. This is no longer the case.
CNN is currently airing footage of people outside the White House chanting "USA! USA!" I've gotta admit, it feels good to see people excited about being Americans again, in this political climate, although, perversely, this excitement comes over a person's death. And yes, there may be repercussions from Islamic radicals (but every time an American sneezes, there are repercussions from fanatics), but I think, for the moment at least, that it's good to feel the victory.
Posted by Dev Em on :
Agree HWW.
Posted by cleome on :
Well, this country was built on violence, so I suppose it's consistent that people would cheer about this.
Luckily my allergies are so bad right now that I don't have to actually exert the effort it would take to hold my nose. Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
On a theoretical level, I agree that it is wrong to cheer the death of anyone. But at the same time, there are some people in this world whose death I will not mourn. Osama bin Laden's actions has brought pain and death to countless people.
I also agree that him being brought to trial would have been preferrable to this.
Posted by Candlelight on :
A trial that would go on for years with the ACLU declaring his rights with millions more dollars spent. And the terrorists trying to capture people to trade for him, school buses, towns, airplanes of people?
Sorry, I'm glad they got him and we can deal with the reprecussions as they come.
And as far as I can tell, ALL nations on this Earth have violence in their backgrounds. The Earth is blood soaked.
For me, it's a difference between the blood of innocents or the blood of psycopathic murderes. No contest.
However, I can't cheer the death of others.
[ May 02, 2011, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Candlelight ]
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
cleome, America was no more built on violence than any other country in the world.
Bin Laden was a friend of America before he attacked it, and an enemy after he attacked it. Is that such a hypocritical manner in which to define a relationship? The one who turned around was him, not the USA.
Let his death stop terrorists from using him as an inspiration that one can attack America and not get caught. The USA is no paper tiger. There are teeth.
Posted by Ram Boy on :
I remember crying as I watched the horrifying spectacle of innocent people jumping to their deaths on 9/11. Bin Laden deserved his fate. I think a trial would have been fairly pointless considering he had already (proudly) taken credit for his actions. Furthermore, besides providing him with an opportunity to spew his hate and intolerance, it would have just stretched out the suffering of all those families who have been patiently waiting for justice.
Still, I won't be cheering, and I definitely won't be acting as if we just won some sort of hellish soccer match.
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by Chaim Mattis Keller: cleome, America was no more built on violence than any other country in the world.
"The other guy does it, too!" is not my idea of an excuse.
quote:Bin Laden was a friend of America before he attacked it, and an enemy after he attacked it. Is that such a hypocritical manner in which to define a relationship? The one who turned around was him, not the USA.
The American "leadership" who cultivated a relationship with the man knew all along what he was. So, yes, it is hypocritical. It happens over and over again.
quote:Let his death stop terrorists from using him as an inspiration that one can attack America and not get caught. The USA is no paper tiger. There are teeth.
His death stops nothing, CMK. The war machine rolls on. There will be more Bin Ladens and more U.S. dollars and lives thrown away cultivating them.
And I'm really not into patriotic lectures about "tigers" and whatnot. Last I heard, a tiger has enough common sense to not devour its own young. A tiger can't raze a whole community or a whole country. Our foreign policy, OTOH, sends misery all around the world and bankrupts this country in the process. It uses my money to foment death and perpetual warfare. I don't believe that it's our place to play world policeman so the power elite can continue to get rich on our backs. I see no reason at all to be happy about this.
Bin Laden was a symptom, but the disease isn't stopped just because he's gone.
Posted by Tom Tanner on :
Just one more thing for the birthers to decry as a fraud. "Where is the body?" "The photos were faked", etc. etc.
The denials have already begun.
Posted by future king on :
Whaaaaat, bin Laden was killed at the Royal Wedding? Really???
I have to go back and watch it now ..... HONEY, did you erase that media circus from the PVR yet?
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
cleome, you have a very interesting point of view for someone who (apparently) reads and enjoys super-hero comic books. Where would the genre be without a foundation in the notion that bad-guy violence justifies good-guy violence?
Posted by Candlelight on :
Justice and self protection are very old concepts. Are we supposed to let Hitler destroy whomever he wants because there's a lot of water between him and us? Or serial killers go unpunished?
Personally, my Lord wants me to turn the other cheek because my life's goals aren't based on justice, but on mercy and redemption. BUT I am still mandated to protect the innocent.
Governments, as well as law enforcement groups, unlike individuals, are set up to protect, defend and bring to justice preditors.
Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
I agree with Quis that theoretically I have no desire for anyone to be killed, but I have to say, I'm glad a proud murderer is no longer walking this Earth.
Posted by MLLASH on :
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight:
For me, it's a difference between the blood of innocents or the blood of psycopathic murderers. No contest.
I'm going to agree with this 100% and exit the thread.
Posted by Iam Legion on :
*removed*
[ May 07, 2011, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Iam Legion ]
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by Chaim Mattis Keller: cleome, you have a very interesting point of view for someone who (apparently) reads and enjoys super-hero comic books. Where would the genre be without a foundation in the notion that bad-guy violence justifies good-guy violence?
CMK, Dude... the Lefties I know on political blogs wonder about that, too. The ones that know about my "double life," anyway.
To make a long story short, my political views have changed dramatically in the last 10-15 years. But I can still tell fiction from real life, or at least I hope that I can.
Yup. I want my candy and my comforting fantasies, just like everyone else.
Also, FWIW, I'm not a Pacifist, if that's what you're driving at. Pacifists, so far as I know, don't believe in the legitimacy of any armed, violent resistance at all. But I believe that a nation has the right to defend its own borders and its own land. It's the U.S. policy of roaming the world and policing it to secure wealth for multinational corporations that I find morally repugnant and demonstrably destructive to our own physical and moral health.
I don't find the idea of self-defense morally repugnant at all.
Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: ...Are we supposed to let Hitler destroy whomever he wants because there's a lot of water between him and us...?
Nobody ever seems to carry away the right lesson from the life and career of Hitler. He was nurtured, financed, and loved by powerful Americans for years before he became our enemy. When America's leadership finally turned on him, it's because they were afraid that he had become too powerful. Not because they suddenly loved Jews, the Roma, gays, and the rest of his victims.
The U.S. and Canada both turned a deaf ear to Hitler's victims for YEARS, when they tried to escape Europe. Which speaks volumes of how little they cared about the victims of Hitler's genocide. IBM built much of its wealth helping Hitler organize and co-ordinate his state-sanctioned murder. So far as I know, they've never apologized for this. (And IBM is just one such corporation among many.)
Frankly, I'm sick to death of Hitler being dragged out as an excuse for our foreign policy in modern times. What does it say about us that we continue to fund and support this kind of evil at the expense of our own health and safety?
Our leadership loves money and power for its own sake above all else. Its endless blather about God and "humanitarianism" and what not is just a front, so far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
well said, cleome. and good job addressing the excuses and rationalizations - and let's all face it, that's what they were.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
quote:a friend of mine: I remember how I felt when they televised people over seas celebrating the death of Americans, I thought "How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?" Then I watched the news last night and thought " How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?"
Posted by cleome on :
Yeah, that too, Kent.
Relief I can understand, somewhat. But cheering this [bleep] on like it's nothing but a sporting event?
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: A trial that would go on for years with the ACLU declaring his rights with millions more dollars spent. And the terrorists trying to capture people to trade for him, school buses, towns, airplanes of people?
quote:Originally posted by Ram Boy I think a trial would have been fairly pointless considering he had already (proudly) taken credit for his actions. Furthermore, besides providing him with an opportunity to spew his hate and intolerance, it would have just stretched out the suffering of all those families who have been patiently waiting for justice.
Good points.
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that it's okay, legally or morally, to assassinate someone. I still want to believe that we are the "good guys" and that we should be above all of that. I know reality is much more complicated, though.
Saddam Hussein's trial ran for two and a half years from the first hearing until his execution. Is that too long? bin Laden's trial would probably have been shorter, as he took credit for his crimes. (Though it would been next to impossible to find an impartial jury somewhere.) And no one (to my knowledge) was capturing people and ransoming them for Saddam's release.
In other words, the negative outcomes that might have happened from putting bin Laden on trial might not have happened at all.
It's just how I was raised, to believe that even the worst of the worst (and bin Laden certainly qualifies) deserves a fair trial. Due process is what separates the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
But, yes, the assassination was certainly expedient, and a trial would likely have resulted in the same outcome. The difference, I suppose, is that we should not have two systems of justice, one for "lesser" murderers and one for "the worst" murderers. Giving bin Laden a special category, one worthy of assassination instead of due process, elevates him to some other level and undermines our belief in our system of justice, it seems to me.
[ May 02, 2011, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: He Who LSHes ]
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
quote:a friend of mine: I remember how I felt when they televised people over seas celebrating the death of Americans, I thought "How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?" Then I watched the news last night and thought " How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?"
Kind of gives a new perspective on the former, doesn't it?
In some ways, I think the catharsis of the celebrations last night was necessary -- necessary for closure as well as to make us feel good about something in a time of economic downturn and political venom that has a lot of people worried and angry. Certain parts of the world may not see it this way, of course, but we can't base all of our reactions on how others perceive us.
Posted by cleome on :
I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone would consider this closure, but I went into the reasons for that upthread.
But I'll add this: how many people even remember, or ever knew, that Bin Laden wasn't even Iraqi, nor were most of the 9/11 attackers? He was from Saudi Arabia, and so were nearly all of his hijacker pals.
We beat the living daylights out of a country (Iraq) that we'd already brutalized with horrible sanctions and an earlier war, and for what? Did it bring back the three thousand dead Americans? (And don't even get me started on Afghanistan.)
No, no. Sorry. This isn't anything like closure, as I understand it, HWW.
And if you ask me, Americans spend far too little time seeing ourselves as others see us.
[ May 02, 2011, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: cleome ]
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
As far as I'm concerned, cleome, the war in Iraq is a non-issue insofar as whether or not bin Laden should have been assassinated. I think most rational people realize that bin Laden was the culprit of 9/11 -- he said so. And, yes, you can argue that the US befriended him, propped him up, etc. But, for me, the bottom line is that nothing justifies the murder of 3000+ people.
Knowing that bin Laden "got his" gives many a sense of cathartic release, a feeling that justice has been served, and, yes, closure. Illogical? Yes. But real.
Posted by cleome on :
I'm going to start bawling in a minute, or worse.
Getting offline now.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
I don't mean to make you upset, cleome. You have strong views, and so do I. So far, it's been a civil discussion (I thought).
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Blam. He's dead.
next.
Posted by Candlelight on :
Most of the crowd at the White House were college students, so I don't and didn't have a problem with them, as kids tend to be like that.
And most of the time, they weren't chanting about bin what's his face.
He was trained by the US to fight the Russians, who were trying to take over Afganistan. We train allies to fight their enemies, a lot. That's what France did for us during the Revolution. bin Laden chose to take that training and use it to bully and murder his own people and neighboring peoples and peoples like us. HE chose to do what he did, just like Hitler.
I'm completely aware of how the rest of the world responded to Hitler and the Nazis in the beginning. The US rejection of Jewish refuges. He hid and lied and few saw the evil or understood the monstressness of his plans.
You may want to forget him and what he fostered by I NEVER want to forget. We MUST remember and judge ALL terror by it!
I dislike American greed and our using of others; Super Capitalism is a curse on the world. But that is NOT the issue here.
He was a mass murderer, and the leader of mass murderers. He's dead now, and we'll see what his organizations of psychos does.
We KNOW the al Quida would have taken hostages for trade because they've already done it. They do it all of the time, all over the world. It's one of their major tactics.
And many of the 911 families didn't get closure. The ones I saw interviewed said that Laden was just a player, not the whole thing and they made perfect sense.
Lastly, what makes people think that we're 'better' than anyone else, that we're somehow limited, or straight-jacketed in how we respond to things? I think that's arrogant and slightly ridiculous.
With wolves, if a pup shows itself to be unruly, aggressive and untrainable, the alpha male, it's father, makes a judgement call for the good of the pack, and puts the cub down with a quick break to the neck.
bin Laden was a confessed mass murder with great influence on others. He NEEDED to be put down, quickly and cleanly. He was treated with more respect than his victims. imo and with malice to no one here
[ May 03, 2011, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Candlelight ]
Posted by Iam Legion on :
*removed*
[ May 07, 2011, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Iam Legion ]
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
Well said, Candlelight.
You're probably right that al Quaida would have taken hostages to free bin Laden, given their history.
Posted by Candlelight on :
Well, it was a strong possibility, anyway.
And Iam Legion - I agree and disagree. I hate that bin Laden is getting so much recognition, of any kind.
But evil needs a face and a name. It MUST remain in the light. We HAVE to know that's it's in the faces of people, that it's very, very real and personal and stopable.
To triumph, evil only needs us to turn a blind and forgetful eye.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
and somewhere in Iraq, an even stronger case rooted in the same logic is being made based upon the 100,000+ civilian victims there.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: He was trained by the US to fight the Russians, who were trying to take over Afganistan. We train allies to fight their enemies, a lot. That's what France did for us during the Revolution. bin Laden chose to take that training and use it to bully and murder his own people and neighboring peoples and peoples like us.
and how would we have reacted if France started building military bases over here? Bad analogy, Candle.
one does not have to remotely agree with bin Laden's motivations, but ignoring them blinds us from rise of the next batch of bin Ladens. If identifying our current loose-cannon 'allies' now saves thousands (or even millions) of lives in the future, then it's a worthy exercise to understand (and again, understanding =/= agreement). Propping up the oversimplified caricature of the Bad Guy Du Jour does nothing except feed mass ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: HE chose to do what he did, just like Hitler.
lame. seriously.
again, overuse of of Hitler hyperbole does nothing but dumb down our collective understanding of the world. Great for blind nationalism, I'll grant, but not much good otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: I'm completely aware of how the rest of the world responded to Hitler and the Nazis in the beginning. The US rejection of Jewish refuges.
based on what you write and how use use the Hitler hyperbole, it seems a bit short of "complete."
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: He hid and lied and few saw the evil or understood the monstressness of his plans.
except for the Final Solution itself, not really. And as vile as the Final Solution was, there were plenty of other things that were openly known. The death camps were an escalation, certainly, but hardly an anomaly.
There was widespread agreement, and very little questioning, that certain types of people (not just Jews) 'NEEDED' to be contained and isolated (at a minimum), quickly and cleanly.
I've been looking at newspapers of the 1930s. A lot of monstrous Nazi programs and proposals were quite well in the open, with Western officials downplaying it all. People knew what was going on more than we give credit for, more than we conveniently excuse today. And, like today, those inconveniently drawing the attention were being portrayed as radical, nutjobs, etc. Just as Greens or social justice people get portrayed today.
Moreover, IBM, Dow Chemical, an investment bankers were well aware. People like Prescott Bush helped smooth the way for Hitler.
If you really want a Hitler analogy, look at the excuse-making being made for corporate greed. That was what was defending Naziism, and that's what is covering up for the worst of abuses done today.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: You may want to forget him and what he fostered by I NEVER want to forget. We MUST remember and judge ALL terror by it!
It's not about forgetting (and frankly, that inaccurate representation of others' views does not strengthen your position). It's about drawing all the connections, not just the ones the powers that be want you to see.
We need to move beyond the Orwellian Five Minute Hate (look it up if you don't get the reference) if we really don't just want to move from one prefab Republic-serial-villain to another. And let's face it, there will be a new villain propped up sooner or later.
Containing our collective scorn towards only certain types of abuses enables the soft-selling of others. Buying a big fancy diamond engagement ring gives de Beers a free pass on their own crimes against humanity, as but one example. While that may seem far afield, from the Hitler analogy you so love, it is not that different from the warnings sounded - and ignored - in the 30s. Waiting for 'official' condemnations abets the real Hitlers, who often have the full support of our 'leaders,' just as corporate giants do today.
If bin Laden's death campaign had been tied to an economically viable product (other than arms production), he would not have been the poster boy for terror, and you'd be painted as a whacko for bringing him up.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: I dislike American greed and our using of others, the Super Capitalism is a curse on the world. But this is NOT the issue here.
Actually, it is. Saying it is not removes vital context, and reduces our understanding to a caricature. Not unlike Nazi propaganda techniques, actually, so there's another Hitlerism you overlooked.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: He was a mass murderer, and the leader of mass murderers.
the same could be said for many. Including many of our own leaders. Again, 100,000+ dead civilians in Iraq, as but one example.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: We KNOW the al Quida would have taken hostages for trade because they've already done it. They do it all of the time, all over the world. It's one of their major tactics.
there is a big difference between "we know" and "I believe based upon sporadic evidence filtered and spun by those who want to keep me distracted."
pretty much all al Qaeda hostage-taking has been in a handful of countries, places where hostilities have directly been going on. It's a pretty big step to say they can do (and have done) it everywhere at any time.
if executions are to be based upon far-fetched guesswork, then anything can be excused against anyone. One can nuke Portland because it's full of granola-eating radical hippies who *might* overthrow corporate 'democracy." We've seen it on TV and the Internet, so it must be true.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: Lastly, what makes people think that we're 'better' than anyone else, that we're somehow limited, or straight-jacketed in how we respond to things? I think that's arrogance and slightly ridiculous.
for once, we agree.
the excuses being made for execution can be easily made against us, on a whole host of topics. Simply because they are invisible in American discourse does not mean they are not there.
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: bin Laden was a confessed mass murder with great influence on others. He NEEDED to be put down, quickly and cleanly. He was treated with more respect than his victims.
great. If that's the standard, where does it stop? Why stop with one convenient target?
it reminds me of the slippery slope Kermit Roosevelt and the Dulles brothers sent us down when we as a nation really got going in the assassination/overthrow business. Any flimsy excuse became a great reason to do so. And it's left a lot of the bad blood we are stuck with today. Iran, for instance, all because the Anglo-Iranian oil company didn't want to give Iran the same profit-sharing the Saudis got - is all the strife in Iran of the past six decades really worth it?
and even outside of government, Union Carbide killed 10,000 people in one day. A few execs 30 years later, got a slap on the wrist. Is it really any better, whether 3k die by premeditation than 3-4 times as many dying for profiteering?
Even aside from negligence (or even pollution). far more die in resource wars in Africa, all to supply us oil, diamonds, uranium or other things we can safely pretend come to us bloodless, because there is no bin Laden poster boy attached to them.
If excuse-making is okay, and executions are based on convenience and inventing arbitrary standards on the spot, then enviro-activists are justified in doing anything they want against BP, the nuke industry and plenty of others.
All I see from the excuse-making is defense of the same might-makes-right mentality that is only going to give us more and more bin Ladens, many of whom we will not be able to identify by their mode of dress or color of skin. Bombing nations to kingdom come seems more like a recipe to breed plenty more bin Ladens, and even if we fool our own populace to ignore the resource/control aspects, it is foolish to assume our victims will adopt our rationalizations.
so great, bin Laden's dead. Dance in the streets if you want to. Maybe his org is crippled; maybe it's going to abduct my cousin Billy. But I really don't expect anything to change, when all the mechanisms are still in place. We as a nation still train terrorists to be our allies; some of them are likely to turn against us sooner or later.
Reducing and reconstructing one figurehead to an anomaly still seems more like excuse-making to feel better, and still distances ourselves from the larger issues.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
I wrote out a rather long and heated response to this, Kent, but it sounded much angrier than I liked.
So, instead, I'm not going to try to match anything point by poiint.
Instead, I'm going to ask you: What's your solution. A real workable solution that will satisfy every party involved and not lead to the creation of more murderous nutcases.
But, I'd like details. Not just "I don't have the perfect solution, no one does." because its easy to throw stones, but that's not what I'm looking for.
Posted by cleome on :
That's your response to what he wrote, rickshaw1? A variation of the childish, "Oh, yeah? Let's see YOU do better! Nyah!" shtick that's rampant on every political board in existence?
Between that and your comment here yesterday: I'm giving two thumbs down.
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes: I don't mean to make you upset, cleome. You have strong views, and so do I. So far, it's been a civil discussion (I thought).
That's exactly what made me throw up my hands and run, Dude. I feel like civilized, educated people are telling me that millions of dead, wounded, impoverished human beings in the ME aren't important here-- that we should just sweep them aside like so much trash;that what America did (and is still doing, daily) to these people is justified because we had to get the bad guy, the oil, whatever.
And that absolutely breaks my heart. If that's what civilization really amounts to, I think it's time for me to pack up a knapsack and go live in the woods alone.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Then you missed both points. But then, you frequently do with me.
Point 1) Its easy to sit back and throw stones at glass houses, but to offer real solution instead of just sitting on the sidelines and slinging arrows matters more. Its easy to say "america bad, we do more better now", anyone can do it. But unless you are actively providing better solutions, unless you are making the choice to walk the halls of power and push through what actually will make the world a better place, you are just an enabler. You use evil oil products every day, unless you live in a cave and drink stream water and eat raw plants and animals. The big companies can only do what they do, the big politicians can only do what they do, because it is DEMANDED of them. The product is demanded. Stop making oil, stop importing oil and its products, and the country would openly revolt. So, I ask for a real, genuine, workable solution.
Point 2) He's dead. Time to close the book, move on for both this country and every other nation, group, persecuted religious group that he targeted, etc. And when his disciples show up, stop them too. Yes, it will create hard feeling in some people, a small minority. Thats part of the "sometimes there's only the lesser sin option".
As to your thumbs down comment... perhaps you should do something really wild and step outside your own perspective. Isn't that what you are always telling me to do?
My opinion is just that, my opinion. Its only right for me. Ditto for you.
Posted by cleome on :
I've never liked the tired old trope of "We have met the enemy and he is us" as it's frequently used in these discussions, rickshaw1. Too often, it's used to peddle the same old saw that you bring up here: Oh, woe! The corporations are slaves to us! They do these things because we MAKE them do it! Oh, woe!
I've been "in that perspective" my whole life, Dude. It's the majority perspective, among both liberals and conservatives and sloughing it off was/is a lifetime's work. It's that pervasive.
Your perspective is not new to me. I just don't like it.
Seriously, I expect that if Kent comes back to you with a five-point plan about how to dismantle the war machine and curb corporate power, you'll respond with a lot of concern about how it's unworkable because somebody somewhere in American might lose their job. That's how these discussions usually go. I can see the pattern pretty well after two years on this board.
It kind of floors me, common though it is on the internet and IRL. You can live contentedly with millions of foreigners being murdered in cold blood with our tax dollars. Yet if some Americans were to lose their jobs and need an expanded assistance program for one, five, or ten years while industry retools itself to deal with change, you'd consider it the end of the world.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
quote:Originally posted by cleome:
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes: I don't mean to make you upset, cleome. You have strong views, and so do I. So far, it's been a civil discussion (I thought).
That's exactly what made me throw up my hands and run, Dude. I feel like civilized, educated people are telling me that millions of dead, wounded, impoverished human beings in the ME aren't important here-- that we should just sweep them aside like so much trash;that what America did (and is still doing, daily) to these people is justified because we had to get the bad guy, the oil, whatever.
And that absolutely breaks my heart. If that's what civilization really amounts to, I think it's time for me to pack up a knapsack and go live in the woods alone.
I have no idea how you read that into my response, cleome. Yes, "millions of dead, wounded, and impoverished human beings" in the Middle East and elsewhere is a tradedy. But what does that have to do with Osama bin Laden murdering thousands of people, including his supposed own people, Muslims?
We are dealing with a mass murderer, here. The problem I see in your response and Kent's is that you both seem to want to ignore this fact while pointing the finger at the things the U.S. has done wrong. Has the U.S. done terrible things? Yes. Do people around the globe have justifiable reasons for hating the things we've done? Surely. Did we bring all of this on ourselves? Well . . . no.
To be frank, I'm not sure I understand the basis of your (or Kent's) complaints. Exactly what are you saying? Millions of people in the Middle East are suffering, so we should NOT rejoice in bid Laden's death? I fail to see the logical connection.
To my mind, bin Laden was no different than a nutcase who walks into a McDonald's and blows people away because he was fired from his job six months ago. (This really happened, btw.) Do we blame his boss? Society in general? His abusive parents? Do we have to feel bad because the SWAT team shot him down?
I'm really not sure what sort of reaction you are expecting or advocating.
The U.S. has done terrible things, yes. Does that justify the senseless slaughter of 3000+ men, women, and children? Absolutely not.
Should we sympathize with the men, women, and children in the Middle East who are suffering? Should we try to help them? Of course.
But, in my mind, this has nothing to do with celebrations over bin Laden's death.
Posted by cleome on :
To be blunt, HWL:
You talk about closure and justice, and IMHO neither word is applicable in this situation. Because the machine that created Bin Laden and the people who run that machine are still very much with us. If they've learned anything from his death, it's that they can continue to proceed as they always have, wasting the lives and money of people further down the food chain in order to further cement their own power and wealth-- because we don't have the power to stop them from doing it.
I cannot and will not cheer for that, or equate it with any kind of justice.
quote:"So What As the military establishment celebrates the assassination of bin Laden, those who’ve followed the al Qaeda saga might rightly answer, so what. A ten-year war to kill a guy the FBI had in its sights ten years ago, before 9/11? Seems like a pretty lame excuse for flag-waving.
With our social infrastructure in freefall due in large part to the needlessly bloated military budget, the consolation of another bogeyman biting the dust hardly seems worth all the excitement." -- Jay Taber, 5/3/11
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
Well, at least now I understand where you are coming from.
Everything you say may be true (or it may not be, for all I know . . . you are speculating on what the powers that be will get out of bin Laden's death. Likewise, your broad generalization of who the powers that be are and their motives does not support your argument). But none of that matters to the people who lost loved ones in 9/11. None of them asked for that to happen. None of them deserved it.
Jay Taber makes good points, too. However, I still think it's a significant accomplishment that bin Laden is no longer out there, claiming victory for murdering innocent people.
And, for the record, I'm still not sure that justice was served or closure was found. But I think that's what the celebrators are hoping for.
Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare:
quote:a friend of mine: I remember how I felt when they televised people over seas celebrating the death of Americans, I thought "How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?" Then I watched the news last night and thought " How depraved does someone have to be to celebrate someone's death?"
I have been thinking the same thing. However, I also see two distinguishing factors. One being that no one here is firing guns into the air (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did). The second and most distinguishing factor (for me) is that the people here are cheering for the death of an admitted mass murderer who would do it again while the people in the Middle East were cheering the deaths of innocent men, women, and children.
Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes:
quote:Originally posted by Candlelight: A trial that would go on for years with the ACLU declaring his rights with millions more dollars spent. And the terrorists trying to capture people to trade for him, school buses, towns, airplanes of people?
quote:Originally posted by Ram Boy I think a trial would have been fairly pointless considering he had already (proudly) taken credit for his actions. Furthermore, besides providing him with an opportunity to spew his hate and intolerance, it would have just stretched out the suffering of all those families who have been patiently waiting for justice.
Good points.
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that it's okay, legally or morally, to assassinate someone. I still want to believe that we are the "good guys" and that we should be above all of that. I know reality is much more complicated, though.
Saddam Hussein's trial ran for two and a half years from the first hearing until his execution. Is that too long? bin Laden's trial would probably have been shorter, as he took credit for his crimes. (Though it would been next to impossible to find an impartial jury somewhere.) And no one (to my knowledge) was capturing people and ransoming them for Saddam's release.
In other words, the negative outcomes that might have happened from putting bin Laden on trial might not have happened at all.
It's just how I was raised, to believe that even the worst of the worst (and bin Laden certainly qualifies) deserves a fair trial. Due process is what separates the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
But, yes, the assassination was certainly expedient, and a trial would likely have resulted in the same outcome. The difference, I suppose, is that we should not have two systems of justice, one for "lesser" murderers and one for "the worst" murderers. Giving bin Laden a special category, one worthy of assassination instead of due process, elevates him to some other level and undermines our belief in our system of justice, it seems to me.
I agree with you He Who Wanders.
And Candlelight, I would add that the ACLU would be in the right if the government did not give Osama Bin Laden the same rights that we all have. The 14th Amendment says, in the relevant part, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And the Framers of the amendment used "person" and not "citizen" even though they defined who was a citizen in the previous sentence. This says to me that the rights of the US Constitution apply to noncitizens as well as US citizens.
Posted by Sarcasm Kid on :
I feel sorry for him. If the best he could do in life was make war, it's hard not to.
Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes: Likewise, your broad generalization of who the powers that be are and their motives does not support your argument).
Well, Professor, if you want more specifics, we could start with companies like Boeing, and the various and sundry politicians they keep tucked in their pockets. You could also do worse than to read some more of Jay Taber's posts. I'll forward you some other stuff, if you're really interested. In terms of cold cash, and seeing how and where both major American political parties get their money, a site like Open Secrets is always good.
TBH, I don't think it takes much in the way of mental gymnastics to grasp that weapons manufacturers stand to lose a great deal if peace becomes more prevalent than war, and if the American defense budget were to start shrinking. But then again, I'm just stating my thoughts here, not trying to win a debate.
quote:But none of that matters to the people who lost loved ones in 9/11...
And I really wish you wouldn't harp on this "asked for it" or "deserved it" business. I don't recall saying anywhere that anyone in New York City deserved the events on September 11th. Despising what happened to the dead on the other side of the world --who seem to be repeatedly rendered invisible in these discussions despite the fact that they greatly outnumber the NYC dead-- is not an assertion that anyone here deserved their fate. Seeing the attack as not an isolated incident but the logical outgrowth of how America wages war isn't, either.
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq: I have been thinking the same thing. However, I also see two distinguishing factors. One being that no one here is firing guns into the air (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did). The second and most distinguishing factor (for me) is that the people here are cheering for the death of an admitted mass murderer who would do it again while the people in the Middle East were cheering the deaths of innocent men, women, and children.
I can't really take any consolation in the ignorance of my fellow Americans. If they really are blissfully unaware of all the people we killed to get Bin Laden, (not to mention all the people he killed with our approval, once upon a time) it doesn't really speak well of them.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
and yet one of the greatest mass murdering systems the world has ever known, communism, was started by people, and one person in particular that said they were all for "the people". How many died under Lenin and Stalin? But, they were for the people... as long as the people did exactly what they said, when they said, and kissed their asses without ever saying anything.
Every one here has said that yes, America has problems and that we aren't perfect. Our government frequently gets in bed with one bad guy to quell another bad guy, and has to deal with the consequences.
Okay.
You are completely, totally, 100% right. You win. You have taken the arguement.
And?
Again, you are wanting us to hairshirt over the "millions" killed. Guess what, we do feel crappy about it. America overwhelmingly said as a nation that it wasn't the innocent muslims that were at fault, but the bugnuts extremists. we bent over backwards in this country to make sure that the rights of those percieved as middle eastern were not trampled on as the Japanese Americans were in WWII.
HOWEVER... Bin Laden was NOT the sole purpose, as so many have stated, for the war in Iraq. 18 violated UN resolutions, a man and his sons that held rape chambers, held parties where men were encouraged to run themselves onto swords, where people disappeared off the street and were never seen again, were a pretty girl could mean that her family was slaughtered if they refused to turn her over for the rulers sexual depravities, and OIL! were.
thats reality. You may not like it, you may loath it, and no one here is demanding that you change. But its reality, its your opinion, and others are entitled to theirs just as much as you are yours.
However, 3000 plus people that had nothing to do with HIS jihad except for working living, and sleeping in towers that were only symbols of wealth and power to people outside this country for the most part, were murdered for attention. for "look at me look at me give me attention". When my five year old son does that I quietly correct him. When a spoiled shit rich kid with religious extreme views and millions of dollars pitches a snit, people die.
I wouldn't have killed him.
I would have brought him back here to this country, I would have built on the site of his attrocity a prison that would hold one inmate, Bin Laden. He would have never seen another living soul again. He would have been fed one time a day. Medical? Uh Oh. Nope. For however long he lived, he would never again have the ability to share his twisted, warped, depraved views with anyone again. he would never have seen the light of day again, never been allowed to see anyone in person. And when he died, the place would have been collapsed on top of him.
And IF any of his followers decided to kidnap one person in his name, it would have been collapsed on him instantly. No reprieves.
The attention he wanted so bad would have been forever denied him.
And yes, I'm viscous when it comes to the people of this country, or any other for that matter that have to live under the heel and hell of someone like that. And I have zero problems with it.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
quote:Originally posted by cleome: Well, Professor, if you want more specifics, we could start with companies like Boeing, and the various and sundry politicians they keep tucked in their pockets. You could also do worse than to read some more of Jay Taber's posts. I'll forward you some other stuff, if you're really interested. In terms of cold cash, and seeing how and where both major American political parties get their money, a site like Open Secrets is always good.
Oh, I have no doubt that companies profit from the war and that some companies bribe government officials to get military contracts, as the blog in the first link states.
Still, I think this is getting off-topic as it has little or nothing to do with Osama bin Laden targeting innocent people.
bin Laden could not get revenge on the people who keep the war machine going, apparently, so he chose to take his hatred out on those he could target: men, women, and children who were just going about their lives, going to work, supporting their families, going to daycare, etc.
In bin Laden's worldview, there are no innocents. We are all the Great Satan. This is a convenient conclusion that allows one (in one's own mind) to get away with anything. Kent took Candlelight to task for relying on the Nazi analogy, but I think it's relevant here. The Nazis saw Jews -- and anyone who was not Aryan -- as less than human, no more than vermin, ready to be exterminated at their discretion. bin Laden's worldview seems to have been the same for anyone who was not Muslim (though, as pointed out above, he killed Muslims, too).
People like him don't need a war machine to fan the flames of their hatred. They would find their own ways of doing so. At least, that's my opinion, and my conclusion from the limited research I've done into the minds of murderers and Nazis.
And I'm just stating my thoughts, too.
quote:
quote:But none of that matters to the people who lost loved ones in 9/11...[/qb]
I'll concede this point. Thanks for the link to Andrea LeBlanc's article, "America after Osama bin Laden." She is correct that bin Laden's death ultimately changes nothing. It does not bring back her husband or the others lost in 9/11.
quote:And I really wish you wouldn't harp on this "asked for it" or "deserved it" business. I don't recall saying anywhere that anyone in New York City deserved the events on September 11th. Despising what happened to the dead on the other side of the world --who seem to be repeatedly rendered invisible in these discussions despite the fact that they greatly outnumber the NYC dead-- is not an assertion that anyone here deserved their fate. Seeing the attack as not an isolated incident but the logical outgrowth of how America wages war isn't, either.
OK, fine.
But I have to ask, how would closure or justice look to you?
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Natgeotv: Inside Saddam's reign of terror.
Thats why the world went in, much much much too late.
Posted by Quislet, Esq on :
This is my last bit on this thread.
Kent & cleome,
Your basic argument seems to be that the people celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden are ignoring the US's (government and corporate) own liability in originally friending Osama Bin Laden and the multitude of deaths in Afghanistan & Iraq. That is a valid argument. And for the most part I agree that the US (government and corporate) has made some pretty rotten deals with people they shouldn't have and that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of this. And that it is understandable that people in the Middle East and elsewhere have legitimate reasons to hate the US.
And that terror, terrorism, and the "war on terror" are not going to stop because Bin Laden is dead.
But it does seem like you are forgetting/excusing Bin Laden's own actions. He Who Wanders made a good analogy with the guy shooting up the McDonalds. Assuming that the gunman is killed, you will have some people just relieved that the ordeal is over and you will have some people who still have anger towards the gunman. You will also have people who will look at the gunman's circumstances and have some understanding and even sympathy for the gunman. And yes, we should look into the person who sold him the gun to see if the seller should have known not to sell to this guy but did anyway. But in all of that, the gunman still has the ultimate responsibility for his actions and the consequences. Even if the gun dealer should not have sold the guy the gun, that doesn't lessen the guy's responsibility to not kill people with it.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: I wrote out a rather long and heated response to this, Kent, but it sounded much angrier than I liked.
I wish you had, Rick. You may have come across more honest and respectable than you did with what you posted.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: So, instead, I'm not going to try to match anything point by poiint.
no, of course not That would take too much effort. And, as you demonstrate, you are not so much interested in the exchange of ideas as dismissing mine.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: Instead, I'm going to ask you: What's your solution. A real workable solution that will satisfy every party involved and not lead to the creation of more murderous nutcases.
No, that is not what you are asking. You are looking for grounds to dismiss what I posted by:
1) making an unreasonable demand, thus rationalizing your dismissal of my point of view by not meeting it, or
2) if I did put forward some sort of meta-platform, you could then dismiss me as being a sheer ideologue.
3) if I did put something forward, you could mine it (and if need be twist it) to discredit the entire package.
Don't even pretend one has to put forward a complete set of alternatives in order to discuss the status quo. That is not only unreasonable, but it is disrespectful, a blatant attempt to steer the conversation to somewhere you can exert control.
It's a cheap ploy. If you want to dismiss me, be honest about it. Don't hide behind excuses. And don't pretend my voice doesn't matter just because you don't want to listen. We have disagreed in the past, Rick, but i have NEVER dismissed your opinion the way you are trying to do now. NEVER.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: But, I'd like details. Not just "I don't have the perfect solution, no one does." because its easy to throw stones, but that's not what I'm looking for.
Of course it's not. Again, you're looking for an excuse to dismiss me.
I refuse to participate in your kangaroo court. You are not my judge, and I do not accept your frankly dishonest and disrespectful attempts to pigeon-hole my opinion.
For a guy who periodically claims to be the champion of critical thinking, you have shown yourself to be only interested in control. This is low, Rick.
[ May 04, 2011, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Kent Shakespeare ]
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq: This is my last bit on this thread.
Kent & cleome,
Your basic argument seems to be that the people celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden are ignoring the US's (government and corporate) own liability in originally friending Osama Bin Laden and the multitude of deaths in Afghanistan & Iraq. That is a valid argument. And for the most part I agree that the US (government and corporate) has made some pretty rotten deals with people they shouldn't have and that the vast majority of Americans are ignorant of this. And that it is understandable that people in the Middle East and elsewhere have legitimate reasons to hate the US.
And that terror, terrorism, and the "war on terror" are not going to stop because Bin Laden is dead.
But it does seem like you are forgetting/excusing Bin Laden's own actions. He Who Wanders made a good analogy with the guy shooting up the McDonalds. Assuming that the gunman is killed, you will have some people just relieved that the ordeal is over and you will have some people who still have anger towards the gunman. You will also have people who will look at the gunman's circumstances and have some understanding and even sympathy for the gunman. And yes, we should look into the person who sold him the gun to see if the seller should have known not to sell to this guy but did anyway. But in all of that, the gunman still has the ultimate responsibility for his actions and the consequences. Even if the gun dealer should not have sold the guy the gun, that doesn't lessen the guy's responsibility to not kill people with it.
Thanks, Quis.
No, I am not saying to forget. I'm just cautioning on several fronts:
1. finding excuses as to why certain people should just be assassinated at whim sends us down a slippery slope. Today, bin Laden, tomorrow, anyone who disagrees with Official X.
2. Going down that slippery slop, especially in concert with blind nationalism, is far more likely to result in a Hitler than any external boogeyman.
3. Rationalizations and excuses can make us sleep at night, but blind us to the polarization of those who do not buy into our foundational assumptions.
4. exceptionalism also feeds this. Yes, we mourn 3,000 dead. But by ignoring comparables - or worse situations - we aid such polarization, and even radicalization.
5. reducing the Villain Du Jour to a simple caricature, and even false comparisons with other villains (even if both are equally evil, but in importantly different ways), aids and abets the propaganda machine to keep us distracted. And blinds us from the next villain until it may be too late.
6. If we don't start questioning and reexamining our way of life on a systematic level, we are going to be prone to repetition and escalation.
7. all these lead us merrily down the road further towards Empire. Turning a blind eye to everything we excuse only fuels the fire.
Yes, by all means, hold the gunman of analogy responsible. I've never said anything other than that. But by compartmentalizing one villain as uniquely bad, while ignoring many others, does nothing to make us safer or better off.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes: We are dealing with a mass murderer, here. The problem I see in your response and Kent's is that you both seem to want to ignore this fact while pointing the finger at the things the U.S. has done wrong.
You're an intelligent guy, but this comes across like you are deflecting something you did not want to hear into something you can more easily dismiss.
I have seen nothing in my posts of cleome's that suggest ignoring anything.
And frankly, reducing it into a false either/or also seems problematic. Why does any discussion have to be *just* about bin Laden, when ignoring important context favors the very myopia cleome and I are attempting to address?
especially when some people are free to bring in Hitler et al, or engage in complete speculation, while cleome and I are not allowed to bring in any context?
The way you phrase it in terms of pointing fingers at the US also seems to try to pigeon-hole our point of view as 'America bashing,' as if all of America is at fault for a corrupt and violence-producing foreign policy (when indeed said policies undermine many American ideals).
Again, a double-standard (not necessarily by you, but by many), in that criticizing foreign and corporate policies is 'anti-American' yet criticizing domestic policies somehow automatically equals patriotism.
I for one am quite sick of double standards.
***
In any case, I am done. I've spoken my bit, and if some people choose to misinterpret me further, so be it.
I should realize by now that plenty of people are so well insulated into unconditional support of the status quo that there is no room for question, and any challenge to said way of thinking must be twisted into a shape that makes it easier to dismiss out of hand.
I'm disappointed, of course, but hardly surprised.
Fine, ignore anything you want to. Pretend it isn't somehow relevant. Just don't be surprised when it happens again - and even escalates.
I'd hope LW could be something where honest discussion could be appreciated, that we can do more than "Who's your favorite Legionnaire?" or playing games.
But maybe along the lines of the old song, "Everyone's Out of Step but Johnny," I'm the one who really does not belong here.
Farewell.
Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm very happy that Osama Bid Laden is dead. On the one hand, I aspire to be the kind of person who never wishes death on anyone, but on the other hand, if I personally saw Osama Bin Laden across the room, I might actually have tried to kill him.
But I think we've moved quite a bit off topic here in terms of tone, if not subject matter.
Both Kent and Cleome bring up good points and they are certainly valid points. Their comments are certainly not worthy of being dismissed. Sure, the thread is mainly about Osama Bin Laden, but it isn’t too far of a step to talk about the War on Terror, and therefore, it certainly isn’t much farther of a step to discuss the more complex factors that feed into the War on Terror. Sure, most of the country is delighted he’s dead, and teenagers were cheering in the streets and lots of people we all know (maybe even some of us) have wished they riddled his body with bullets or dragged it from the back of a horse through the streets or something. But just because there is a sense of elation right now, doesn’t give us cause to ignore or dismiss more complex and difficult ideas. There is no “we deserve this” in this thread; we’re all adults and any topic may breed some intellectual discourse. It’s good that opposing viewpoints, especially those that really get into the more abstract notions, are added to the discourse.
It’s clear there are some opposing views here and that’s fine. They are all equally relevant.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
So now you are down to namecalling. I'm being dishonest and disingenuous. funny, I thought i was trying to be civil.
so, okay.
First, I haven't dismissed your opinion. Its just that, an opinion. funny thing is, when i have one here, its immediately bashed by some as being a kind of neocon hatemongering. Not said in so many words, but thats the intent. Your opinion is yours, an matters as much as anybodies else's, mine included, which is to say, worth jack.
Second, No, I wasn't trying to find a way to belittle or dismiss your opinion. I was genuinely asking. Because, like I stated above, its very easy to sling opinions for a superior attitude when you offer no viable solutions to anything other than over done, over stated platitudes that help no one, but salve your own conscience.
Third, yes, america does what other countries have to do, do business with bad people, cause, here's the thing, there ain't no good ones. Everyone is bad in some form or other. We even had congress tell they cia that they couldn't use 'bad people' as informants, operatives, etc... and look how well that turned out. Fear made them pass laws that seperated the various agencies so that they could not communicate, and use knowledge to form a working intel system that could lead to the prevention of things like 911. It was all under the banner "for the greater good, protecting people from the evil agencies". Except, when the CIA can't tell the FBI that known terrorists are headed for the US, and cannot legally operate inside the US..and the FBI isn't supposed to be gathering intel from outside our borders... then who the hell is gonna be able to do the job? Again, Jack Nobody.
So, I asked for a working solution that helps everyone, and doesn't hurt anyone. But, as you correctly surmissed, it isn't possible. Someone, somewhere, is gonna be hurt. Wanna end the dependence on oil? Great. Except, not everyone in america lives New York with mass transit to a job where they get to sit at a computer all day. Some of us live out in the coutryside, and our livelihood depends on having the means to travel about. Should we be forced to move into town to live? Communists did that. Should we loose our homes, which we struggle mightily with paying for because some vocal minority group decides that the country needs to go green and wants gas prices at five and six dollars a gallon? All in the name of helping us? Thanks, but no thanks.
For ever product out there, there is someone hurt. Thats the way the world, at this point, works. Its not a Utopia, and as long as humans are humans and not emotionless, heartless, unfeeling robots, it will continue that way.
No one is pretending we didn't have a hand in Bin Laden getting his start. But, we are but one step in many that created a mass baby/child/man/woman murderer. I'm not going to feel sorry for him. And if others are turned to Jihad racialism extremist murdering to prove a point, then I think, IN MY OPINION, that they had bad wiring in the head to begin with, and have no compunction about them being put down.
When a dog is rabid, you put it down. When a racoon is rabid, you put it down. When a "human" shows that they have no concern for innocent life, and state that their goal is to encourage/sponsor/ create even more death, destruction, and pain and suffering... a bullet is cheap.
As for your farewell, if thats the case its a shame. I've been on the receiving end of many a differing viewpoint here. When I first got here, I was a very blunt statement maker. I learned that I was in a place that was kind enough to let me say things, even if they truly didn't want to hear it and it would have no effect. But, I tried to learn to play well with others and say things without some of the rancor i felt coming through.
And that, more than anything, was what changed my mind about posting in such a fashion as I mentioned earlier, not some lame ass attempt to make you, Cleome, or anyone else look bad. But even when i try to be nice, its still taken as a shot. Maybe you do need to think about it before resorting to namecalling.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
Well, Kent, I guess you won't be seeing this response, but, for the benefit of anyone else who's still reading, here goes.
No one ever said you, cleome, or anyone else were "not allowed" to bring in other contexts. You did so just fine. But airing your views means inviting a response from others who agree with you, disagree with you, and (yes) misunderstand you. That's the risk we all take.
Did I misunderstand your views? Did I "deflect" them into something I could more easily "dismiss"? I dunno. It's possible. I'm working through the paradigms of my own understanding of the world, as we all are.
Communication is a difficult process, at best. In order to communicate effectively, the sender must work through the messages in one's own brain that distract, distort, protect the ego, and find the right words for the audience. Unfortunately, the receiver has to go through the same process. It's all very messy and can easily go awry.
That's why it requires patience and a willingness to explain and explain again. A willingness to stick with an issue until the truth that is being conveyed is uncovered.
Unfortunately, you seem to be out of patience. This is unfortunate.
It is also unfortunate that you've had to put up with "plenty of people [who] are so well insulated into unconditional support of the status quo that there is no room for question, and any challenge to said way of thinking must be twisted into a shape that makes it easier to dismiss out of hand."
If this is your opinion of me, I think you've gravely misunderstood my intent (which may be my fault). If it's your opinion of LW, I think you're dead wrong.
Look, you're an intelligent guy, too, and you obviously know more about foreign policy and U.S. history than most of us. But rather than using this as an opportunity to educate us, you lose your temper and resign. You complaign that others misunderstand your views, yet you went to great lengths to demolish Candlelight's views a page ago. This gives the impression that you can dish it out but you can't take it.
But what do I know? I'm just one of those insular people who dismisses things I don't like to hear.
I'm sorry if it was my post that drove you away from LW.
Posted by Kent Shakespeare on :
Out of respect to you, He Who LSHes, I will reply on my way out the door. Yes, I was heated before, but I'm still heading out, and not entirely because of this thread. This was just the straw on the camel's back.
2 pages ago, I thought I was addressing my issues with Candle one-by-one, in a reasonably cohesive way. In return, between then and my last post, I saw only a collection of efforts by several people to boil my content down into a bare-bones summary... a summary which not only did I not intend, but looking back at my post, I could find no basis at all for.
I realize despite my general effort/intention to civilly rebut Candle, there were some things I could have phrased better. But I did address her points, not merely boil them down into a bundle and shunt them aside, as it seems like most people (other than cleome) were doing, even Quis (although less so).
And yes, Rick's more blatant dismissal attempt (no matter how he tries to back away from it, after getting called on it) did bleed over into my other responses, especially into my 'farewell.' Not so much into my response to you (I should have separated them into two posts; I certainly can see in retrospect how, despite my "***" separation, the two could seem linked). Rather than "dish it out but not take it," I saw virtually no effort (except for Quis, somewhat) to address me as thoughtfully as I think/thought I had approached Candle. Instead, I got a caricature, a straw man of what I said. Hardly an apples-apples comparison as to what is being dished, in my view.
Imagine if someone boiled down your posts into "He Who LSHes is glad to see a dead Arab," with no further context or explanation, not then the name of the Arab in question. That's what happens when you reduce things too far. That's how it seemed you, Rick and even Quis were reducing me.
So yes, not only the group of you collectively, but some of your posts appeared to me as deflection and/or false reductionism. Perhaps not as blatant as Rick's, but deflection nonetheless. Combined with the content of your reply, and the similar reductionism down to 'America bashing,' it truly came across like a compartmentalization of what I said into terms easier for you to dismiss. And essentially doing it as a group suggested (and frankly still suggests) no room for negotiation.
I would gladly stay and join in a meaningful dialogue, but it seems to me of questionable point. Either (a) I am a greater failure than I realize as a communicator, or (b) my snap judgment on the cultural reinforcement which at least several of you share does insulate at least some of you from what I have to say.
So, with no one listening, it seemed like a good place to leave. Yes, communication is inexact and can be difficult, but it also requires a bridge to meet halfway on. I really do not see such a bridge. Nor can I be the only one to try to make the crossing. And despite the goodwill of your last post, it comes as too little, too late. The ship has sailed.
But if you want to dish it out at me, fine. I'll stop by now and again to read it all. Say what you will, tear me apart. Whatever you want. It really seems you don't actually need me here to construct a position for me anyway.
Legion World has usually been a magnificent place, a place to relax, have fun and bond with friends. But in the past year or so, in my perception at least, there have been people who have lessened my appreciation for being here, particularly on the LSH forum. Yes, I could debate them and hold my ground over and over again, but frankly that's not why I come here. Yes, a political threat is inherently a more contentious type of thread, and one should expect some back-and-forth, and I did. And I would stay and clarify, overcome misunderstandings, if I saw even the slightest intention of reciprocality, but I am not going to explain anything again and again when the only listening going on is mining for content in order to misrepresent. Please note that I did make such an attempt with Quis; he's the only one who made the effort. And, by his own words, he seems to be out of this thread.
Rick's ridiculous "Let's see you do better! Nyah!" challenge, combined with some of his other recent Rickisms, and the realization that no one (except cleome, who was already of a like mind) could even be bothered to address one single salient point I'd raised - yet everyone (again, except cleome) made the effort to misrepresent me - leads me to believe there is no point to even try here. I've tried to think well of Rick over the years, despite some of the things he's come up with, but this time his BS was the last straw. Not your post on its own, HWL, incidentally. And thank you for the bulk of your last post.
(and Rick, it's hard to buy that "meant well" line in the context of the parameters you were trying to impose. Whether you admit it or not, to us or yourself, you were trying to steer/control the discussion to the very generalizations you made in your last post. Take it as name-calling if you need to, but BS is BS. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it)
If I ever return to LW, sure, I'll join in the fun little games, add in my jokes and such. But other than those of you I've met in real life, and a few whom I would still like to meet, I'll know better than to try to engage in a genuine, mutual discussion.
And lastly, I will apologize to Candle if I stepped too far in my response to you.
take care, one and all.
Posted by cleome on :
Kent,
Damn. Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: and yet one of the greatest mass murdering systems the world has ever known, communism...
And this is the point where I pretty much lose interest in your arguments, Dude. Because this doesn't really have squat to do with what I'm talking about.
Disliking my native land's foreign policy has exactly jack to do with any desire to idolize the government of the former Soviet Union.
Please. Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by He Who LSHes: ...Thanks for the link to Andrea LeBlanc's article, "America after Osama bin Laden." She is correct that bin Laden's death ultimately changes nothing. It does not bring back her husband or the others lost in 9/11...
No problem. I think it's important to keep this kind of thing in mind. Some people do take the high road, no matter how badly they're hurting. I'm not saying that I could do it, in the same possition. But I would like to believe that it's possible.
quote:...But I have to ask, how would closure or justice look to you?
I don't know that it's achievable. How many people are still trying to argue about Vietnam? The U.S. Civil War? I don't even know that I have words for what that would look like.
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by Cobalt Kid: As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm very happy that Osama Bid Laden is dead. On the one hand, I aspire to be the kind of person who never wishes death on anyone, but on the other hand, if I personally saw Osama Bin Laden across the room, I might actually have tried to kill him.
But I think we've moved quite a bit off topic here in terms of tone, if not subject matter.
Both Kent and Cleome bring up good points and they are certainly valid points. Their comments are certainly not worthy of being dismissed. Sure, the thread is mainly about Osama Bin Laden, but it isn’t too far of a step to talk about the War on Terror, and therefore, it certainly isn’t much farther of a step to discuss the more complex factors that feed into the War on Terror. Sure, most of the country is delighted he’s dead, and teenagers were cheering in the streets and lots of people we all know (maybe even some of us) have wished they riddled his body with bullets or dragged it from the back of a horse through the streets or something. But just because there is a sense of elation right now, doesn’t give us cause to ignore or dismiss more complex and difficult ideas. There is no “we deserve this” in this thread; we’re all adults and any topic may breed some intellectual discourse. It’s good that opposing viewpoints, especially those that really get into the more abstract notions, are added to the discourse.
It’s clear there are some opposing views here and that’s fine. They are all equally relevant.
Thank You for this, Cobie.
I'm not angry at anyone here. It's just... I keep rereading my posts now looking for where I ever implied that it was perfectly okay for Bin Laden to do what he did. And... I'm not finding that, anywhere.
That's a little dispiriting, you know. Writing one thing and having it reach the other person's screen as something else entirely.
Posted by Dev Em on :
Unfortunately Cleome, that is the way of the internet. Things that would come across one way if we were to actually be in the same room and talking to each other, seem to loose something in the interpretation by others through the portal of our monitors. The blessing of being able to meet and converse with people from everywhere is also the curse of not having the true intonations of things said (typed) in cyberspace. Intonation can change a sentence in dramatic ways...and the internal intonations a reader gives your sentences dictates how they 'hear' them.
As far as Osama Bin Laden, I too am glad that this man is gone, and no longer out there trying to think of new ways to try and kill anyone that he thought deserved it...which seems to be most of the worlds population. We armed the him and the Afghans, and that totally bit us in the arse. Will we (the USofA) do something like that again...unfortunatelyit's a likely scenario. Unless there is a massive retooling of our government...which I do not see happening any time soon...again unfortunately.
My personal political views have changed drasticvally over the years, and the changes seem to be happening faster and more severe the older I get. Funny thing is, my Liberal friends would think I am conservative, and my Conservative friends would think I am liberal...when in truth, they are both correct. My views are my own and almost guarenteed to offend someone I know...ah well.
I try to keep up with things (world politics and the like), but in todays day and age of information overload...plus raising two kids (and trying to figure out how to help my daughter with 'new math' - which is in and of itself a full time undertaking)) and doing the other things that I like to do (or need to do), I just do not have the time I'd like to devote to it...or the other 15+ things I want to get into doing more of.
I lost a lot of the blind flag waving view way back when I took a class in college about Japan...and got a whole new perspective of WWII, and why they did what they did. Made me fully realize that history is a skewed thing...something that I had known before, but that really opened my eyes.
Kinda rambled about nothing here...but oh well.
Posted by He Who LSHes on :
Kent -
As a matter of fact, some of my posts have been misrepresented in previous discussions. I have tried to address those misrepresentations while not judging too quickly the people who made them. I've tried to give everyone the benefit of a doubt while acknowledging that I may be partly responsible for the misunderstanding.
You say no one was listening. Well, we were, in fact, listening -- perhaps not in the manner you wanted. Frankly, you do come off as a bit contemptuous toward those who disagree with you and condescending over our inability to grasp the finer points of your point-by-point rebuttals. And now that you are leaving and (apparently) not going to respond to any further "dishing out" you get to claim the high road. Frankly, this seems self-serving.
I find it ironic that it took a thread about Osama bin Laden to bring all this to the fore. LW as a collective has weathered discussions on politics, outing, and every conceivable LSH topic. So, it took a dead terrorist to bring out heated exchanges, differing views and "reductions" of those views to make you quit.
I almost regret starting this thread. It was intended just to let people know the breaking news as I had learned it. Earlier, some of us had discussed the recent lack of excitement on the board. I had no idea that this thread would overcompensate by putting people at logger-heads.
Bin Laden is not worth it.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
"Rick's ridiculous "Let's see you do better! Nyah!" challenge, combined with some of his other recent Rickisms, and the realization that no one (except cleome, who was already of a like mind) could even be bothered to address one single salient point I'd raised - yet everyone (again, except cleome) made the effort to misrepresent me - leads me to believe there is no point to even try here. I've tried to think well of Rick over the years, despite some of the things he's come up with, but this time his BS was the last straw. Not your post on its own, HWL, incidentally. And thank you for the bulk of your last post.
(and Rick, it's hard to buy that "meant well" line in the context of the parameters you were trying to impose. Whether you admit it or not, to us or yourself, you were trying to steer/control the discussion to the very generalizations you made in your last post. Take it as name-calling if you need to, but BS is BS. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it)
If I ever return to LW, sure, I'll join in the fun little games, add in my jokes and such. But other than those of you I've met in real life, and a few whom I would still like to meet, I'll know better than to try to engage in a genuine, mutual discussion."
Well, thats dramatic.
so, setting aside the personal attack on me, which I haven't done to you, by the way, lets get to the meet of this.
"of like mind".
that's the real crux of the matter.
Even in threads I haven't been a part of, you've been much more contentious lately with other posters here that haven't agreed with you. But this thread must be the straw because people here much more respected and liked than I am ... are not agreeing with you. They aren't saying you are wrong, just not agreeing with you.
You seem to have wanted everyone to be on board the Kent bandwagon, and some very well respected members aren't. Well, thats the real problem with other people, isn't it? they tend to have opinions of their own that don't necessarily jibe with yours.
Most people here just put up with me. I'm the odd man out voice than can be counted on for a laugh at best, joked about at worst. "Oh, it's just a Rickism." to paraphrase you.
And lem'me tell ya, it ain't always easy coming to a place you mostly like, but know that your ideas and beliefs are generally disliked or made fun of by those you like.
But, you claim to be open minded here, you better be able to back it up. You, Kent, think I'm closeminded...but I'm willing to listen, and over time I've tried to adapt to the spirit of the place. I may not agree, but I'm willing to listen. You are the one deciding to leave the conversation. Well, not everyone is gonna listen every time you speak. Thats life.
As for my "bs"... the real bs here, Kent, is you cutting and running instead of civilly, politely, but firmly standing your ground. Of taking a potshot and then leaving before getting a response.
And by the way, this is much less a response than what I had originally typed... agian. Hellfire, brimstone, cats lying with dogs... I had a really good number about pimento cheese as well, but you wont see it.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
quote:Originally posted by cleome: [snip]
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: and yet one of the greatest mass murdering systems the world has ever known, communism...
And this is the point where I pretty much lose interest in your arguments, Dude. Because this doesn't really have squat to do with what I'm talking about.
Disliking my native land's foreign policy has exactly jack to do with any desire to idolize the government of the former Soviet Union.
Please.
Then you really didn't get that I was referring to your posting history here as a person of the "Populace", for the little guy, a hater of big government and corporations.
You really didn't make the connection between a government that made all those claims to be for the little guy, the worker, and yet still managed to wrack up an impressive mass murder record?
to quote you...
please.
Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by Dev Em:
My personal political views have changed drastically over the years, and the changes seem to be happening faster and more severe the older I get. Funny thing is, my Liberal friends would think I am conservative, and my Conservative friends would think I am liberal...when in truth, they are both correct. My views are my own and almost guaranteed to offend someone I know...
Kinda rambled about nothing here...but oh well.
Not really. I think I get where you're coming from, Dev.
Posted by cleome on :
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: Then you really didn't get that I was referring to your posting history here as a person of the "Populace", for the little guy, a hater of big government and corporations.
You really didn't make the connection between a government that made all those claims to be for the little guy, the worker, and yet still managed to wrack up an impressive mass murder record?...
Oooh, I'm a'scared now.
Are you gonna' dig up Zombie J. Edgar Hoover to come after me, O Great One?
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
Last night I tried to write my thoughts about this issue. I was up until 2:30 AM before deciding to delete the whole thing. I realized some things:
(1) I cared enough about interacting with you all about this to stay up until 2:30 on a work night. (2) Although I have convictions about all this, I couldn't get my thoughts in writing clearly and thoroughly enough to even agree with what I wrote. When I would reread it, I found point after point that I could argue with or felt needed further exploration. It's not that I didn't know my own mind or can't express my thinking clearly (or that it was the wee hours of the morning), it's that the issue has so many complexities that I couldn't cover everything I wanted to in a concise presentation. (And I think much of the conflict here comes from the difficulty of getting the nuances in such lengthy posts.) (3) I realized that if I'd published something here, then I'd have had to defend it. And I couldn't even defend it to myself.
I've read every post on this thread. I don't recall even one that I've completely disagreed with. I'm impressed with everyone's ability to state their case, but I also feel that no one has managed to make a definitive analysis. And I'm sure that no one would claim that was their goal.
Unfortunately, it's too easy for us to feel that disagreement with or misunderstanding of our statements of conviction is an attack on our selves, and we react in defense. We know the reality of that dynamic, especially in written internet forums, but we still get hooked. And then dialogue turns into attack or retreat.
It's that very human part of us which, without humility and the hard work of love, can escalate into war and terrorism. Perhaps Osama's death, with its questions about vengeance, violence, morals, patriotism, etc., is nudging deeper parts of ourselves than we realize.
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
quote:Originally posted by Dev Em: [QB] My personal political views have changed drasticvally over the years, and the changes seem to be happening faster and more severe the older I get. Funny thing is, my Liberal friends would think I am conservative, and my Conservative friends would think I am liberal...when in truth, they are both correct. My views are my own and almost guarenteed to offend someone I know...ah well. QB]
That describes me too, Dev.
Posted by Jerry on :
Absolutely, LT. And, I'm frankly glad to see it. We've been at war for ten years. The nature of war is that it involves horrible, violent, ugly things. Some may think the ends justify the means. Others may think that we've sold our souls and the soul of our nation by stooping to the level of our enemy. For too much of this war we've been content to let our professional military get their hands bloody while we watch from the comfort of our living rooms. I'm pretty confused about my own feelings and have had a hard time finding my voice. I'm glad to see some thunder and emotion finally coming to the surface.
Posted by Lard Lad on :
This thread is really saddening me as I read through it. I've always enjoyed interacting with Kent/Sean over the past several years when I returned to LW after a long sabbatical (that had absolutely nothing to do with any disillusionment with this site, btw). I've seen his disenchantment developing over the last year or more, and I'm sad that it's gone this far. Sean, I hope you know that I'll always value your friendship if this is truly curtains for you and this site. I still often find myself missing numerous posters who've left over the years for reasons known and unknown. To see someone depart in such acrimonious circumstances is especially disheartening.
The saddest part here, guys, is that you're ALL right! What all of you are feeling surrounding this bombastic issue is dictated by your own individual emotional and logical reactions to it. I can see all sides and find salient points all around. Maybe I'm just too wishy-washy? I dunno. I guess that's why I'd describe myself as a moderate, I suppose.
I'd say from my point of view, however, that this debate is past saving, at least beyond the principle people who disagree with each other. No one's mind is going to be changed from this point, and the pot shots are increasing and escalating. If I were a moderator on this forum, I'd be tempted to close the topic, frankly. If the discourse was more polite and not degenerating, I'd not feel that way, but it simply is degenerating!
Some issues, it seems, are too emotionally-charged and too divisive to control, even on a forum that is one where cooler heads traditionally prevail. I'm not taking one side or the other or placing blame on any one poster over any of the others. Though I started this post lamenting Sean's departure, please do not take that as my endorsing his side over the other, or vice versa.
This is simply escalating out of control with name-calling, insults and character attacks prevailing among the principles. I like all of you guys and don't want to see it go any further. We're past the point where this can be productive, in my opinion.
This forum is foremost about RESPECT. I'd suggest that we respect that, agree to disagree and move on before things get any worse.
Love you all, guys.
-Anthony
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
quote:Originally posted by Kent Shakespeare: [QUOTE] In any case, I am done. I've spoken my bit....
I'd hope LW could be something where honest discussion could be appreciated, that we can do more than "Who's your favorite Legionnaire?" or playing games.
But maybe...I'm the one who really does not belong here.
Farewell.
Wow. In just over a year, we found 617 things to post in the "1001 Things That Go Wrong in Kent Shakespeare's Absence" thread. I bet we reach 1001 in the next two weeks!
Save us, Kent, from that horrible fate. Ask yourself, "What would Kent Shakespeare do?"
;-)
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
quote:Originally posted by Lard Lad: I'd say from my point of view, however, that this debate is past saving, at least beyond the principle people who disagree with each other.... If I were a moderator on this forum, I'd be tempted to close the topic, frankly. If the discourse was more polite and not degenerating, I'd not feel that way, but it simply is degenerating!
...I like all of you guys and don't want to see it go any further. We're past the point where this can be productive, in my opinion.
This forum is foremost about RESPECT. I'd suggest that we respect that, agree to disagree and move on before things get any worse.
Lardy, you're right that the conversation is deteriorating. And maybe it would be good to close the thread. But closing it would leave folks to walk away wounded without a place to work toward reconciliation. Maybe reconciliation won't happen...but it might, and it would be good.
Posted by Lard Lad on :
LT, I'd rather everyone reconcile, but I'm not seeing things moving anywhere near that goal--in the opposite direction, in fact. I don't have the power to close this thread. I'm not entirely sure if that's the best solution. All I know is that the alternatives are dwindling, IMO.
Posted by Ram Boy on :
The thread has become a little passionate, sure. But that's to be expected when one considers the the scope of the subject being debated.
Everyone will be fine.
Posted by cleome on :
I'm hoping Kent will come back after things have had time to cool down.
Now, if you'll all excuse me, I need to get to work on my new avatar, which naturally will feature a giant hammer and sickle.
Posted by Blacula on :
quote:Originally posted by Lard Lad: I can see all sides and find salient points all around. Maybe I'm just too wishy-washy? I dunno. I guess that's why I'd describe myself as a moderate, I suppose.
I get accused by my friends of being a fence-sitter all the time and it really frustrates me.
I sometimes feel like saying "What's wrong with seeing both sides of an issue?"
And since I have friends on the right and the left it often leaves me having to argue a point I don't necessarily agree with just to provide some balance to the subject.
I don't think every argument/discussion has two equally valid sides though - for example, I think the argument about civil rights (whether it be racial or sexual or gender or whatever - and yes, I'm including gay marriage in that) only has a right side and a wrong side... and those on the wrong side are just too scared or ignorant or selfish to realise it.
But the discussion in this thread (what I can follow of it - it still basically boils down to "War, war, what is it good for?" right?) is of course a complex one with many sides - a lot of them valid.
I'm too conflicted within my own mind about where I stand on this issue to offer much insight though.
On the one hand, I'm a Hank Hall - wanting to see the dangerous tyrants of the world put out of commission so that the people suffering under them can experience freedom (oh, how I wish Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and that Belarussian dictator would face horrible retribution for their terrible crimes).
But on the other hand I'm a Don Hall - knowing what an awful course of action war is and seriously wondering if the ends ever justify the means. Could the horrific death toll of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan ever justify anything?
Something I'm finding very interesting at the moment, though, is the fantastic sign of democratic change that is occurring in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere around the Middle East. It's a demonstration that the people in those countries are able to bring about regime change on their own (or with structural support from NATO) and don't necessarily need invading foreign forces to do so.
It makes me wonder whether on Earth-2, where the West never invaded either country, Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't also now be relatively peacefully freeing themselves of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - and therefore saving that planet the hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars that these two endless wars have cost ours.
[ May 05, 2011, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Blacula ]
Posted by Ram Boy on :
quote:Originally posted by cleome: Now, if you'll all excuse me, I need to get to work on my new avatar, which naturally will feature a giant hammer and sickle.
Hmmm, I always pictured you more as an exotic Bond girl, cleome. You know, the type who starts off all smart and aloofy before James and his big capitalistic "gun" shows you the error of your ways.
(you do have a charmingly indescribable accent, right?)
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
cleome:
quote:I'm not angry at anyone here. It's just... I keep rereading my posts now looking for where I ever implied that it was perfectly okay for Bin Laden to do what he did. And... I'm not finding that, anywhere.
You may not be saying it's OK for Osama bin Laden to do what he did, but you definitely seemed to be saying that the fact that the US trained him (and other Muslim fighters) in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets as our proxies made it wrong for the US to seek justice when he turned on the US.
US foreign policy history is hardly perfect. But the specific grievances that Osama bin Laden accused to US of are a completely twisted view of events. His world view has been shaped by people who hate the idea of religious freedom, not by the US government which constitutionally protects such for its citizens.
Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by Chaim Mattis Keller: ...You may not be saying it's OK for Osama bin Laden to do what he did, but you definitely seemed to be saying that the fact that the US trained him (and other Muslim fighters) in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets as our proxies made it wrong for the US to seek justice when he turned on the US...
Uh, what do they say over on the Wikipedia boards?
Oh, yeah.
CITATION NEEDED Posted by cleome on :
[snip]
quote:Originally posted by Ram Boy:
...(you do have a charmingly indescribable accent, right?)
Yeah, if by "indescribable" you mean "Richard Lewis, only with one nostril plugged up."
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
cleome:
Citation: this quote comes from the very first page of this thread:
quote:The American "leadership" who cultivated a relationship with the man knew all along what he was. So, yes, it is hypocritical [to consider him an enemy after he attacked the US].
Posted by cleome on :
Uh, what?
The hypocrisy comes from cultivating relationships with amoral people and then acting surprised when they turn on you.
The hypocrisy comes from claiming to want peace while repeating this cycle over and over and over again.
The hypocrisy comes from claiming the moral high ground while repeatedly wallowing in the mud with horrible people like Bin Laden for the sake of the almighty dollar.
Really, between your willful distortions here and rickshaw1's dark mutterings about ZOMFG!COMMIES!!11, I'm not real impressed.
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
I wasn't making an intentional distortion; I genuinely thought that your accusation of hypocrisy was in regard to America's treatment of bin Laden after he turned against the USA, not merely their "surprise" that he turned against the USA.
That said, I still think you're wrong in most of what you're saying here, but as long as you're cool with the fact that the US military got the bastard, I really don't have the will to spread the argument to more general areas of political philosophy.
Posted by Pov on :
quote:Originally posted by Ram Boy: Everyone will be fine.
Ram Boy: LW's Blue Lantern. Posted by Dave Hackett on :
Yeah, it's a nice summation why, no, I can't really be "cool" about assassination, no matter how much of an awful person the target was, or is.
Posted by future king on :
I agree. I guess I'm just torn about what I'm feeling about this news right now. I feel more sorry for his family than anything else actually.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
![[sigh]](graemlins/sigh.gif)
![[No]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)