Revenge is a dish best served cold Osama!!!

[Teh Mite]

We're not talking about Jane Smith. We're talking about Osama Bin Laden.

One Size doesn't fit all in these discussion. Keep it in context or I won't bother.

 

[gingergenius]

I find it interesting how 'loony left', 'socialist' etc. are being banded around this topic when the arguments here have nothing to do with left and right.

Human rights, civil rights etc. etc., versions of which are subscribed to by much of the Western world, are all derived from Liberalism.

Liberalism relies heavily on the concept of 'freedom', and many philosophers have debated what 'freedom' actually entails. However, the Liberal definition is pretty much what we take for granted today as 'basic Human Rights'.

This is nothing to do with Socialism. The same freedom you get as an individual in a Liberal society is the freedom you would get economically, and therefore free-market economics is a Liberal idea and not Conservative as many people mistake it to be. Socialism, on the other hand, has a far stricter definition of individual freedoms, and its drive to achieve more individual freedoms means it limits economic freedom – hence collective, nationalised economies.

If you're going to use Daily Mail-esque rhetoric to deconstruct people's arguments then at least learn the meaning of the words you're using first.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Jesus. you used the words "Because Human Rights are used to defend the indefensible the same way that Socialism is used to employ the unemployable". do you honestly believe thats keeping it in context, making ridiculous and broad statements which you yourself dont understand the limits of?!?!?

You make a sweeping generalisation and then ask me to keep it in context.

 

[Teh Mite]

Jesus. you used the words "Because Human Rights are used to defend the indefensible the same way that Socialism is used to employ the unemployable". do you honestly believe thats keeping it in context, making ridiculous and broad statements which you yourself dont understand the limits of?!?!?

You make a sweeping generalisation and then ask me to keep it in context.

It was a direct response to the specific question asked by KD. Yours was comparing a known international criminal to a non-specific case - with no points of evidence or other information highlighted - then then acting as though they should be treated in an equal manor.

Try again.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

But Bullitt, there's no case to be made against Human Rights. The example you mention is an absolutely minuscule part of what human rights are. yes human rights include criminal rights. But you talk about them as if that's all they are. Without human rights we'd live in a world where the rich have absolute control and the vulnerable are exploited. The sick and disabled would be left to fend for themselves. You can't honestly be arguing against human rights. If you're not in favour of criminal rights then that's fine but you can't just denounce human rights as a concept because of this. That'd be like me saying Northamption are crap because Lee Dickson.

 

[gingergenius]

But Bullitt, there's no case to be made against Human Rights. The example you mention is an absolutely minuscule part of what human rights are. yes human rights include criminal rights. But you talk about them as if that's all they are. Without human rights we'd live in a world where the rich have absolute control and the vulnerable are exploited. The sick and disabled would be left to fend for themselves. You can't honestly be arguing against human rights. If you're not in favour of criminal rights then that's fine but you can't just denounce human rights as a concept because of this. That'd be like me saying Northamption are crap because Lee Dickson.

No. See my point above, but human rights have nothing to do with wealth. They exist to protect the 'freedom' of an 'individual' (an individual being defined as any member of homo sapiens species) in the most basic way - in other words to ensure the individual's power to control his own destiny is not compromised.

I do agree with you, however, that making generalisations does nobody any favours.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

No. See my point above, but human rights have nothing to do with wealth. They exist to protect the 'freedom' of an 'individual' (an individual being defined as any member of homo sapiens species) in the most basic way - in other words to ensure the individual's power to control his own destiny is not compromised.

I do agree with you, however, that making generalisations does nobody any favours.

I was thinking more on a policy level... Although that'd be more "civil rights" than "human rights" I suppose...

 

[shtove]

The way the Americans dealt with this is strange.

I understand their relief at killing this fanatic, but they had a great chance to arrest him and put him on trial. That would have been a great boost for public justice. Maybe the circumstances were too difficult for an arrest, but it's impossible to know from the available information.

I've read the other posts about liberalism and socialism. My view is that American constitutional protections are the beacon of freedom for ordinary people, and those protections are being destroyed by the American government's policies against a threat that hasn't proved itself to be pervasive. Patriot Act and all that crap. By pervasive, I mean IRA in Britain - repeated deadly attacks in the homeland over decades. Attacks outside the homeland are a military matter.

The policies are actually designed to limit the freedom of ordinary people.

The information about this killing is also very confused. Why do they refuse to show the images? I heard some prat on the radio - Bill Clinton's former advisor - say conspiracy theorists will not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt because there's never enough evidence to convince them. Uuuh, release the fcuking evidence and stop putting up strawmen to make your case, ******. The video of Saddam's hanging was pretty convincing.

It's a sideshow. The banks have pulled off the greatest heist in history with the help of people like Bush, Paulson, Geithner, Obama. Ordinary people, young people, will never enjoy the opportunities their parents had, because of that transfer of wealth sanctioned by the government. You should all emigrate to north Africa - at least the people there have the balls to stand up to the fuckers destroying their lives - which, in the end, is only the bankers.

Do not put your trust in government. And stop paying taxes until you get fair representation. Ha!

 

[TRF_Cymro]

T but they had a great chance to arrest him and put him on trial. That would have been a great boost for public justice. Maybe the circumstances were too difficult for an arrest, but it's impossible to know from the available information.

To put it simple ...

Putting Bin Laden into an orange jump suite and Guantanamo Bay would have caused issues.

His followers would take revenge seeing their 'martyr' being held captive. Any aid workers from the Western world would be under more risk than ever before and the level of threats would also be high.

Images of him in capture would have enraged his followers. Death was the only real option.

 

[shtove]

To put it simple ...

Putting Bin Laden into an orange jump suite and Guantanamo Bay would have caused issues.

His followers would take revenge seeing their 'martyr' being held captive. Any aid workers from the Western world would be under more risk than ever before and the level of threats would also be high.

Images of him in capture would have enraged his followers. Death was the only real option.

Nah, rule of law trumps all that political marketing. It must.

I think you're assuming decent people don't exist outside the bubble of state control.

Welcome to Obama World - access only through the looking glass (all wallets to be deposited with the lesbian in a uniform).

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Nah, rule of law trumps all that political marketing. It must.

I think you're assuming decent people don't exist outside the bubble of state control.

Welcome to Obama World - access only through the looking glass (all wallets to be deposited with the lesbian in a uniform).

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Because Human Rights are used to defend the indefensible the same way that Socialism is used to employ the unemployable.

Saying the like of OBL deserve any protection is like saying Hitler or Genghis Kahn did also.

Why not one more post (it's not often Bullitt and I see things in a similar light). Exactly. I notice only some things I said were commented on (cherry picked in other words). By "looney left" I meant people with extreme left wing views that no matter how badly one side of a conflict acts, they should be carefully contained and brought in to trial by being picked up with a pair of tongs with rubber gloves on. Sat down and then made to promise they'll never do it again. "These poor people were brought up all wrong, let's cry for them, they need their rights" and all that sort of thing.

Basically, it's amazing how in a war situation, with objectives like killing or capturing Osama, everyone's going on about his rights, but absolutely no-one's giving a damn about the victims and their families of his crime. War and objectives like the US have had in getting Osama cannot be always achieved by trying to capture everyone and give them a fair trial. Given a trial, with law the way it is right now and the burden of proof being ridiculously high, he'd probably of gotten off on a technicality. He acted in a grossly unfair and evil way, I don't care what way he goes out. If I or anyone I know ever committed a conspiracy to kill even one person I'd expect the same from a cop or whoever. My tough luck for being evil I guess.

Liberalism and human rights can be very good things, but like everything in life if you remove common sense and take it all to it's limits, it goes mad.

Exactly Cymro. Good lord! I'm not agreeing with you too am I?

 

[Seaton]

I fail to see how referencing a political situation from the 1930s, when

a) The world was very different, and
b) The threat was an entire nation just across the sea who we (UK) had only just been to war with,

is in any way relevant to al-Qaeda. I thought it was a convention when arguing sensibly not to use Reductio Ad Hitlerum logic.

I can use other examples mind...

The point was that one can not always remain passive, ideally we would all like to live in a world where the values/ philosphy/ etc you profess hold true, but realistically it won't happen, not until we have a common goal which unites us, even 'religous rivals'.
However the only thing that could possibly unite us is the threat of extermination from an alien species, I mean with all our modern values, we can't even agree on a basic plan for global warming. <_<

As for the later posts about human rights, well what a murky topic

I say that those who admit to murders, or previously stated the intent to murder and were later a strong suspect of one, should only cost taxpayers the amount to give them an injection. Some people say if the U.S. didn't spend billions on war, sick people in the U.S. could be saved, why don't the same people advocate better allocating resources to sickness than use it housing and detaining self-admitted murderers? :huh:
You 'end' one life (not that sitting in jail for 40+ years is one) early, in order to prolong the life of another

In the powers that be I trust

 

[gingergenius]

That's just ridiculous. The entire point of having values and principles is that you stick to them. What's the point in prosecuting someone for murder if you yourself are going to murder them in the future?

The reason we despise murder is because we believe it is wrong to take a human life. If we believe it is wrong to take a human life, then we should never ever propose the same in return as punishment. There's no grey areas, either you believe that taking life is wrong or you don't.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

That's just ridiculous. The entire point of having values and principles is that you stick to them. What's the point in prosecuting someone for murder if you yourself are going to murder them in the future?

The reason we despise murder is because we believe it is wrong to take a human life. If we believe it is wrong to take a human life, then we should never ever propose the same in return as punishment. There's no grey areas, either you believe that taking life is wrong or you don't.

Yes there is a grey area. I believe taking a life to prevent others likely being taken by that person in the future particularly when they have the objectives to do so is a necessary step.

For example someone who murders innocent people, gets locked up, gets out, does it again, gets locked up again is a case for it. Otherwise your sacrificing the innocent for the rights of the guilty. In those circumstances there is reason to protect those who would not murder, by doing to the perpetrator what they themselves seemingly advocate.

Also, if you have a gun and a second to act, do you just stand there and let a man who has a knife to your wifes throat live, just because you don't believe in murder? If so, stuff those principles.

 

[TNT88]

The whole discussion should be around whether or not the USA should have pursued Osama Bin Laden, or more importantly, why?

Arguing over whether they should of killed the man on May 1st is pointless. The moment they decided to fly thousands of kilometers overseas to get Osama, they committed to (potentially) killing him.

If the world needed this man dead, sure go for it. But if the motive was anything different, questions should be raised.

Either the entire mission was appropriate, or it wasn't.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

The whole discussion should be around whether or not the USA should have pursued Osama Bin Laden, or more importantly, why?

Arguing over whether they should of killed the man on May 1st is pointless. The moment they decided to fly thousands of kilometers overseas to get Osama, they committed to (potentially) killing him.

If the world needed this man dead, sure go for it. But if the motive was anything different, questions should be raised.

Either the entire mission was appropriate, or it wasn't.

I feel it was appropriate myself, I'm sure some (apparent) Osama lovers on the site feel differently though.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'm sure some (apparent) Osama lovers on the site feel differently though.

You're an Osama lover if you feel that everyone has the right to a fair trial?
Then can kill the f**ker afterwards, but he should've at least had a trial, even if it was just "You're guilty - death by hanging" or whatever

 

[TNT88]

People who disagree with the mission's motives can do so without "loving Osama".

I agree it seems like a good idea. The only issue i would have is if they carried out the mission for pure revenge or political reasons. Rather than to improve the safety of US citizens.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

You're an Osama lover if you feel that everyone has the right to a fair trial?
Then can kill the f**ker afterwards, but he should've at least had a trial, even if it was just "You're guilty - death by hanging" or whatever

To put it simple ...

Putting Bin Laden into an orange jump suite and Guantanamo Bay would have caused issues.

His followers would take revenge seeing their 'martyr' being held captive. Any aid workers from the Western world would be under more risk than ever before and the level of threats would also be high.

Images of him in capture would have enraged his followers. Death was the only real option.

My previous point answers your trial question. Of course its not 100% certain that his boys would have gone to break him out of wherever he was being kept (more than likely) and also we would have seen an increase in the capture and torture of innocent aid / missionary workers from Western countries.

The big problem is the US won't release images, the DNA apparently will be shown eventually to show a match.