I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.

Considering the partying that is going on outside the white house I guess you can expect a baby boom 9 months from now... Osama induced baby boom :-D (too soon?)

>> ^bareboards2:

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.


I think you are correct...
A facebook page dedicated to Osama's memory and greatness:
Can't get the url to work here... seems like it has been hijacked by anti-Osama fans already though...

broken url:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-are-all-Osama-Bin-Laden-%D9%83%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%86-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86
/212908885395072

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by LarsaruS.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by LarsaruS.

I called my uber-conservative retired military brother to see if he had heard. He watched the speech then called me back.

I can't believe it. His response to this? First thing out of mouth? "Man, that guy is arrogant! I did this, I did that.... I could write the SNL skit already 'I led the assault team.' "

I mean, crap on a stick.

My response was -- the man just ordered the murder death of a human being. He wanted it clear that it was his responsibility, and no one else's.

Then I said -- he was a law professor and now he has the burden of ordering the murder death of human beings. To which my brother replied, "He probably got a C in Constitutional Law."

We are in a world of hurt when a grave moment in our history becomes trivialized due to partisan bullshit like this.

I love my brother, he is a kind man in many ways. He also represents a deep problem in our country.

I have to say that I'm disgusted — this is a small-minded act of pure revenge.  Don't these people follow their own religion?

Dennis Kucinich called the hunt for Osama "state sponsored assassination."

The man needed to be brought to justice. Sending a team to murder him isn't justice.

If the point was to keep America safe, I repeat my first comment -- killing him is gasoline on the fire. Letting him die of old age, or his bad kidneys, much much safer for Americans.

My thoughts are with the soldiers overseas. I am sure they are on high alert.

@bareboards2 I'm all for the general principle that people have rights and all, but I think when it comes to Osama bin Laden, who very, very clearly wanted people to know that he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I'm willing to settle for him being killed in a skirmish with special forces.

>> ^bareboards2:

I hope this doesn't throw gasoline on the fire. That asshole was loved by many. If they kill people for burning a Koran, I shudder to think about the next weeks.

Hey BB, I echo your hopes that this doesn't happen. That said, I do want to underscore that OBL gave the US little choice after what he has done. If there are any repercussions as a result of this, I would assert that this is an excuse rather than a reason.


To build on and slightly modify your analogy..... the crappy US foreign policy overall since the 50's represents gallons and gallons of fuel. If anything happens because of this, it's a spark to that tinder.

But was he still effectively a threat against America? Wasn't he essentially hobbled already? Holed up, unable to communicate?

Arvana is right, I think -- it is revenge not justice.

However, if I am wrong, if he has been actively and effectively planning attacks against others in the world, then yes, attempt to capture him and if he dies in the attempt, fine with me.

I wish Obama had been stronger in stating that there was an attempt to capture him.


>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2 I'm all for the general principle that people have rights and all, but I think when it comes to Osama bin Laden, who very, very clearly wanted people to know that he was behind the 9/11 attacks, I'm willing to settle for him being killed in a skirmish with special forces.

GG Bin Laden but you got Owned.

>> ^bareboards2:

But was he still effectively a threat against America? Wasn't he essentially hobbled already? Holed up, unable to communicate?
Arvana is right, I think -- it is revenge not justice.
However, if I am wrong, if he has been actively and effectively planning attacks against others in the world, then yes, attempt to capture him and if he dies in the attempt, fine with me.
I wish Obama had been stronger in stating that there was an attempt to capture him.

Al Qaeda is still around, still planning and carrying out attacks, and as far as I've ever heard, Osama bin Laden was still their leader. Certainly he was a heroic figure that they used for recruitment, and was a symbol of the success they've had in hurting us and then escaping from us unharmed.

For all the disgust I've had with how the US has responded after 9/11, I'm perfectly okay with us killing Osama bin Laden.

Me and Dennis. We're a lonely little crowd.

Eak, justice is a hit squad ordered by the president...I am afraid. I am with you @bareboards2, but I am maybe more scared of the monsters we are becoming. Saddam got a trial, Osama got 2 in the head from a special forces task squad.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/05/01/fox-news-fact-checking-team-wins-again

I wish I could post still photos -- can someone with more star power and computer skills than I go to this link and copy in the screenshot into this comment stream? We need some comic relief.

Osama is dead. And the toll? 3000 American civilians. 5585 troops. Tens of thousands more grievously wounded. A super power financially brought to its knees. And hatred that will last generations.

And the true cause? America's pride and complacency--not one terrorist. And yet, we the citizens, do not take blame--it is obviously the politicians faults. Makes me sick...

@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/05/01/republican-presidential-hopefuls-congratulate-the-president

More comic relief --

Did anyone really see this ending any other way? Having him killed in a firefight rather than face a prolonged, no doubt highly politicized trial is clearly preferable for any US president in office. Having him tried in a military tribunal may have been a more efficient alternative but would have lent it no worldwide legitimacy anyway.

Undoubtedly it was how it was going to end in a state of war scenario where as we all know your domestic constitutional rights do not apply regardless. As far as I'm concerned whether it was morally or legally right or wrong is irrelevant, the eventuality was always known.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.


I'm a realist. In my ideal fantasy world, I'd prefer Osama bin Laden be tried, but we don't live in my ideal fantasy world.

I agree that this is the inherent evil of war, that it strips away the rights of people and we just engage in murder on a massive scale.

I'd have preferred we'd stuck with just this kind of special ops hit, and not done the gigantic wars with Afghanistan and Iraq to supposedly fight Al Qaeda.

For me, it's not a shame we killed Osama bin Laden, it's all the thousands and thousands of people who weren't him that we killed, supposedly to thwart bin Laden's plans.

Would anyone like to point out during this comment-fest, another possible scenario? May I?

Osama Bin Laden, alleged "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, who also received training from the CIA (documented) and considered an "asset" by the same, may have been dead already. One thing any intelligent person should remember and that EVERY intelligence operative knows, is that complete control of information dissemination leaves a huge amount of room for a wagon-load of cut-rate propaganda.

Nothing in this world happens without planning and manipulation-Not even accidents.

Bhutto was assassinated in December of 2007 after a political rally in Pakistan two months prior, having been interviewed by Frost(?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9T
gone of the reasons MAY HAVE BEEN for her comments in that interview. The one where she talked about Bin Laden being dead.

The fact of the fact of the fact of the matter is that NO ONE HERE has the information to make an intelligent observation with a view to editorializing. We simply DO NOT and will never have all the facts.

One thing is certain-Some born-into-wealth and prominence, CIA-groomed operative and possible patsy was blamed for the 9/11 attacks.

I'm not one of these "truthers", like so many of you "believe what I hear on the newsers" are so quickly to label anyone who doesn't believe bullshit when they are fed it, I am simply a man with a mind that is capable of sifting through the barrage of information available to all of us and use my limited capacity for critical reasoning to filter out the bullshit from the maybes.

You can't know-the truth unfortunately, is classified and sealed until the death of everyone;)

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, May 1st, 2011 9:22pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

"Counter-Terrorists Win"

The film will be epic.

I'm getting punchy. I read this as an attack against kitchen cabinets.


>> ^StukaFox:

"Counter-Terrorists Win"

To pimp my other video, there's a giant flash-mob party happening outside the White House:

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Crowd-Celebrates-bin-Laden-s-Death-in-front-of-White-House

I may be okay with bin Laden being dead, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the big raucus cheering crowd. A man was killed, we shouldn't be celebrating like that.

Still, it's a huge catharsis for the American people. Osama bin Laden has been an uncomfortable reminder of the limits of American power. How could we be the greatest, best country if we couldn't even catch one man living in a cave?

It's been gnawing at us for the last decade. And now he's dead. Not of old age, not without us knowing it for sure, but clearly, definitively.

Soon, we'll have the grisly pictures of Osama's corpse on the front pages of our newspapers. All the indignity of his head on a pike, without seeming quite as barbaric.

People's minds will change because of this. I don't know if they'll finally stand up and demand that we declare victory, and bring our wars to a close. I don't know if people will finally relax, and stop their paranoia about terrorism, or at least let it start to fade.

I just hope it doesn't renew our appetite for war...that really would be tragic.

I agree it was revenge but I'm fine with it. I'm anti-death penalty and peaceful as hell but there are just some people that don't deserve to live on this planet. People like those who butcher children with machetes while they sit in their classrooms. A person that orders the mass killings of civilians is someone I would kill with my bare hands. In one very poignant way 9/11 was different than Pearl Harbor. It was an organized attack on a civilian population, not an attack on an invading force that was waiting in a colony that they annexed. Yet would anyone sit there and say that Pearl Harbor was justified? No. So 9/11 is way way worse than that.

So, have they made an announcement yet as to who will be the next "mastermind" serving as a justification to wage war in foreign countries?

>> ^NetRunner:

To pimp my other video, there's a giant flash-mob party happening outside the White House:
http://politics.videosift.com/video/Crowd-Celebr
ates-bin-Laden-s-Death-in-front-of-White-House
I may be okay with bin Laden being dead, but I'm a lot less comfortable with the big raucus cheering crowd. A man was killed, we shouldn't be celebrating like that.
Still, it's a huge catharsis for the American people. Osama bin Laden has been an uncomfortable reminder of the limits of American power. How could we be the greatest, best country if we couldn't even catch one man living in a cave?
It's been gnawing at us for the last decade. And now he's dead. Not of old age, not without us knowing it for sure, but clearly, definitively.
Soon, we'll have the grisly pictures of Osama's corpse on the front pages of our newspapers. All the indignity of his head on a pike, without seeming quite as barbaric.
People's minds will change because of this. I don't know if they'll finally stand up and demand that we declare victory, and bring our wars to a close. I don't know if people will finally relax, and stop their paranoia about terrorism, or at least let it go.
I just hope it doesn't renew our appetite for war...that really would be tragic.


Haven't watched your video yet, but I've watched some of the gathering outside the White House. They're screaming "USA! USA! USA!", which reminded me of the kind of jingoistic behavior the Dems condemned from the Repubs. I'm not saying those are Dems out there. I'm sure it's a mix.

It's scary behavior, because it's emotional and passionate. I'd personally like to see us shift back to a country based on reason not emotion. A country of law not vengeance. What bothers me most is this could very well be another stepping stone toward accepting fascism.

@chipunderwood

What do they have to gain from this though?

A covert deal with the military industrial complex to perpetuate war? Then why announce it at all, stretch it out for decades and decades. If this was purely a GOP deal, then to revert on it this far into a Democratic presidency seems entirely arbitrary. Political opportunism? I see no reason Bush wouldn't have announced it before leaving office to boost his party's flailing 2008 chances.

As it is I simply don't see any logical motivation for this line of reasoning.

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.

America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

An Era has ended. Let it be.

They've been hunting him for ten years. I for one didn't expect him to come quietly. Imagine the public outrage if they said "Yeah, we knew where he was but when we asked him to come peacefully he just ran off!"

If you listen to the people cheering his death, you should then easily understand why democracy is flawed.

Democracy? I think you mean 'human nature'.

>> ^blankfist:

If you listen to the people cheering his death, you should then easily understand why democracy is flawed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42853221/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/?gt1=43001
"Did he fire, a reporter asked.

"He did resist the assault force, and he was killed in a firefight," an official said.

Four adult males were killed: bin Laden, his son, and the two couriers.

"One woman killed when used as a shield," and other women were injured, the officials said. The women's names were not given; it's not clear whether bin Laden's wife was among them."

...you can argue whether any of the news is accurate, that's one thing... but I mean - you rob a bank, get away, run to a house, fortify it.. the police are going to come after you with guns drawn. And thus, I assumed he was shot because that's how the whole thing went down. People shooting at each other.

So assuming we did this as surgically as possible, with at least some attempt at apprehending him peacefuly, then I don't think there's anything wrong with people celebrating, and I would think it's more about the 'victory' here than the actual death of a human.
(again, assuming everything is as cut and dry as it sounds.. but that's another argument)

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)

Trying to paint the celebrations as ANYTHING but an emotional release is ridiculous and in some cases entirely self-serving...

^WORD

>> ^bareboards2:

My response was -- the man just ordered the murder of a human being. He wanted it clear that it was his responsibility, and no one else's.

Actually if you skip to 3:54 the President says "I ordered an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice". That's pretty unambiguous language; the President is at least claiming he ordered Osama be taken alive.

And it is of course plausible that he didn't go peacefully and was killed in a firefight. It's also plausible he was killed intentionally in order to avoid a public trial. I don't think the public will ever be in a position to know for sure how it went down.

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


You think a "trial" would be any better? Osama admits he's guilty, and he's proud of it. His death is inevitable, and at least this way we don't have to go through the whole dog and pony show and build him up as even more of a martyr. This is the perfect way to end this: if you fuck with us, you're going to die. There's no sanctimonious we're-morally-superior-than-the-world bullshit, just practical reality. If you believed for this long in America's moral infallibility, this will hardly change your opinion. And frankly, if not giving Osama a trial is the worst that the US ever does, I'd say that America's pretty fucking awesome.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)


Don't forget about repealing the Patriot Act. Maybe also get out of Iraq? Maybe we close our over 700 military bases in more than 135 countries?

For RedSky:-"If this was purely a GOP deal, then to revert on it this far into a Democratic presidency seems entirely arbitrary."

Your statement infers that there is some fundamental difference in either party (a wholly critical and objective look at their workings reveals a common bond and lineage merging at the inception of The U.S.) All I have seen from studying the past 100 years of world affairs and living in almost half of those is one war after another as empires are shaped, with the arms to affect these being produced by the same families or now, corporations. This is a form of genocide if you will or perhaps eugenics would be better terminology to use to describe it.

for YOGI:-I'd venture to guess that if you were to suddenly know those who were working behind the scenes to affect sudden and sweeping population control measures or who have been slowly eliminating the mental capacities and health of billions of people through chemical and pharmaceutical manipulation, you just might need to purchase some explosives to carry out the task of killing, quite a few Wealthy Deranged People. (WDP's)

We are all being duped.
Try to wrap your heads around the idea that what you think you know, is all wrong.

Here's the good news-Everything is unfolding as it is and the universe has a long time to go before it collapses in on itself or falls into some black hole or whatever it's supposed to do. Smoke a bowl.

"Ding dong, Bin Laudanums' dead, ding dong, the fascist bitch is deeeeeeead!
Bring a piton for his head, ding dong, the Muslim witch is deeeeeeeeead!"

It happened on Obama's watch, "OOOOOOOOOhhh! Now those who will have to vote for the guy who killed Osamas' numbers will grow! NEWSFLASH!!!! SOME of them will be so-called republicans, other so-called democrats. ALLLLLL OF THEM WILL BE BEING SOLD A BILL OF GOODS to ensure a relatively tidy corporate takeover of the whole damn globe.

Keep watching your televisions- sorry, telescreens.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

http://i.imgur.com/s3UfG.jpg

You know there's video of it *somewhere*. Helmet-mounted cam footage. Man, I'd love to have been a fly on that wall.

Can't wait to read the book.

*military

Adding video to channels (Military) - requested by xxovercastxx.

>> ^BoneyD:

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".


Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.


I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.


To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.

The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

But did they violate his corpse? That's what I really want to know.

How is this justice? Have we been awakened the next day and seen a different world in which kindness and fairness have overwhelmed the natural human instinct to grasp power by any means necessary? Has our lust for war brought us peace? It's just another day, with one less living person.

Saudi wealth, the Red Scare, CIA operations and flawed religious dogma created a high-profile Bogeyman for us to chase for nearly a decade. In the wake we have left thousands dead and injured, nations torn asunder...basically, we've shown just what level of frightened warmongers we apes really are.

All those who are saying that there absolutely needed to be a trial have forgotten what justice is. A trial is not justice and neither are rules, laws, & due process. All of those are simply the supports for justice. Justice is the innocent going free and the guilty being punished. Trials are only ways of ensuring that justice happens. When a man who the world knows is guilty of heinous crimes and has himself admitted that he did those things is killed, it's still justice.

Is it just me who finds it convenient that his body was buried-at-sea quickly within 24 hours - No body, no way to prove DNA, nothing!

Personally I'm against killing, but if anyone needed to be killed...

He'll be a martyr! This will just make more bin ladens!

The USA trained him so it's our fault.

LISTEN sheeple, I've been living on earth for some time now, and I tell you this: The GAME is RIGGED!

Oh great, more fascism!

Of course he's dead, the plutocracy had no more need of him.

With bin laden gone, we can finally get rid of the DMV.

We are monsters. We killed a man without a fair trial, not even a Judge Judy trial.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of the conspiracy? The world may never know.

I'm just GLAD he's DAID!

What a good speech. You have a good and strong president there America.
Note : Those who wage war against the human race are declaring, by their actions that they are outlaws.
Outlaw.
2. A person excluded from normal legal protection and rights.
Source The Free Dictionary

Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

Actually, DNA testing has just confirmed that it was Osama bin Laden. The US team took samples from his body and compared them to those of his dead sister. Besides, we're talking about a guy the US have been looking for for 10 years. I think they know what he looks like by now

I hope the conspiracy theorists don't run with rumours like this to be honest. I'm sure the US team took plenty of samples, photos and stuff like that. But they are keen to not have another Saddam situation where photos and videos from his execution leaked out, so they are unlikely to be released.>> ^Sagemind:

Is it just me who finds it convenient that his body was buried-at-sea quickly within 24 hours - No body, no way to prove DNA, nothing!

Nobody I read -- and certainly I didn't say -- said that there "absolutely" must be a trial.

What I was trying to say was -- I am distressed that more emphasis has never been put on saying -- we need to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. We need to capture him and bring him to trial in a world court.

It has always been -- kill bin Laden. For years now. Some passing lip service has been made towards capture, but the original phrase was Dead or Alive, not Alive or Dead.

They are just words, but the words reveal a lot about who we are a nation.

As Kymbos said, it is just human nature. I know that I am marginalized fringe in my inability to dehumanize "the enemy." But to me, that is what we must strive for -- to fight against our lizard brains and rise above instinct.

I'm not some Gandhi-like saint -- I get pissed all the time, and easily. And I struggle to move past it.

What bothers me is that, in public, the vast majority are making no attempt to rise above it.

I've said this before -- when I was a kid, it came out that our government attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro. As a nation, we were shocked.

Now, it is nothing -- NOTHING -- to call for the death of an individual. The people guarding him also died. They believed in their cause, enough to die for it. They were wrong, absolutely wrong, but they were not alone. Because guess what -- they too dehumanized their "enemy" which led to 9/11.

We must see this stuff clearly, or we are doomed to repeat it all, endlessly.

>> ^chipunderwood:

Nothing in this world happens without planning and manipulation-Not even accidents.
Bhutto was assassinated in December of 2007 after a political rally in Pakistan two months prior, having been interviewed by Frost(?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9T
gone of the reasons MAY HAVE BEEN for her comments in that interview. The one where she talked about Bin Laden being dead.


I can't really work out what your overall points are but re Bhutto applying some critical reasoning might have helped.

I think any reasonably intelligent person, whatever their motivations, would realise she made a mistake in that interview and presumably Frost (I don't recall seeing the original interview back then), dopey as he is, failed to clarify that in fact she meant to say *Daniel Pearl* was "murdered". Most people would not describe Bin Laden as having been "murdered."
She subsequently spoke in other interviews about Bin Laden being alive.

>> ^chilaxe:

Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??


For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.

...and so the Boogieman becomes the Sainted Martyr. Anyone who thinks "gettin' OBL" was a good thing is as misguided and wrong as the people who think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11 to begin with.

@bareboards2 I think a big part of it is that we had good information he had no intention of being taken alive. Of course that's the hope, but he wasn't going to comply, so anyone being sent in needed to be prepared for that eventuality. My reaction has been similar to the sentiment on this board. The jubilation is out of place, but I am not losing any sleep over his death.

If one question has been laid to rest, it's the question of Obama's balls. If shit had gone down differently, there would have been hell to pay. Ordering that seal strike took some stones (granted stones clearly softer than those it took to actually man the raid).

I can't seem to get my point across.

I, too, think it was inevitable that Osama would die in any attempt to take him alive. I'm sure he knew that he was much more effective as a martyr than as a prisoner.

I, too, am not grieving for his death.

I am grieving at our process and the way we have spoken about this as a nation. @blankfist says it above, with one slight addition -- "I mourn the [public] disregard for his right to fair trial."

Dennis Kucinich is the only public figure I have ever heard call this what it is. One public voice.

Something is wrong when only one person holds to ideals our country is supposedly founded on.

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.

All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.

War works.


>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??


>> ^blankfist:



For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.

Can you say "dehumanize"?

Way to prove my point, Q.

FYI:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

K, he's dead. Can we end the war yet?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

>> ^blankfist:


For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.




Problem is, by elevating him to Hitler level status (and btw there was a genuine threat to the current order of things) you also empower his ideology. Treat him as the criminal he was instead of engaging on the level he wanted and the U.S could easily have avoided the nonsense and horror of two major wars. As Netrunner has said we should have have intel-led special forces running around dealing with this criminal conspiracy in the first place and bringing those criminals to justice in the first place.

If ever there was a sensible way of dealing with external threats and asserting the rule of law and democracy as the most desirable political ideology that was surely it.

Your last comment is a disgrace to everyone who's died and suffered in the last ten years.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.


In what alternate reality could he possibly get a fair trial? He'd be center stage for the political circus we have for a government.

Honestly, it was either kill him or stop hunting him, and personally I wish the troops had come home long ago.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.


Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^chilaxe:
Some asshole dying is so sad! Where are the carebears when you need them??

For me, I don't mourn his passing; I mourn the disregard for his right to a fair trial. I don't think anyone ever intended to bring him in to give him a fair trial. Revenge makes for a great movie premise, and it feels awesomely satisfying when the bad guy dies at the end, but in the real world it's scary to think some people's rights can be skirted completely as long as the majority of people think it's okay.

In what alternate reality could he possibly get a fair trial? He'd be center stage for the political circus we have for a government.
Honestly, it was either kill him or stop hunting him, and personally I wish the troops had come home long ago.


I don't think you could get a fair trial for Osama. A lot of it would've been political theater. But does that mean we should just roll over and accept rights as being conditional?

At what point do we or did we start making the decision who does and who doesn't get a fair trial?

*death

Adding video to channels (Death) - requested by Hybrid.

I'm surprised the sift hasn't crashed with all the absolute bullshit in the comments. I went through every single one and it's all utter shit. It's funny when stuff like this happens to watch the remarks of people who have no idea what they are talking about argue with other people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Never argue with an idiot...they will beat you with experience. There's a TON of experience in this thread.

@blankfist

Nobody respects others' rights unless they 1. have incentive to do so or 2. are Western carebears.

It affects nothing if we advocate for made-up rights of our enemies, because nobody will do the same for us. If the political winds in the US change radically in this century, the new majority is going to base their opinions on their emotions and self-interest, same as always, not on the voluntary self-sacrifice of earlier generations to whom they have no relation.

A trial for Osama might cost ~$30 million in US taxpayer dollars, and all it would achieve is Western carebears siding with him against the West more than they do already. Also, the world would cry if we gave him the death penalty, so we might be forced to imprison him for life, allowing him to be an activist for terrorism for decades.

It is slightly alarming that we have just created a powerful martyr. Regardless, he got the easy way out, but he's better off dead.

>> ^chilaxe:

@blankfist
Nobody respects others' rights unless they 1. have incentive to do so or 2. are Western carebears.
It affects nothing if we advocate for made-up rights of our enemies, because nobody will do the same for us. If the political winds in the US change radically in this century, the new majority is going to base their opinions on their emotions and self-interest, same as always, not on the voluntary self-sacrifice of earlier generations to whom they have no relation.
A trial for Osama might cost ~$30 million in US taxpayer dollars, and all it would achieve is Western carebears siding with him against the West more than they do already. Also, the world would cry if we gave him the death penalty, so we might be forced to imprison him for life, allowing him to be an activist for terrorism for decades.


But are they made up rights? If you believe in the social contract and believe that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land (for people in the US), then you should accept that it's an enumeration of powers - specifically in this case a limitation of what government can do to humans in respect to their individual rights.

No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say these rights are only viable and upheld for US citizens. Nor does it say the limitations placed on government are thrown out the window once dealing with foreign policy.

The cost of the trial is incidental. Not that I think taxpayers should pay for it, but if that ever became the deciding factor as to whether we should have a fair trial for someone or not, then we're already too far gone as a supposed rational society built on the premise that individual rights are the most sacred in a free society.

I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial. I'd be OK with a trial too, but that's not how it played out. Either way is fine, just so long as it's over. I won't be celebrating bin Laden's death, or making ghoulish comments about pictures of his bullet ridden corpse, but generally, I'm glad to have finished the final chapter in the decade long story of 9/11.

I celebrate the death of the 9/11 era. Good riddance to all of it.

@chilaxe


So Gitmo isn't such a bad thing then? I am ok with the idea that we only apply constitutional rights to US citizens, but only if we agree to it before hand not in the middle of the game, or willy nilly apply it to some people and not to others.

But not applying habius corpus in any cases opens to flood gates of potential for that realm to expand.

Though, @NetRunner brought up a point that I hadn't considered yet. That the sooner Osama is/was dealt with, the sooner we can leave that entire area without loosing face in the eyes of the world.

For us that don't like the means, it is the hope of the ends that is all that is left for us, and net provided me with a little hope of perhaps a little brighter future for our boys abroad. Come home soon troopers, it has been too long.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial.


That's okay. You're a Social Democrat. They tend to be pro-war and anti-human rights as long as it fits their ideological beliefs.

You and @NetRunner can step aside now and let the real liberals debate the importance of individual human rights.

America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it's the dream that we all share; it's the hope for tomorrow!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Meh.

I came here to say I really don't give a flying fuck. It's 8 years too late.

Always with the posturing. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial.

That's okay. You're a Social Democrat. They tend to be pro-war and anti-human rights as long as it fits their ideological beliefs.
You and @NetRunner can step aside now and let the real liberals debate the importance of individual human rights.

I'll just add one more thing:

Hey, asshole. Yeah, you, the power hungry mad leader that wants to take on the world. Quit upsetting the apple cart. You saw what happened to the last two guys.

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.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial.

That's okay. You're a Social Democrat. They tend to be pro-war and anti-human rights as long as it fits their ideological beliefs.
You and @NetRunner can step aside now and let the real liberals debate the importance of individual human rights.


Oh boy...we have some self righteous ass fuckery in here.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial.

That's okay. You're a Social Democrat. They tend to be pro-war and anti-human rights as long as it fits their ideological beliefs.
You and @NetRunner can step aside now and let the real liberals debate the importance of individual human rights.

Oh boy...we have some self righteous ass fuckery in here.

As long as I'm on the giving end and not the receiving end, I'm going to go on record and say I'm cool with it.

@dystopianfuturetoday ghoulish is how I felt, ghoulish is still how I feel. Remember back in 2003, when we killed Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay? The pictures of their dead bodies' faces were everywhere you looked for almost an entire week. I was steeling myself in preparation of having to go through that again with Osama bin Laden.

Fortunately it looks like we're mildly less barbaric under Obama. Apparently the body was treated according to Muslim custom. He was buried at sea, to deprive Al Qaeda a focal point for reverence and/or attacks. And so far at least, we seem to have refrained from releasing photos of his corpse.

I doubt that'll last though. People are gonna want more proof sooner rather than later.

@blankfist, can't you give the petty, self-serving, self-aggrandizing ideological conceit a rest, just for a day or two?

OSAMA is dead; it's amazing what we can accomplish while the PlayStation network is down.

>> ^NetRunner:

blankfist, can't you give the petty, self-serving, self-aggrandizing ideological conceit a rest, just for a day or two?


Oh, come off it. If you can't take a harmless bit of ribbing over your conditional disregard for fundamental rights, you shouldn't be making those assertions on a public website.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^Encumberance:

OSAMA is dead; it's amazing what we can accomplish while the PlayStation network is down.


I saw this on Reddit. I'm assuming you didn't plagiarize it, and it was you that posted it there too? [edit] Forgot the

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Encumberance:
OSAMA is dead; it's amazing what we can accomplish while the PlayStation network is down.

I saw this on Reddit. I'm assuming you didn't plagiarize it, and it was you that posted it there too? [edit] Forgot the


I don't even know what Reddit is, so I will go find out.

Apparently he resisted arrest, so they killed him. What's the problem, that's how the police operator where I'm from too.

I know it's a serious topic, and laughing about it is improper, but this just made me absolutely howl with laughter:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/901/we-will-kill-bin-laden/

Mark one more in the "Promise Kept" column!

My feeling on this whole thing...

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
-Mark Twain

I'm quite sure i could not have said it better.

>> ^Januari:

My feeling on this whole thing...
"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure."
-Mark Twain
I'm quite sure i could not have said it better.


I prefer this one:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that"

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States"

And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?

And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?



>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.


Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.

Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?

Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.


LOL!

The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.

You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."

Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."

It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.

>> ^volumptuous:

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.



Volumpie, when interpreting the law, I'm glad the courts don't just cite portions of the law and wipe their hands of any further diligence. You can't cite 7 words of an unfinished sentence within the Preamble of the Constitution and declare you've made your case.

Anyhow, the Preamble only says the Constitution is created by the people for the US. Not a meaningful piece of text outside of setting up the important stuff to follow, such as this part specifically as it pertains to the Judicial Branch...

Article 2

Section 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

>> ^volumptuous:

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.



Sorry Vol, I do disagree with Blank on many issues but this is not one. We the people is not good enough here. One of my friends argued your point, and when I questioned him about his wife, who is a permanent, legal resident, he stated that that was different... I said, not in terms of the law...

Heck, if it were true, then Uncle Sam would just strip certain people of citizenship (By creating new laws) and water board them all day long...

whose dis been law-den guy?

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

I'm just gonna leave this here.

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

^It's a fake quote. Someone on reddit spotted it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/

The real quote goes: “Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.

One human life has equal value as any other, and we should treat each other equally, fairly, and compassionately no matter what, or at least try to. In that sense, killing him without a trial is garbage, but what do you friggin' expect from Amurrica? Same old, same old.

Osama Bin Laden is dead. Yet TSA still gets to grope you at the airport. I'd say his mission was a lot more successful than ours. Dead or alive, trial or no trial.

This is an interesting 'crossroads' period of time right now. The military achieved a 'moon landing' objective, and now everyone looks around and notices the billions it took and the things we didn't spend that money on (not to mention the domestic spying).

If nothing happens on U.S. soil to roil things up before the next election I can easily imagine 2nd-term Obama stumbling across his Constitution Law Prof. notes and going '... ooh yeah, thats right... I should probably work on quietly cleaning up this domestic spying thing.'

If something does happen,... we'll probably have predator drones patrolling the school yards of America.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great, now can we please shut down the Department of Homeland Security, restore our civil rights and get our troops out of Afghanistan? (not holding my breath)

This is from OuterWorldVoice on NeoGaf:

So he killed 3000 people in New York. He beggared and is responsible for the deaths of thousands more in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle, near East and Africa. He fomented pointless purposeless rage in the pursuit of a racist, mysognistic and cruel worldview that regarded everyone outside of his fringe mentality as an enemy worthy of death.

On top of all that, he had a massive ego and no real plan. His agents were children, women, the illiterate, the foolish and the brainwashed. And he sent them to death and murder as martyrs by proxy while he squatted in comfort and adulation, hidden from danger and sight.

He's a piece of fucking shit and I hope there's a black millisecond he experienced before oblivion took him, that he realized there were no virgins waiting for him in paradise and that everything he ever stood for was a farcical fairy tale and a crime against humanity.

I'm surprised you're surprised.

This is not bloodlust. I would cheer for the death of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. We cheer not because of righteous vengeance, but because this zit on the world's asshole is finally gone and he can no longer bring pain and misery or spread his herpes all over the world.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^It's a fake quote. Someone on reddit spotted it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar
chive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/
The real quote goes: “Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” –Martin Luther King, Jr.


It seems depending on the source. This one's fake as well:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/

Says it's actually:

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." MLK Jr.

America Fuck Yeah

Regarding whether or not the mission was to kill him... based on the information we've been fed, isn't the answer clearly yes? To accept that they would've taken him alive if possible, wouldn't we also have to also accept that this elite SEAL team was incapable of a non-lethal takedown? Tranquilizer dart, gas, taser, shoot him in the kneecaps, Vulcan neck pinch, whatever. It's not like he took cyanide at the first sign of trouble. They shot him in the head.

Dude, you're an idiot if you think the US Constitution is for every human on the planet and not just US citizens. Seriously.

Seriously.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.


Volumpie, when interpreting the law, I'm glad the courts don't just cite portions of the law and wipe their hands of any further diligence. You can't cite 7 words of an unfinished sentence within the Preamble of the Constitution and declare you've made your case.
Anyhow, the Preamble only says the Constitution is created by the people for the US. Not a meaningful piece of text outside of setting up the important stuff to follow, such as this part specifically as it pertains to the Judicial Branch...

Article 2
Section 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

@volumptuous, I didn't say it's not "for" the US, because it was created for the government of the US. I'm saying it doesn't expressly give ONLY its citizens protections over their rights. It's a document designed to detail exactly what the government can do and nothing more.

Therefore when it says things like, "Congress shall make no law..." or "No person shall be...", how could that be read as only pertaining to the US citizenry?

I understand you, like the Republican right wingers, like to shit on the rest of the world and think if they're not American then they're subhuman, but either you agree with the text of your so-called social contract or you don't. Pick one and STFU.

It seems to me that there are two main ways people approach moral reasoning.

For some people, it's about adherence to a list of inflexible and absolute rules. For some people those rules come from the church, for some those rules come from our government's justice system, and for some they come from some philosopher. Where they come from is immaterial, the basic moral reasoning is the same: right and wrong is solely determined by whether an action is in accordance with their comprehensive doctrine on human behavior.

For other people, myself included, the moral value of an action is ultimately about the an action's impact on human welfare generally. Most of the time, this means supporting a society with laws and rights, and courts. But that's because it improves human welfare to have society's expectations about human behavior be upfront, enforced, and equally applied. It's not because the law is the word of God, or the full and infallible description of morality. It's because doing so has beneficial consequences for human welfare.

This seems to me to be the fundamental difference between right-wing and left-wing thinking about issues. The right tends to approach moral reasoning through the first lens (deontology), while the left tends to approach moral reasoning through the latter (utilitarianism).

To tie this back to Osama bin Laden's assassination, there are people who say this was an immoral act because it violated international law, or because it violated his legal rights, or simply because killing is always wrong. There are also people who say this is an unquestionably moral act, because the Bible says an eye for an eye, or because they think all Muslims are infidels, or because they think anyone who declares war on our country deserves to die.

For me, I think international law is a force for good in the world, so are legal rights, and so is respect for human life. But I also think Osama bin Laden was a big source of suffering in the world, not just for Americans, but for everyone everywhere. I say killing him is better for human welfare on the whole than the long-run negative impact of our violating international law, and way better than letting him live out his life in freedom.

I think people who want to argue that killing him was somehow immoral have a bit of an uphill climb. They either need to make the case that Osama bin Laden was not guilty of crimes warranting death, and didn't pose any meaningful threat to humanity in the future; or they need to make the case that killing him in this way will somehow substantially change the conventions of international law, criminal jurisprudence, or our general understanding that killing people is wrong.

What isn't sufficient is some vague hand wringing about legal rights, or specious invocations of the Constitution.

>> ^Yogi:

A person that orders the mass killings of civilians is someone I would kill with my bare hands. In one very poignant way 9/11 was different than Pearl Harbor. It was an organized attack on a civilian population, not an attack on an invading force that was waiting in a colony that they annexed. Yet would anyone sit there and say that Pearl Harbor was justified? No. So 9/11 is way way worse than that.


Like firebombing Tokyo or Dresden, perhaps? Would you pass the same sentence on the Allied leaders, or would you give them a pass for some reason? What about those who trained and used him as a weapon in their own little wars, setting this whole disaster in motion?

Mass killings of civilians -is- the history of war...like it or not, it does seem like he was only following a multi-millenial precedent in -that- respect. That said, I certainly won't miss him, and I do believe the world is a better place without him...but I do not agree that this is cause for celebration. This is just the latest act in a long running tragedy.

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

>> ^Sagemind:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.


"Damn, that Osama guy's a jerk. I hope someone kills him." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't really fuzzy, was he?" -- Attila the Hun

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Sagemind:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Damn, that Osama guy's a jerk. I hope someone kills him." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't really fuzzy, was he?" -- Attila the Hun


For the record, this is what a cocksucker looks like.

Durka Durka durka. DURKA DURKA durka durka! Durka durka. durka.

Anyone, including us, who kills civilians maliciously should be prosecuted by the international court as they have violated the social contract that we all live by.

Very rarely in history has a SINGLE individual been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. When coupled with the fact that this individual espoused a racist, mysoginistic world view that was a danger to all mankind this is particularly heinous. In those instances where the violation of the social contract is so egregious, we as a society have a responsibility to enforce that contract and serve the penalty for the good of mankind.

Should Osama have been brought alive to justice? Perhaps. More to the point, he as a symbol of beliefs by going unpunished can longer be a point of origin for pain and misery felt by people around the world.

Am I happy he is dead? Damn straight.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^Yogi:
A person that orders the mass killings of civilians is someone I would kill with my bare hands. In one very poignant way 9/11 was different than Pearl Harbor...

Like firebombing Tokyo or Dresden, perhaps?...

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, May 2nd, 2011 12:24am PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

>> ^Sagemind:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.


Also, just for everyone's future reference, we can attribute the wrong part of that quote to the right person now.

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." -- Jessica Dovey

Another real quote:

"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." -- The 14th Dalai Lama

Also, even when you get your quotations correct, they are bad logic.

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious garden vegetables, but I will not rejoice in the death of one gopher, not even a very hungry one. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering and suffering leads to fear. Do or do not, that is the question."

- immortal words spoken by Mahatma Gandhi in 1776 delivered while performing with Frank, Sammy and Dean at the Sands in Las Vegas.

Sigh.... So many comments. I personally like the ones taking the so called moral high ground. Your no better then the ones who are celebrating his death. These trite attempts to look and sound superior to those yelling in the streets come off as smug, self righteous and fake. It is with out any doubt that I am guilty of this also. There also no better indicator of this then the fake MLK quote above. So many latched on to it as flag showing their moral high ground that when pointed out as a fake. It showed many to be the hypocritically moral bankrupt sheep that they were.
The questions raised with his death will be asked for years to come long after we are gone. The only true answer is the one you give yourself. These are my opinions no one else's.

1. Was his death necessary? I can not completely answer that. It is my hope the Seal Team that went in were trying to capture him but in the course of the fight they had to kill him. If so than yes it was necessary to keep team members from being killed. The down side to that is they will make him a martyr and become a focal point for more violence but the possible up side is in doing so the terrorist groups will rush to have their response to be as quickly as possible and expose them selves. Allowing governments to find and capture these cells or destroy them.

2. Was it Justice or Revenge? Again my opinion is it's both. I have heard that you can not use justice as revenge or that if there is a hint of revenge than its not justice. I respect that line of thinking even though I believe it to be wrong. No matter how much we want to think other wise the human race will almost always revert to the eye for an eye system of law if everything else falls apart. It is only after the rebuild do we try to "Improve" the law. We are a violent short sighted race but that is what works for us.

3. Was he still a major leader in Al Qaeda? I think so. For years we thought he was hiding in a cave somewhere and as such his communications with other members and groups would be slow and ineffective. No we found him in a large house and compound. Well equipped with security and high walls, computers and other electronics and luxuries. This is not someone cut off from their group. This is someone well financed and in control.

4. Should we be celebrating his death? This is a moral conundrum. Are we truly celebrating his death or are we celebrating still being alive? This is a man who has and had planned the death of thousands. Mostly for just believing or thinking differently than he did. We never truly knew where he was going to target next but when it happened people died. Some would say we should never celebrate the death of a human. I would ask why not? I would love to live in a place where there was no evil. A place where war and violent death did not happen. Its a nice dream. But it is not reality. If there is a heaven and hell I doubt there is a Demon or Satan that can match the cruelty, hatred or violence that one human can enact on another and no Angle or God that could enact the kindness and caring and love of one human to another. If you can not celebrate his death. Then Celebrate that he can no longer plan to kill you. Someone may take his place but for now there is one less doing so.

5. He has been dead for years.. For those that think or believe that. Please take this the right way. I'm going to to group you with the Birther and Truther idiots. While ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not and while I will honor your right to believe and say whatever you want. Do not act surprise when afterwords I give you a crayon and tell you to go play in the corner.

These are my opinions. No one else's. I reserve the right to change them as time goes by and i ether get wiser or dumber or more info on the subjects or even brain damage if I'm not already. (You never know)

If Jugears killed terrorists the way his incompetent, crooked, a-hole excuse of an administration killed jobs, the wars would've ended years ago.

*quality

dystopianfuturetoday cannot award a quality point for this post because dystopianfuturetoday does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by dystopianfuturetoday. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Thanks direpickle,
This quote was passed to me - it didn't even occur to me to fact check its authenticity.
I did find it strange MLKJr. had a quote for everything though - I guess he doesn't always, after -all.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Sagemind:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Also, just for everyone's future reference, we can attribute the wrong part of that quote to the right person now.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." -- Jessica Dovey
Another real quote:
"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." -- The 14th Dalai Lama
Also, even when you get your quotations correct, they are bad logic.

@Sagemind: I didn't mean to single you out or anything. But I've seen so many people misquote that (including a bunch of others in this thread).

*promote.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 11:32am PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

*quality killing

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Pretty lame speech on account of:

* Bush's disrespect for due process -- no attempt to capture rather than assassinate.
* Repeating stuff that everybody who hasn't lived in a cave for 10 years has already heard (except for the part about killing Bin Laden).
* Gratuitous references to fictional wizard in the sky.
* Exploiting 9/11 for political gain like Bush did.
* American exceptionalism
* Claiming the war on terror is working, without any actual statistics to back it up. What about all the terrorist attacks against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about all the extra bullshit people have to go through for the illusion of security at airports?

I'm sure that it will be. I wonder who will play Obi-Wan this time, or if the trilogy will end differently.

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2011/05/09/galaxy/outer-rim/obi-wan-kenobi-is-killed.html

>> ^kymbos:

The film will be epic.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

quality killing


Spoken like a true bloodthirsty progressive.

Well This story wipes the fake birth certificate that was release the previous Friday off the headlines.

Sad It is such a poor fake.

Does it really matter who said it? Hitler could have said it, and it would still be a good idea. The content makes sense, the sender is not important.
>> ^Sagemind:

Thanks direpickle,
This quote was passed to me - it didn't even occur to me to fact check its authenticity.
I did find it strange MLKJr. had a quote for everything though - I guess he doesn't always, after -all.
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^Sagemind:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Also, just for everyone's future reference, we can attribute the wrong part of that quote to the right person now.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." -- Jessica Dovey
Another real quote:
"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." -- The 14th Dalai Lama
Also, even when you get your quotations correct, they are bad logic.