>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.
I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.
>> ^criticalthud:
I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.



we have of course, actively supported dictators who have exterminated their own people or violently put down any protests. and we continue to. it's happening right now. The point is, "revolution" in the name of democracy only occurs when US interests are favored. otherwise the US categorizes 'rebellion' or 'revolution'...or even dissent as a terrorist action against a legitimate state. When it favors the US or other high powered interests, "revolution" is simply a pretext for us to topple regimes that are unfriendly to US interests.

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.

I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.

>> ^criticalthud:

I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.

sweet. now there's just the private security force there that costs about 10x as much per man.
he ended the war. great for the resume. he continued the occupation....no need to talk about it.

I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.

the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.

I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Ignoring context.
The context in which I use the word believe was a juxtaposition between the belief in science, and reason and the Belief of Believers.
Do you see the difference?
Both use the same word in much different ways. One means a belief in a system which self-corrects and is always adjusting to make a model of the universe which is always getting closer to the underlying truth. And one is a faith based rejection of any change or adjustment in the rock-hard adherence to previously set down TRUTH.
Do I have to explain how I just used the juxtaposition of differing uses of the word truth now? Or, do understand the context?
Because of the condescending tone of your reply; go ahead and see this as an attack.
[Edit of the first statement:
I said people resist being categorized. I should have said that some people resist being categorized. Many people relish the chance to say, "I'm with this group."]

Not sure which part of my post came off as condescending or why. I was just trying to respond to your points.

When I read your original comments on the word "believers", I understand your point to be that non-religious people might "believe" in "science and reason" and might then be considered "believers". Maybe that wasn't your point, but my reply was based on that. I think the question makes it clear that this is not the belief I'm asking about. If, however, someone wants to claim something along the lines of "science and reason are my religion", then they may feel free to classify themselves as believers in the poll.

Sorry again for my tone. It was unintentional.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I think this post shows that people resist being categorized.
Lumping together "others" is condescending and can easily be taken as an insult. Also, the term "believers" is an extremely loaded term which some people--I for one--see as excluding. I believe in science and reason. Many monotheists BELIEVE so intently that they have dismissed all evidence--including independently verified scientific evidence--and even admit that they will dismiss all evidence which contradicts their prejudices (definition of dogma).
Please don't see this as an attack xxovercastxx. I see what information you wanted to get out of this--and I'm interested in what results might come out of this--but a poll (IMOHO) will only be seen as pigeonholing. Maybe if you simply asked what beliefs people hold you would get more information (as alway mixed with smartassed remarks--this is Videosift after all).

You might not understand what loaded means if you think "believer" is a loaded term. "Stupid believer" or "righteous believer" would be loaded terms.
As for your belief in science and reason, that's ignoring the context. I asked how people would classify themselves religiously. Unless you think science and reason are religions, your belief in them is irrelevant. Though, if you do think they are religions, feel free to call yourself a believer. This poll is all about self-identifying.


Ignoring context.

The context in which I use the word believe was a juxtaposition between the belief in science, and reason and the Belief of Believers.

Do you see the difference?

Both use the same word in much different ways. One means a belief in a system which self-corrects and is always adjusting to make a model of the universe which is always getting closer to the underlying truth. And one is a faith based rejection of any change or adjustment in the rock-hard adherence to previously set down TRUTH.

Do I have to explain how I just used the juxtaposition of differing uses of the word truth now? Or, do understand the context?

Because of the condescending tone of your reply; go ahead and see this as an attack.

[Edit of the first statement:
I said people resist being categorized. I should have said that some people resist being categorized. Many people relish the chance to say, "I'm with this group."]

Ugh. Ok:



Population group A has a lower than replacement level reproduction rate.
Population group B has a higher than replacement level reproduction rate and benefits from an unlimited external source of replenishment.
The outcome is that over time, group A will cease to exist.
As it happens, some individuals in group A may be displeased about their upcoming extinction.


Human beings of whatever colour of skin can make babies with one another. Therefore: AB+A+B , not either A or B. This is not how it works. Also your group B cannot have unlimited external source of replenishment. Even with a huge outside source of replenishment, it will all work out as a nice intercultural mix, as it is right now: the letters we use are latin, the numerals arabic. Cultures are all already mixed.
It is not "us" versus "them", It is "us" with "them." What your ideological fear of a "civilisation going extinct" implies, is that you are a racist. Maybe just a cultural racist, but a racist nonetheless. Now to the really stupid stuff:

Unlike most media sources who immediately suspected Muslim involvement, I waited for more facts to emerge before making assumptions. That is not the action of a "racist" as you would define one.

Very good, had nothing to do with why I called you a racist, and you are right, it would not be a reason to call you a racist. But it does not negate your racist comments of basically agreeing with a mass-murderer that Muslims, or group B as you like to call them, will end our "civilisation."


My admission is that his reasoning is sound, his concerns legitimate and his motivations worthy of study.

His reasoning is not sound, his concerns are bonkers and his motivation is worthy of study for psychiatrists. If you like, present one of his mad theories you agree with and watch it being ripped apart by every kind of reasonable person (non-fascists and non-racists) there is. Now for the best bit:

As for DerHasisttot's logical pretzel. I'm sure he is the type of fellow that would mobilize government in defense of an endangered species of duck, but yet finds the mild concept that a civilization wishes to maintain its existence is morally wrong. Shame on him.


Let's reverse the roles ad absurdum and relish in the brilliant irony of your preface "logical pretzel": "I'm sure pprt is the type of person X, who would rather Z than Y! Shame on him!." So, you assume I am a specific type of person, assume how I would act in a certain situation, then assume how I would act in a different type of situation that goes against your ideology; and you follow with the (in your mind logical) conclusion that shame should be thrust upon me. Dude, you are shaming your own fiction.

But: Yes I would ask the nature conservatory of my government to protect an endangered species. The second part of your assumptional assault is of course: bonkers. I do not think it is ethnically wrong for anyone to remain alive. And I am not against museums, where one can look at relics of previous "civilisations." But: Cultures are in flux. Cultures are NOT static. Even North Korean culture cannot resist every western influence. In 200 years, no culture we know today will still exist. They will not have been killed by muslims like you want to believe in your racist mind. They will just evolve, move on, adapt and MIX. Every culture is mixed and NOT a homogenous entity.

Sorry dude, but you're kind of an idiot. No hate here. Just callin it like it is.

>> ^Smugglarn:

"Useful idiots" is a term of phrase which is apt, given you know anything about the sociopolitical climate in the region. Spit on their lives? I did nothing of the kind.
In regards to hate, that is that bubbly feeling you're feeling right now. Strange to call me a hate monger, when you are relishing in it. >> ^9547bis:
>> ^Smugglarn:
First, that it was a socialist gathering - they are useful idiots for the terrorists, but they were the party in power so maybe that was the reason.
Yes, when shamefully backtracking from your previous hate-mongering, do not forget to spit on the lives of murdered children, because them or their families were to part of the "right" political party.
You are a vile, disgusting person.

"Useful idiots" is a term of phrase which is apt, given you know anything about the sociopolitical climate in the region. Spit on their lives? I did nothing of the kind.

In regards to hate, that is that bubbly feeling you're feeling right now. Strange to call me a hate monger, when you are relishing in it. >> ^9547bis:

>> ^Smugglarn:
First, that it was a socialist gathering - they are useful idiots for the terrorists, but they were the party in power so maybe that was the reason.
Yes, when shamefully backtracking from your previous hate-mongering, do not forget to spit on the lives of murdered children, because them or their families were to part of the "right" political party.
You are a vile, disgusting person.

Thank you for summing up my feeling on the argument that has erupted here. For him to have a trial he would have had to surrendered first. So far all indications suggest he did nothing of the sort, so until we hear something different, its a moot point to bitch and moan about a fair trial. Saddam surrendered, he was tried by the Iraq government at the time, you can argue about whether the trial was fair or not. I wold have preferred Osama was taken alive, but I'm not so deluded as to think that was a possibility under the circumstance, or that they should have just let him go if they refused to surrender. The reality is the man was an internationally wanted criminal, this wasn't serving a warrant to some hit and run preparator, this was going in to get, alive or dead, a guy who was at the very least a figure head for an organization that straps bombs to women, children and the mentally handicapped so they can go an blow themselves up in a crowded area.

>> ^direpickle:

What is wrong with you people? They were told to take him alive if they could. They fired instead of surrendering. This is what happens. This isn't the death of Freedom--this is a dumbass having a firefight with SEALs.
As for people complaining about other people glorying in his death:
Here is a video of a kid kicking a wall. It collapses on his leg. It's hard to see exactly what happens, but it's entirely feasible that it completely crushed it. In some cases the same people that are here crying about bin Laden's death were posting comments on that video whooping it up--yeah, that's what you get for committing petty vandalism! Permanent disfigurement and disability!
I wasn't out celebrating, but I can see how some people would be. The largest demonstrations sounded like they were in NYC and DC. Are any of you NYC residents? Were you in 2001? It'd be easy for me to sit here in the Midwest and go, "Meh, whatever, all he did was kill a few thousand people," but these people lived there. These were the people they knew. And this was the guy that killed them. And then hid for ten years. Threatening to kill more.
This site is practically based on schadenfreude. You relish others' embarrassment, pain, etc. etc. There are tons of videos where people are probably permanently injured or killed from falls, crashes, etc, and you all love it.

>> ^direpickle:

What is wrong with you people? They were told to take him alive if they could. They fired instead of surrendering. This is what happens. This isn't the death of Freedom--this is a dumbass having a firefight with SEALs.
As for people complaining about other people glorying in his death:
Here is a video of a kid kicking a wall. It collapses on his leg. It's hard to see exactly what happens, but it's entirely feasible that it completely crushed it. In some cases the same people that are here crying about bin Laden's death were posting comments on that video whooping it up--yeah, that's what you get for committing petty vandalism! Permanent disfigurement and disability!
I wasn't out celebrating, but I can see how some people would be. The largest demonstrations sounded like they were in NYC and DC. Are any of you NYC residents? Were you in 2001? It'd be easy for me to sit here in the Midwest and go, "Meh, whatever, all he did was kill a few thousand people," but these people lived there. These were the people they knew. And this was the guy that killed them. And then hid for ten years. Threatening to kill more.
This site is practically based on schadenfreude. You relish others' embarrassment, pain, etc. etc. There are tons of videos where people are probably permanently injured or killed from falls, crashes, etc, and you all love it.



They could have taken him alive if they really wanted. They had a great deal of info on the place and clearly breached it quite easily. They easily overwhelmed the occupants. They could have gassed the place and rendered everyone unconscious. Hell, they could have probably tazed him. I'd suggest then that the desire to kill him is more likely based on notions of revenge rather than the suggestion that there was no choice.

This has nothing to do with videos of people screwing up, sometimes where they most likely filmed themselves. As long as submissions don't violate the snuff rule I see no conflict. This site is built on a great deal more than "schadenfreude". If you are offended by videos in the Fail or Controversial channels then filter them out.

Amazing how when it serves their own politics or interests how FAST the 'high ground' is taken... hypocrites!...

In reply to this comment by direpickle:
What is wrong with you people? They were told to take him alive if they could. They fired instead of surrendering. This is what happens. This isn't the death of Freedom--this is a dumbass having a firefight with SEALs.

As for people complaining about other people glorying in his death:

Here is a video of a kid kicking a wall. It collapses on his leg. It's hard to see exactly what happens, but it's entirely feasible that it completely crushed it. In some cases the same people that are here crying about bin Laden's death were posting comments on that video whooping it up--yeah, that's what you *get* for committing petty vandalism! Permanent disfigurement and disability!

I wasn't out celebrating, but I can see how some people would be. The largest demonstrations sounded like they were in NYC and DC. Are any of you NYC residents? Were you in 2001? It'd be easy for me to sit here in the Midwest and go, "Meh, whatever, all he did was kill a few thousand people," but these people lived there. These were the people they knew. And this was the guy that killed them. And then hid for ten years. Threatening to kill more.

This site is practically based on schadenfreude. You relish others' embarrassment, pain, etc. etc. There are tons of videos where people are probably permanently injured or killed from falls, crashes, etc, and you all love it.

Actually, no, I don't love those videos. I can't watch them, much less smirk about them.

So it isn't "all of us."



In reply to this comment by direpickle:
What is wrong with you people? They were told to take him alive if they could. They fired instead of surrendering. This is what happens. This isn't the death of Freedom--this is a dumbass having a firefight with SEALs.

As for people complaining about other people glorying in his death:

Here is a video of a kid kicking a wall. It collapses on his leg. It's hard to see exactly what happens, but it's entirely feasible that it completely crushed it. In some cases the same people that are here crying about bin Laden's death were posting comments on that video whooping it up--yeah, that's what you *get* for committing petty vandalism! Permanent disfigurement and disability!

I wasn't out celebrating, but I can see how some people would be. The largest demonstrations sounded like they were in NYC and DC. Are any of you NYC residents? Were you in 2001? It'd be easy for me to sit here in the Midwest and go, "Meh, whatever, all he did was kill a few thousand people," but these people lived there. These were the people they knew. And this was the guy that killed them. And then hid for ten years. Threatening to kill more.

This site is practically based on schadenfreude. You relish others' embarrassment, pain, etc. etc. There are tons of videos where people are probably permanently injured or killed from falls, crashes, etc, and you all love it.

What is wrong with you people? They were told to take him alive if they could. They fired instead of surrendering. This is what happens. This isn't the death of Freedom--this is a dumbass having a firefight with SEALs.

As for people complaining about other people glorying in his death:

Here is a video of a kid kicking a wall. It collapses on his leg. It's hard to see exactly what happens, but it's entirely feasible that it completely crushed it. In some cases the same people that are here crying about bin Laden's death were posting comments on that video whooping it up--yeah, that's what you *get* for committing petty vandalism! Permanent disfigurement and disability!

I wasn't out celebrating, but I can see how some people would be. The largest demonstrations sounded like they were in NYC and DC. Are any of you NYC residents? Were you in 2001? It'd be easy for me to sit here in the Midwest and go, "Meh, whatever, all he did was kill a few thousand people," but these people lived there. These were the people they knew. And this was the guy that killed them. And then hid for ten years. Threatening to kill more.

This site is practically based on schadenfreude. You relish others' embarrassment, pain, etc. etc. There are tons of videos where people are probably permanently injured or killed from falls, crashes, etc, and you all love it.

Spoco2 isn't talking about how the kid shouldn't have defended himself, he's talking about how such a horrible situation should never have happened. His apparent resolution is to punish all individuals that contributed to the situation.

But, let's say that you're a kid in school who realizes that the social atmosphere is completely horrible. What do you do? Do you stand on a soapbox and make a momentus Martin-Luther-King-like speech to get everyone to stop treating each other like shit, and to care about each other instead? Outside the box looking in, perhaps you can do something. The teacher who made a long comment on here has obviously figured out very clever ways of doing it by manually adjusting the social environment...at least in their own classroom. But, if you're one of the people stuck inside the problem trying to deal with it, the situation is exponentially more difficult.

In short, it's going to take much more than 'punishing all those involved' to correct the atmosphere; every kid in the school would need to be punished. For any school fight, you still see people forming a circle around the two people watching and commenting. Such is the default nature of things for humans. Back in elementary/middle school, I was pretty low on the totem pole, but I also am guilty of treating other people like shit (those lower than myself), and relishing violence whenever I saw it. If you're going to override the default, it's going to take major torrents of social reprogramming.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
Shiny, as a corporeal representative for God's so-called everlasting/universal love, you seem to really relish the idea of people who, y'know, don't fall in line with your incomprehensible and unjustified self-enslavement and stuff BURNING IN HELL FOREVER.
But please, defer the blame for your petty (calling it childish would be an insult to actual well-adjusted children), crass behavior right on back to your evidence-less imaginary friend so you don't have to ever engage anyone in good faith, ever; we're all sinners and you're God's special child/saved and that's that. Actually, considering that, it might be a better idea if you just fuck right off. Go drop a turd in someone else's punch-bowl.


I don't though, I do not relish that. It's the last thing I want. I don't relish the idea of anyone suffering, neither would I want anyone to have to suffer. I know that there are many people who will end up rejecting God, especially in these times. I pray God has mercy on their souls. I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God.

People want to have it both ways. They want Gods justice but not His punishment. God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that. It is only by a narrow margin that anyone could be saved under these circumstances, which is why Jesus Christ died for us. He made a provision for humanity, which despite its continual sinning was well loved by its Creator, even to the point of the death of His own Son.

Justice will be done for the evil committed on Earth and sin wont be allowed in Heaven. Those who hear the message and reject it with receive a greater punishment. That is why, noticing the anti-christian bent on the sift, I have been posting the truth in the threads of anti-christian videos. It's not about my ego..it is about Gods truth and His Word, and compassion for our collective spiritual plight. I don't feel like I am going to make it half the time, and I certainly wouldnt try to put it on that I am somehow more worthy than someone else.

That being said, the lies of the devil are too numerous to count, and far too many people have been duped by them. Anything which points away from Gods truth is a lie, and at least in this country sinning has become socially acceptable, and is even admired. It is also socially acceptable to disparage and denigrate Christians, and obstensively members of other religions. I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent. Society has embraced sin and has become seriously dystopian and nihilisitic. In any case it isn't something I can live with so when there is anti-christian propaganda out there I will respond with the truth. Not to justify myself to someone telling me to fuck off, but as this rudimentry and poorly thought out opinion on me seems to be becoming a concensus, I think the truth is worth stating.