Osama bin Laden claims victory over US

[Nola_Lifer]

Wow! How do you think Osama got his power? The U.S. Can't yall see that he was made a demon by our politicians. Just like what every good political chapter does, demonizes someone to deflect anger off themselves. If Osama died a year ago, would it matter? No. Does the death of Osama remove some pressure off of Obama? Yes. Do regular people want a war with zealous Islam? Hell no. Do all the zealous Christians in the U.S. want a war with Islam? Yes. Don't let a few people take place of a whole. We aren't some moralistic people who can say they did wrong and we are right. O holier than thou approach.

[stahrgazer]

Do all the zealous Christians in the U.S. want a war with Islam? Yes. Don't let a few people take place of a whole.

No. You're thinking of the Crusades. Those occurred quite a few (hundred) years before OBL struck the towers of the "new world" (and weren't conducted by Americans. By the ancestors of some Americans, yes. But not the ancestors of all Americans.

Nor was everyone in the Towers "Christian.")

[Nola_Lifer]

Do all the zealous Christians in the U.S. want a war with Islam? Yes. Don't let a few people take place of a whole.

No. You're thinking of the Crusades. Those occurred quite a few (hundred) years before OBL struck the towers of the "new world" (and weren't conducted by Americans. By the ancestors of some Americans, yes. But not the ancestors of all Americans.

Nor was everyone in the Towers "Christian.")

Explain to me why people lobby against Islamic Temples? Have you ever been to the Midwest, our largest section of the Bible belt? How many non-Islamic countries have we attacked or bombed in the last 20 years? I can only think of one. If you wanna look at this in a large scope, why did it take the EU so long to accept Turkey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf50OenPy-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30SSbpq-o_A

[jefjef]

stahrgazer

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.

FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

You are right - You are not at war with Islam: You are just continuing the history of land upsurption, resource grabbing and western imperialism.

Whenever I read or hear some twat bandy on about 'God blessing America' I can't help but think about the brainwashed moron who believes such patriotic bullshit.

yep. That is the best way to clean up trash and to prevent it's return.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[stahrgazer]

Explain to me why people lobby against Islamic Temples? Have you ever been to the Midwest, our largest section of the Bible belt? How many non-Islamic countries have we attacked or bombed in the last 20 years? I can only think of one. If you wanna look at this in a large scope, why did it take the EU so long to accept Turkey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf50OenPy-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30SSbpq-o_A

1) part a: Stupidity. The same thing that had Catholics downing Baptists and other Christians (and vice versa) for years. At least with Vatican II, one of the Popes decided to be a little smarter about it.

part b: recent lobbies have been against having a mosque, an emblem/place that signifies the religion that OBL and Al Quaeda misquote and misuse, smack in the center of a place that is only cleared land now because of the terrorists' misuse of that religion. While I disagree with banning a mosque there, I can understand the sentiment.

As an example, I doubt Israel wants a skinhead headquarters in its downtown area.

2) I live in a little "bible belt" part of Florida, actually. There's a mosque in one of the most "cracker" parts of town.

3) How many of those other countries (the ones we haven't bombed) have sent snipes our way? How many of those other countries are conducting mass genocide? How many of those other countries take US hostages for fun? How many are conducting terrorist activities against us just because we're "US"?

[radiojake]

stahrgazer

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.

FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

You are right - You are not at war with Islam: You are just continuing the history of land upsurption, resource grabbing and western imperialism.

Whenever I read or hear some twat bandy on about 'God blessing America' I can't help but think about the brainwashed moron who believes such patriotic bullshit.

yep. That is the best way to clean up trash and to prevent it's return.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Actually, I am pretty fucking certain that imperialism is the reason why extremism against the west exists in the first place.

[stahrgazer]

You are right - You are not at war with Islam: You are just continuing the history of land upsurption, resource grabbing and western imperialism.

What history?

The US never "kept" any land in the middle east, so we didn't do any "land usurption." The US didn't steal any oil wells, so we didn't do any "resource grabbing." And while I agree our political representatives act like trumped-up kings at times, the US isn't an imperialist nation.

At best, you can argue that we helped the ragged remains of a dis-located people find a home in the mid-east after some of their transitory "home" was made unpalatable by a funky German guy with a wierd-looking mustache (who didn't much care for Moslems either, btw).

Thus, at best, you can say the Americans have supported the Jewish post-Holocaust and as a result, helped the Jewish "usurp" some land, land that may or may not have viable resources.

So that's an excuse to decimate a civilian center in New York city using civilian planes as suicide bombs?

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

p.s.

GOD BLESS THE USA!!!!

[radiojake]

You are right - You are not at war with Islam: You are just continuing the history of land upsurption, resource grabbing and western imperialism.

What history?

The US never "kept" any land in the middle east, so we didn't do any "land usurption." The US didn't steal any oil wells, so we didn't do any "resource grabbing." And while I agree our political representatives act like trumped-up kings at times, the US isn't an imperialist nation.

At best, you can argue that we helped the ragged remains of a dis-located people find a home in the mid-east after some of their transitory "home" was made unpalatable by a funky German guy with a wierd-looking mustache (who didn't much care for Moslems either, btw).

Thus, at best, you can say the Americans have supported the Jewish and as a result, helped the Jewish "usurp" some land, land that may or may not have viable resources.

So that's an excuse to decimate a civilian center in New York city using civilian planes as suicide bombs?

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

Can someone give this twat a history text book?

Are you seriously attempting to deny the copious amounts of direct US interest in Middle Eastern oil? The many number of CIA backed coups that removed 'uncooperative' leaders and installed puppet dictators? Do you honestly believe that the US is a benign actor who is targetted by Middle Eastern Islamic extremists because of their hatred of 'freedom and liberty'?

This guy is more of a moron than Night Strike. Congratulations on your dubious award.

[BigBallinStalin]

9/11 was a fluke compared to the Holocaust. Anyway, the US has a history of glorifying mass-murder (see: WW2; bombing the f*ck out of Japan).

the atomic bombings of japan were an extremely complex decision that may have saved thousands if not millions of lives. you can't just dismiss it as "mass-murder".

Not just the a-bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Anyway, yes you can. There's a difference between soldiers killing each other and dropping bombs on innocent people. Soldiers are more prepared for death. Innocents are caught in the cross-fire.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

You assume that you have the foresight to predict such a catastrophe.

Welcome to reality, and say goodbye to your silly arguments about ethics.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are right - You are not at war with Islam: You are just continuing the history of land upsurption, resource grabbing and western imperialism.

What history?

The US never "kept" any land in the middle east, so we didn't do any "land usurption." The US didn't steal any oil wells, so we didn't do any "resource grabbing." And while I agree our political representatives act like trumped-up kings at times, the US isn't an imperialist nation.

At best, you can argue that we helped the ragged remains of a dis-located people find a home in the mid-east after some of their transitory "home" was made unpalatable by a funky German guy with a wierd-looking mustache (who didn't much care for Moslems either, btw).

Thus, at best, you can say the Americans have supported the Jewish and as a result, helped the Jewish "usurp" some land, land that may or may not have viable resources.

So that's an excuse to decimate a civilian center in New York city using civilian planes as suicide bombs?

riiiiiiiiiiiiight

Can someone give this twat a history text book?

Are you seriously attempting to deny the copious amounts of direct US interest in Middle Eastern oil? The many number of CIA backed coups that removed 'uncooperative' leaders and installed puppet dictators? Do you honestly believe that the US is a benign actor who is targetted by Middle Eastern Islamic extremists because of their hatred of 'freedom and liberty'?

This guy is more of a moron than Night Strike. Congratulations on your dubious award.

Don't do that! You would shatter her self-imposed, narrow-minded view of the world!

FORGIVE THEM, FATHER, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY YAAAARRGGGG!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.

FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

[stahrgazer]

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.
FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

Good question. So, which country is Al Quaeda?

Your logic astounds me again. Using similar logic, the United States should never have gone into France after Germans. Nor Italy. After all, those "host countries" weren't the country of the enemy's origins.

Well, we saw all along when he ran from country to country; and we saw at the end, with OBL using a woman as a shield; that he'd rather run and let civilians take his bullets for him.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Pakistan could've given him up years ago and we wouldn't still be there.

[john9blue]

9/11 was a fluke compared to the Holocaust. Anyway, the US has a history of glorifying mass-murder (see: WW2; bombing the f*ck out of Japan).

the atomic bombings of japan were an extremely complex decision that may have saved thousands if not millions of lives. you can't just dismiss it as "mass-murder".

Not just the a-bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Anyway, yes you can. There's a difference between soldiers killing each other and dropping bombs on innocent people. Soldiers are more prepared for death. Innocents are caught in the cross-fire.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

You assume that you have the foresight to predict such a catastrophe.

Welcome to reality, and say goodbye to your silly arguments about ethics.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified.

theoretically

fukin READ

[radiojake]

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Pakistan could've given him up years ago and we wouldn't still be there.

Ha. Keep dreaming

[BigBallinStalin]

the atomic bombings of japan were an extremely complex decision that may have saved thousands if not millions of lives. you can't just dismiss it as "mass-murder".

Not just the a-bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Anyway, yes you can. There's a difference between soldiers killing each other and dropping bombs on innocent people. Soldiers are more prepared for death. Innocents are caught in the cross-fire.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

You assume that you have the foresight to predict such a catastrophe.

Welcome to reality, and say goodbye to your silly arguments about ethics.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified.

theoretically

fukin READ

I did read it. Your ethical argument still isn't useful nor is it practical when compared to real issues based in reality, but that's OK because you and Rene Descartes can have fun with rationalism--just keep popping the unreal into real through only your minds in the name of "theoretical" thinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS. I'd say ole fish bait lost. Big fail.
FYI: We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with trash. Godaffy is next to be terminated.

What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

Good question. So, which country is Al Quaeda?

Your logic astounds me again. Using similar logic, the United States should never have gone into France after Germans. Nor Italy. After all, those "host countries" weren't the country of the enemy's origins.

Well, we saw all along when he ran from country to country; and we saw at the end, with OBL using a woman as a shield; that he'd rather run and let civilians take his bullets for him.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Pakistan could've given him up years ago and we wouldn't still be there.

WW2 does not equal this current scenario because these two scenarios are different--no matter how much you yell that they are the same.

_________________________________________

"What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

declaring war on a country (Afghanistan) to punish one man (Osama)
declaring war on a country (Libya) to punish one man (Qaddafy)

Do you see how using your brain can fill in the blank spaces?

[john9blue]

Not just the a-bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Anyway, yes you can. There's a difference between soldiers killing each other and dropping bombs on innocent people. Soldiers are more prepared for death. Innocents are caught in the cross-fire.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

You assume that you have the foresight to predict such a catastrophe.

Welcome to reality, and say goodbye to your silly arguments about ethics.

oh okay. even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified, provided that it prevents some greater catastrophe. that's the whole concept behind just war.

even so, i maintain that mass murder can theoretically still be justified.

theoretically

fukin READ

I did read it. Your ethical argument still isn't useful nor is it practical when compared to real issues based in reality, but that's OK because you and Rene Descartes can have fun with rationalism--just keep popping the unreal into real through only minds in the name of "theoretical" thinking.

orly? so we're gonna rule something out if we can't see at the time why it's a good action? what's a good action anyway? hm?

what you call wishful thinking and impracticality, i call open-mindedness and rationality. i don't go around justifying every murder and atrocity that happens, but at least i'm not presumptuous enough to think i already know everything about morality. i think that's a "useful" perspective to have.

[BigBallinStalin]

I did read it. Your ethical argument still isn't useful nor is it practical when compared to real issues based in reality, but that's OK because you and Rene Descartes can have fun with rationalism--just keep popping the unreal into real through only minds in the name of "theoretical" thinking.

orly? so we're gonna rule something out if we can't see at the time why it's a good action? what's a good action anyway? hm?

You're presuming that from your method of inquiry we can somehow find out what actions are morally right or morally wrong given some unreal situation. Since it's a situation not based in reality, it is not very useful. (I'll admit that it is useful to tedious ethicists who get bogged down on unreal scenarios).

what you call wishful thinking and impracticality, i call open-mindedness and rationality. i don't go around justifying every murder and atrocity that happens, but at least i'm not presumptuous enough to think i already know everything about morality. i think that's a "useful" perspective to have.

I never presumed that I know everything about morality. I'm just arguing that your example is not useful nor is it practical because it doesn't account for REAL FACTORS like lack of foresight and other human limitations.


Come back down from Rationalism Land.

[radiojake]

BigBallingStalin - ever the realist

[john9blue]

I did read it. Your ethical argument still isn't useful nor is it practical when compared to real issues based in reality, but that's OK because you and Rene Descartes can have fun with rationalism--just keep popping the unreal into real through only minds in the name of "theoretical" thinking.

orly? so we're gonna rule something out if we can't see at the time why it's a good action? what's a good action anyway? hm?

You're presuming that from your method of inquiry we can somehow find out what actions are morally right or morally wrong given some unreal situation. Since it's a situation not based in reality, it is not very useful. (I'll admit that it is useful to tedious ethicists who get bogged down on unreal scenarios).

what you call wishful thinking and impracticality, i call open-mindedness and rationality. i don't go around justifying every murder and atrocity that happens, but at least i'm not presumptuous enough to think i already know everything about morality. i think that's a "useful" perspective to have.

I never presumed that I know everything about morality. I'm just arguing that your example is not useful nor is it practical because it doesn't account for REAL FACTORS like lack of foresight and other human limitations.


Come back down from Rationalism Land.

i don't really think we disagree on anything; i recognize how useful concrete rules/laws can be from the limited perspective of people. but isn't it useful to at least have flawless morality as a goal? at least recognize that it exists so that we can keep an open mind about the actions of others? you're just throwing your hands up in the air like "it's not possible man, we can never know real morality" and i don't like that

[Army of GOD]

STOP!

Morality is relative (that is objective).

CONTINUE!

[AAFitz]

9/11 was a fluke compared to the Holocaust. Anyway, the US has a history of glorifying mass-murder (see: WW2; bombing the f*ck out of Japan).

the atomic bombings of japan were an extremely complex decision that may have saved thousands if not millions of lives. you can't just dismiss it as "mass-murder".

Its also very possible they were only a result of one mistranslated word.

[stahrgazer]

_________________________________________

"What are the unintended consequences of declaring war on a country in the name of punishing 1 man?

declaring war on a country (Afghanistan) to punish one man (Osama)
declaring war on a country (Libya) to punish one man (Qaddafy)

Do you see how using your brain can fill in the blank spaces?

We're at war with terrorism within those countries, not at war with the countries themselves.

In that, it is very much like going into France after Germans. It's also comparable to Hitler's Germany because they're beginning how Hitler began: started with those he chose not to like near him, before expanding.

I think you need to work on filling your brain's blank spaces

[Qwert]

Well i think that situation in IRaq and Afghanistan,its almost same like in Vietnam, because what Bush declare,that war its over, its totaly opposite, because withouth US soldiers, Iraq will colapse into civil war, also Afghanistan its same situation, and withouth NAto and US troops, these country will colapse in same way, like they colapse when Soviet Union Invade Afghanistane,and after 10 and some years move out of afghanistan. These is only forced peace maintained by invasion forces, and one day for some 5-6 years, some new Goverment in US will say "These is same crap like in Vietname, we instaled new goverment, give equipment and trained hes armies, but still they not so smart to fight against rebels,and other terorist, its cost to much, money and lives of US , and its time to withdraw from these countries".
Invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we know who are loser in long way.

[Bones2484]

What, did, you, just, say?