What's new
By:

Bin Laden is dead

Waterboarding_Altern_120110505081029.jpg
 
yb85 said:
you know what? I agree with you in that if obl surrendered, then they capture him and take him somewhere to extract all information from him that they can. But i also think that if he did not immediately indicate that he was surrendering, a bullet to the head was his just reward. As for the seals "executing" him, they're not cops or even swat. they're elite soldiers trained to save lives(they are in the business of saving lives. When they send the seals in, they're not going in to simply arrest someone. Is it that hard to understand? You call it "execution". I call it "eliminating the enemy". Tomato, tomahto.
Click to expand...

fixed
 
YB85 said:
You know what? I agree with you in that if OBL surrendered, then they capture him and take him somewhere to extract all information from him that they can. But I also think that if he did not immediately indicate that he was surrendering, a bullet to the head was his just reward. As for the SEALs "executing" him, they're not cops or even SWAT. They're elite soldiers trained to kill. When they send the SEALs in, they're not going in to simply arrest someone. Is it that hard to understand? You call it "execution". I call it "eliminating the enemy". Tomato, tomahto.
Click to expand...

DutchJazzer said:
fixed
Click to expand...

And they just saved thousands by taking out the one person that was rallying a terrorist organization against the free world to kill innocent civilians.

Tomato. Tahmato.
 
SaltyDawg said:
You honestly can't understand why someone would be against a policy that allows torture pretty much anytime, but still be all for Bin Laden getting killed?
Click to expand...

Try reading for understanding, then feel free to post again. Here I will post the paragraph for you since you have proven that posts longer than 3 sentences are hard for you to follow:

It is also interesting, even a little disturbing, how up in arms people get about international law in terms of torturing terrorists to get intel to stop future attacks and how absolutely fine people would be in completely ignoring international law to shoot one in the head to stop future attacks. So torture=bad, murder=good in terms of stopping terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...

See the international law part? Yes I cannot understand being really mad about breaking international law to interrogate someone but being absolutely fine with breaking international law to murder someone, both for the same purpose, to stop terrorist attacks.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Killing Bin Laden is not even remotely close to the same thing (or nearly as bad) as torturing everyone we interrogate.

Much like your poker games being illegal doesn't mean you have no integrity when you speak out against a murderer/rapist/burglar/car thief/drug dealer/etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, torture is to murder as poker night at Gamefaces is to murder/rape/burglary. Sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.


All kidding aside, in your little zinger there you point out something interesting. There are laws that we are willing to overlook.

Apparently you are willing to overlook laws about murder if you are happy with who gets killed, but you won't overlook laws about torture no matter what.

Gameface is willing to overlook laws about poker games in his game room, but would be up in arms about breaking laws regarding torture and murder both.
 
One Brow said:
In that situation, I can certainly see the prudence of making sure, and although I find it dsiturbing, I also find it difficult to fault.

However, this was a raid on a terrorist's residence, which I'm sure you'll agree is a different context.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is a different context, but that deserves severe concern as well. Bin Laden had plenty of time to store weapons in easily accessible places and booby-trap the compound to his desire. These guys were putting themselves right in the middle of the snake pit and need to treat it as such. With the way he planned his other terrorist acts one could reasonably assume he had a contingency plan on what would happen if he were ever cornered, and how he would not be taken. I would not expect anyone in that situation to give Bin Laden any chance to take the fight to them. Remember, Bin Laden himself dictated the terms for how he would be dealt with. Reaffirmed with his constant threats of murdering as many Americans as possible and never being taken alive.

Also something else to ponder. "Unarmed" can mean many things. If I have no weapons on me, yet am running towards an RPG or AK-47, technically I am unarmed.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I'm sure killing Bin Laden saved countless lives. They have already made public the planned attacks on trains and bridges on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, so the SEALs did save plenty of lives.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden is not the only member or leader of Al Qaida. The war isn't over yet.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Try reading for understanding, then feel free to post again. Here I will post the paragraph for you since you have proven that posts longer than 3 sentences are hard for you to follow:



See the international law part? Yes I cannot understand being really mad about breaking international law to interrogate someone but being absolutely fine with breaking international law to murder someone, both for the same purpose, to stop terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
Did that change anything?

Again- can you really not understand how someone could possibly be against torturing everyone we interrogate, yet still be in favor of killing Bin freaking Laden?
 
LogGrad98 said:
Yeah, torture is to murder as poker night at Gamefaces is to murder/rape/burglary. Sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.


All kidding aside, in your little zinger there you point out something interesting. There are laws that we are willing to overlook.

Apparently you are willing to overlook laws about murder if you are happy with who gets killed, but you won't overlook laws about torture no matter what.

Gameface is willing to overlook laws about poker games in his game room, but would be up in arms about breaking laws regarding torture and murder both.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are changing my quote again and then arguing the point you changed it to.

Show me where I said I was against torturing Bin Laden? I would have been fine with torturing him.

Again, can you really not see the difference between torturing EVERYONE we interrogate, and killing Bin Laden?
 
SaltyDawg said:
Did that change anything?

Again- can you really not understand how someone could possibly be against torturing everyone we interrogate, yet still be in favor of killing Bin freaking Laden?
Click to expand...

If you cannot tell the difference in a written statement by the actual words written in that statement then you are beyond help.

And breaking the law is breaking the law. It is not a gradient scale.

And in your other post you were the one to point out that poker night at gameface's was like murdering someone, not me.
 
LogGrad98 said:
If you cannot tell the difference in a written statement by the actual words written in that statement then you are beyond help.

And breaking the law is breaking the law. It is not a gradient scale.

And in your other post you were the one to point out that poker night at gameface's was like murdering someone, not me.
Click to expand...
Poker night at Gameface's house, as minor and insignificant of a crime as that is, is MUCH WORSE than killing Bin Laden.There was, what, a $50 million reward for anyone who killed Bin laden? So while you call it a crime, I say they deserve a huge reward.

If breaking the law was breaking the law with no gradient scale, as you ridiculously claim, then every crime would carry the same penalty.

I'm pretty sure going a little over the speed limit and getting nailed won't land you life in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top