It's just so stupid it's awesome.

Nah, my take is that in the movie, it's so stupid it's awesome.

This though, I can see many American's seriously singing along with pride and a tear in their eyes.

It's pretty sick really.

>> ^spoco2:

Nah, my take is that in the movie, it's so stupid it's awesome.
This though, I can see many American's seriously singing along with pride and a tear in their eyes.
It's pretty sick really.


Am I reading your post strangely?
Why is pride in seeing Osama dead pretty sick really?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^spoco2:
Nah, my take is that in the movie, it's so stupid it's awesome.
This though, I can see many American's seriously singing along with pride and a tear in their eyes.
It's pretty sick really.

Am I reading your post strangely?
Why is pride in seeing Osama dead pretty sick really?


Wow! You don't see the problem with that?

a) Killing him is not some great victory. A victory would have been capturing him, having him tried in a proper court and actually convicted of something with real evidence.
b) Having the kind of insane celebrations so many Americans currently are because a man was killed is pretty sick.

Can you not see how madly dancing around because a man has been killed is wrong? If he could actually be shown to be responsible, then I'd be far more happy to see him rot in jail for life, it brings 'monsters' down to a real, pretty damn pathetic level and shows people that justice can prevail. To have him killed like this, and his body just gone will purely engender him with almost mystical powers for some.

The number of comments I see of people saying 'I don't support the death sentence, but in his case I make an exception' are scary. Basically they are saying that they turn off their morals at a certain point, which is surely the opposite of what you should be striving for. I don't see how you can have over the top celebrations for killing someone and somehow think you have the moral high-ground over terrorists.

Killing him is not some great victory.

Yes it is.

It seems our difference of opinion on this may be very fundamental.

A victory would have been capturing him, having him tried in a proper court and actually convicted of something with real evidence.

I agree that would have been an even bigger victory. This is still a victory too though as it greatly reduces the capacity of a group of Islamic terrorists that were actively killing people nearly every day. Sure they hadn't killed very many Americans for some time now, but Pakistani civilians are dying everyday to terrorist attacks that WILL be put under pressure and disarray thanks to Osama's death.

If he could actually be shown to be responsible...
If????????

Shame on you for your ignorance. You have access to the internet. go read Al Jazeera, where they have on several occasions reported letters they've received from Osama taking full credit for multiple terrorist attacks on civilians. Go read the English language Pakistani news papers if you don't trust the pro-Western
propaganda of Al Jazeera. Even Pakistan's papers report on direct admission from Osama himself of being responsible. There are elected Pakistani officials that declare Osama a muslim hero, BECAUSE of the attacks he is responsible for.

If??????

Basically they are saying that they turn off their morals at a certain point...

Then you don't see the difference between fighting a war, and enforcing the law. Seeing as you don't even admit Osama's guilt though I shouldn't be surprised.

If you want any respect for your opinions on this from me your passion needs to be matched by your knowledge of the situation, not your ignorance...

@bcglorf: He went back and forth claiming and then denying any involvement with the attacks. Anyone can claim they did it if they think it'd help their terrorist cause.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that classified[114] evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[115] The UK Government reached a similar conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks although the government report notes that the evidence presented is insufficient for a prosecutable case.[116] Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the attacks. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[117]

So they have 'evidence' that no one is allowed to see and that wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Come back and look at the real world. Arrest warrants for Osama were already issued in 1998 for murder. He was formally indicted by an American court that listened to first hand witness testimony and satellite phone records for the embassy bombings long before 9/11 ever happened. He was unquestionably the leader of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization responsible for 10's of thousands of civilian deaths, even if you exclude the victims of 9/11 from the count. And you still have the audacity to question if Osama was guilty?

What is wrong with you?!?!

As to 9/11 there is no if around Osama's guilt there either, even though it matters not to his guilt as a mass murdering terrorist leader. Ahmad Shah Massoud was the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. He spent most of 2001 warning Europe and the west that Al Qaeda was planning something 'bigger' than it had done before against America, and that it would happen soon. On September 10th, 2001 he was killed by assassins working for Al Qaeda. It's worth noting that Ahmad Shah Massoud was also one of the few people that the Afghan people could have been united around in a push to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But I suppose you would call that circumstantial evidence, right? It's pure coincidence that the man warning of the attacks of 9/11 and able to help in retaliating after was assassinated the day before the 9/11 attacks were carried out! So if that is insufficient, when Hamid Gil interview Osama Bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks, Osama spent a great deal of time and effort showing all the evidence that he and only he could have been the one that planned and coordinated the attacks.

No, you don't see that whether at war or not, you don't just start treating people like sub humans.
No, you don't see. Killing Osama as part of a military operation against a terrorist leader is different from a routine traffic stop. In a military operation ethics around killing go as far as offering a chance for surrender when it is possible to do so without risking your soldiers lives. If that offer of surrender is refused, bullets fly. Do really advocate for a world where the American's should have called up the Pakistani police and asked them to go knock on the door and ask Osama to come out? That leads to dead police officers, and Osama's escape. Assuming of course the police officers sent weren't sympathetic to Osama and called him up so he could leave even before the police arrive. That kind of failure is NOT respecting human life. It directly results in the continued killing of Pakistani civilians by Osama's terrorist network.

You seem to fancy yourself as someone who's objections to seeing Osama dead are based on a respect for life. You need to take that thought and give it an additional 5 minutes of critical analysis. Every day Osama remained free was another day that he directly provided support and leadership to the intentional killing of innocent civilians.