• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Osama bin Laden killed (was: They got him.)

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
I think you mean "don't respect" or "disrespect", but anyway, your definition of terrorist goes against how most people would define it. Terrorism isn't about whether you give someone a trial of not. Just by looking at the name, you can see that it's about doing violent acts intended to create fear/terror in a group of people (to intimidate them). Defining all wartime deaths as terrorism is absolutely ridiculous. It's such a charged term that, when you use it like this, I feel like I am talking to a bigot who will freely condemn anyone he doesn't like.
Ok, Let's not call this terrorist. Anyway, both behaviours are really similars and that what is really sick.

I don't really understand you when you say « I feel like I am talking to a bigot who will freely condemn anyone he doesn't like. ». Let's put aside the fact that it's a personnal attack, I don't care and I prefer discuss without making it personnal. But I really don't how you can come up with that conclusion. This is axactly the comportement I condamn. This is the comportement Ben Laden had when he organized 9/11. This the comportement USA had when they decided to kill Ben Laden without a trial, when they go to war in Irak (or maybe it is because of mass destruction weapons ?) and so on. This is exactly what I condemn.

Seriously, I know that this is a really emotionnal topic in USA, but when you look at the past ten years, it really looks like « OK, terrorist did attack us, so we are allowed to do whatever including what those guys did to us ». That's madness.
 
H

Hershey

Guest
There ARE pictures, they're just not releasing them out of common sense you fcking prick. Should I call you out and assume you're a hermaphrodite because I've never seen pictures of your dick?
Those are fake pics. And anyway, stop using such inappropriate language.
 

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
Deadalnix, your argument is incredibly utopian and naive. You can't compare Osama's fate to the fate of the innocent people killed in the attacks he organized. Osama was not a civilian. He gave that up when he murdered thousands of people and publicly took credit for their deaths. Also the U.S. didn't "decide to kill bin Laden without a trial." We would have preferred to take him alive but that wasn't possible because our soldiers had to defend themselves. You seem to imply that our soldiers' primary focus should be on Osama bin Laden's safety rather than their own.
 
Last edited:

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
Deadalnix, your argument is incredibly utopian and naive. You can't compare Osama's fate to the fate of the innocent people killed in the attacks he organized. Osama was not a civilian. He gave that up when he murdered thousands of people and publicly took credit for their deaths.
How and what about the people USA's army killed in irak ? Where are those mass destruction weapons ? USA killed bunch of innocent people too, and lots of them. And took public credit for theire death. That's just the same. People from irak coul call you terrorists you know, and they would be right.

But yeah, God bless America !

Those poor guy that were so endoctrined that they decide to sacrifice themselve in a tower were utopian and naive. You are utopian and naive, believing that « We would have preferred to take him alive ». Seriously dude, Ben Laden is presumed planner of 9/11, not even judged guilty, and that's really hard to prove, plus he have money, so can hire a good layer. Plus killing him is an excellent publicity for US army and theire good job and for Obama himself to be reelected.

Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,795
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
And took public credit for theire death.
I feel like there is no "winning" this complaint of yours. Had we not "taken public credit," I can see a response of something to the nature "We aren't taking accountability for our actions" or something along those lines.

Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.
It's like Bin Laden was by himself all day every day. He had people protecting him, those people who knew that there would probably be a time that comes where they have to put their life on the line to save his. If you would have kept up w/this story, Bin Laden died in a fire fight. If he was unarmed, somebody in his presence, and on his side, must have been shooting back at the soldiers.
 

Bapao

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
1,159
Location
Uranus...
YouTube
Visit Channel
headshot. pulled his wife in front of him and she died too.
Seriously? :tu

Edit:
Just read that it was only one of his wives that he used as a human shield. He used the rest as battering rams to open doors and dig through walls and such.
 
Last edited:

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
USA killed bunch of innocent people too, and lots of them. And took public credit for theire death. That's just the same.
There's a HUGE difference here. The USA did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties while Osama bin Laden did everything he could to maximize civilian casualties. The USA targeted enemy combatants while the terrorists targeted civilians.

deadalnix said:
Those poor guy that were so endoctrined that they decide to sacrifice themselve in a tower were utopian and naive.
Yep. (assuming you're talking about the terrorists here)

deadalnix said:
You are utopian and naive, believing that « We would have preferred to take him alive ». Seriously dude, Ben Laden is presumed planner of 9/11, not even judged guilty, and that's really hard to prove, plus he have money, so can hire a good layer. Plus killing him is an excellent publicity for US army and theire good job and for Obama himself to be reelected.
Not that it would be super fair, but even with the best lawyer Osama would be really screwed when judged by a jury of his "peers." There's even a video confession. He would never ever ever get aquitted. Also it would be equally good press for the US and Obama if we captured him alive and tried him for his crimes.

deadalnix said:
Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.
I can't construct a civil response to this so I'll just stick with: You're an idiot.
 
Last edited:

deadalnix

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
560
WCA
2008SECH01
I can't construct a civil response to this so I'll just stick with: You're an idiot.
Whenever you can't contruct a civil response to something, and comes up with insults, that means that you are actually writting under emotional stress, that affect your judgement. Thus, you shouldn't be writting at all. But this isn't the topic.
 

Bryan

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,297
Location
Rochester, MN
WCA
2007LOGA01
Ben Laden was sick for years (kidney issues, needed medical assitance at least 1 day on 2) and unarmed. Definitively not a dangerous guy for trained people like any soldier should be.
Why do you say unarmed? I've heard some reports say he was reaching for a gun when he got shot. Just because you have kidney issues doesn't mean you can't use a gun. Sure, in hand-to-hand combat, he would've lost to a Navy Seal. But if he'd had gotten hold of a gun, he could have killed people. It's not like he was super frail and didn't have the strength to lift a weapon.
 

RyanO

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
266
Location
Ames, Iowa
WCA
2008OLSO01
You claimed that a man responsible for the deaths of thousands, many of them trained soldiers, was not a dangerous man. This is an idiotic claim. Just saying it like it is.
 

JonnyWhoopes

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
1,009
Location
Massachusetts, USA
WCA
2011GRAY02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Whenever you can't contruct a civil response to something, and comes up with insults, that means that you are actually writting under emotional stress, that affect your judgement. Thus, you shouldn't be writting at all. But this isn't the topic.
I'm sorry that you happen to be insulted by the truth. Just because you don't like something somebody said, doesn't make it not true.

Whoops, I just joined the argument. I'm outta here.
 
Top