Osama Bin laden is dead.

[Eric]

Happy day.

[Julius Seeker]

I am actually surprised that he hadn't died of kidney failure in 2002 or late 2001.

Either way, the reports say he was in Pakistan, and a small operation was all that was necessary. Not fullscale warfare against a country which he was never suspected to be involved with, let alone be located in.

[Shrinweck]

True, except we did think he was likely located there. He needed a country with advanced enough hospitals in the region and there were rumors of him being in hospitals in developed urban areas.

[Imakeholesinu]

Upon hearing the news, Donald Trump immediately asked Seal Team 6 to produce a death certificate for Osama bin Laden.

[Imakeholesinu]

[Kupek]

Either way, the reports say he was in Pakistan, and a small operation was all that was necessary. Not fullscale warfare against a country which he was never suspected to be involved with, let alone be located in.

If you mean Iraq, then yes, he had no relationship with Iraq and the Bush administration gave the impression that Saddam and his government had ties with al-Qaeda when they in fact had none.

But if you mean Afghanistan, then, no, he was in Afghanistan until US forces invaded in 2001. Bin Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban were the only ones who would agree to let him into their country - and even then, barely. Clearly, though, bin Laden was in Pakistan because he had to flee Afghanistan.

If you'd like to read the history of al-Qaeda, check out The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. He also wrote a quick piece about bin Laden's death: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... odbye.html To my surprise, he thinks his death will have an impact on al-Qaeda. But I think that bin Laden's death will have little impact on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Zeus]

The real question is: does Obama ride this all the way into re-election? Even the Tea Party can't slam him here....

[Shrinweck]

Election is far away enough that the massive boost he'll get with this will have calmed down. Still, you can't really quantify the War on Terror with anything that will stick in our minds other than preventing large attacks and Osama bin Laden's death and, well, it doesn't get much better than this.

[Zeus]

Election is far away enough that the massive boost he'll get with this will have calmed down. Still, you can't really quantify the War on Terror with anything that will stick in our minds other than preventing large attacks and Osama bin Laden's death and, well, it doesn't get much better than this.

One thing I promise you: you will have this news shoved so far down your throat next year you're gonna almost wish he was alive again. Ain't no way them Democrats gonna let this one die.

[Zeus]

OK, Americans, here's a question for you: If Bin Laden wasn't armed with a firearm, would you rather he be subdued (like his wife was) and brought to trial or shot dead?

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/03/bi ... us-assault

I personally have zero opinion on this, I'm just asking everyone else what they think.

[Shrinweck]

I think they made the right decision. I can't even imagine him surviving to a trial, or the ramifications of what craziness would occur throughout the world if he did... and the diplomatic strains... Ugh. We would look like such idiots if anything went wrong.

Yeah. Right decision.

[Flip]

[Zeus]

I think they made the right decision. I can't even imagine him surviving to a trial, or the ramifications of what craziness would occur throughout the world if he did... and the diplomatic strains... Ugh. We would look like such idiots if anything went wrong.

Yeah. Right decision.

Remember, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I have no personal opinion whether he was killed in self defense, executed, taken alive for trial, whatever.

Isn't the whole point of being the bastions of democracy (Americans love to remind the rest of the world that they are only spreading democracy) that you promote the elements of democracy? Isn't the point that it's not what you or I think of defendant or what they've done but that they get their day in court? That even the most disgusting of individuals seen as a waste of skin and bones by nearly anyone in society is still a human being who is not only protected by but also must answer to the democratic system in place? Isn't that what separates a true democracy from a B.S. one or a dictatorship, which is what is actually happening in the Mideast right now?

For argument's sake, let us leave out our opinions on whether or not the trials would be fair or a joke or whatever and just concentrate on whether or not even the most heinous of criminals should be taken to trial.

BTW, for those of us who have actually studied history, we remember much more heinous crimes for which trials were held for the principles involved.

[Shrinweck]

I get where you're going with the other trials but that's different. People needed to be held accountable in order for people to receive closure. Terrorism is a whole different species of crime. On that same line of reasoning - what kind of closure would a trial with Osama bring? Genocide is at its very core wrong and destroys the humanity of both sides involved in it. Terrorism involves much more grey. Killing people is undeniably wrong and the methods are deplorable but the victor gets to rewrite history however they want. As far as I can recall, genocide has never gotten the chance to not be judged by either the outside or those that come after on the surviving side.

[Flip]

Does it come as a shock that Mental has been ranting and raving on facebook about this 'conspiracy'? The kid has lost it.

[Zeus]

I get where you're going with the other trials but that's different. People needed to be held accountable in order for people to receive closure. Terrorism is a whole different species of crime. On that same line of reasoning - what kind of closure would a trial with Osama bring? Genocide is at its very core wrong and destroys the humanity of both sides involved in it. Terrorism involves much more grey. Killing people is undeniably wrong and the methods are deplorable but the victor gets to rewrite history however they want. As far as I can recall, genocide has never gotten the chance to not be judged by either the outside or those that come after on the surviving side.

That's where the element of hypocrisy lies. Genocide is worse than terrorism, at least terrorism can be easily confused with freedom fighting depend on which point of view you have (you don't think a lot of people in the Mideast see the UN and US as terrorists?). I think we can all agree on that, yes? If so, why do those who commit genocide get a trial (see my link above) while those who commit terrorism are celebrated when they are clearly executed?

Clearly those trials were only going to end one way but the fact that there was a trial was celebrated and even seen as a requirement by many at the time. So the real question is: what the difference between the trials 65 years ago for the genocidists and the execution of terrorists today? My theory? This is all linked with the decline in the general morals of society (Kup, I know it's been over a year, but here's some proof for that argument I said I would get you when I had time). There was a time many moons ago when society said "even the most despicable person gets their day in court and must pay like any other human being for what they did". Now it's more like "they don't deserve to live, kill 'em all".

And to answer your question: the trial of Osama would bring the same closure, particularly to those who lost loved ones in 9/11, that the trial of any murder brings to any family. The reason you put these people on trial is a) to ensure they were actually the ones who did it (since their defense brings up counter-arguments) and b) to actually know and see the person pay for what they did (as opposed to just having someone tell you about it). Nowadays, we're more concerned with the cost of detaining these people than we are with the justice provided by a trial. To many, just killing them is better since they did a heinous crime and will cost taxpayers money to keep in a cell. I'm saying that's not necessarily the best course of action for many, many reasons. But the fact that a good chunk of society seems to think it is is a reflection of the decline in societal morals.

[Shrinweck]

I agree with most of what you said but it's difficult for a country to be the 'bigger man' when crimes have been committed against it. Public deaths don't really do anyone any favors and giving that man a stage sounds even more reprehensible.

[Zeus]

I agree with most of what you said but it's difficult for a country to be the 'bigger man' when crimes have been committed against it. Public deaths don't really do anyone any favors and giving that man a stage sounds even more reprehensible.

Again, that's the point. We should be FORCING those who represent us to, for a lack of a better term, be "bigger men" than those who commit heinous acts. Regardless of what we might think, they should still be allowed to provide proof to counter-act the allegations against them......even if we know basically for sure that they will just reiterate their guilt of the acts previously committed. They still get the chance in a "proper" setting (as determined by societal laws) to have a voice. Why? Because we have to hear their arguments against the allegations before we can make a truly objective judgment of the crimes they were alleged to commit. If they get the chance and it doesn't pass the smell test, then you can say their guilty. But they always, always get the chance regardless of what they did.

Imagine for a sec that anyone who is accused of something - anything - is not allowed to have their chance to plead their innocence or to provide a counter-argument for their peers and for those entrusted to uphold the laws of our society. You get rid of that very fundamental element of your society and you essentially eliminate - again, I have no better term - the "soul" of the democracy your Americans love to constantly bring to the forefront to support your foreign policy/actions. This is basically a black and white proposition: either EVERYONE gets their day in court (their "voice") or your basic laws of human rights - the core of your democracy - are moot. You can't cherry-pick who gets that voice and still call yourselves a democracy. That's when you start talking about other societal arrangements, many of which you supposedly have been fighting against for the last 90+ years. If you're gonna talk the talk you'd better walk the walk. Otherwise, no amount of PR will cover the smell of the bullshit you're trying to feed the rest of the world.

Just to reiterate: I have no opinion on the actions that took place one way or the other; I could care less. What I want to point out is the hypocrisy in the display of ecstasy that occurred throughout most of the "allied" countries (we Canadians can't be devoid of fault in this either) at the news of the execution.

[Shrinweck]

Does it come as a shock that Mental has been ranting and raving on facebook about this 'conspiracy'? The kid has lost it.

Also, no, it doesn't surprise me. Not even an hour after the announcement I talked to someone reacting like this. Couldn't even make a valid point. At one point he started arguing about something else entirely which I assume means he's either crazy or saw some kind of reason. Either way I stopped talking to him.

[Zeus]

Does it come as a shock that Mental has been ranting and raving on facebook about this 'conspiracy'? The kid has lost it.

Also, no, it doesn't surprise me. Not even an hour after the announcement I talked to someone reacting like this. Couldn't even make a valid point. At one point he started arguing about something else entirely which I assume means he's either crazy or saw some kind of reason. Either way I stopped talking to him.

I don't understand the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Yeah, I believe that the gov't hides things, they have to in order to survive. But man, when Al Queda comes out and says "he's dead", doesn't that put it to rest?

[SineSwiper]

I think they made the right decision. I can't even imagine him surviving to a trial, or the ramifications of what craziness would occur throughout the world if he did... and the diplomatic strains... Ugh. We would look like such idiots if anything went wrong.

I'm sure people would talk about Saddam vs. Osama in terms of capturing vs. killing him. Here's the difference:

Saddam was captured by US forces. The US doesn't like Saddam, but it's not like they really fucking hate him. The Iraqis really fucking hate him. Thus, he's captured.

Osama was killed by US forces. The US does really fucking hate him. Thus, he's shot 93 times.

[Shrinweck]

Haha the janitor in Scrubs said we should stop our war in Iraq and look for bin Laden in Pakistan back in the 2006 season.