|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:26:50 GMT -5
As long as the kill was legal under international law then that is the law. Opinion doesn't matter. I suppose thats really the last of the discussion. So far I have seens no war crime charges. I still don't know for a fact if he is even dead or not dead. I wasn't personally there and haven't seen any evidence. What is your view of the war on terror? Or terrorist in general? I know your against but how do you think it should be handled as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Minell on May 9, 2011 1:34:08 GMT -5
Well your arguing a point of view that backs up a terrorist point of view? ? So what is someone to take from that?? I know your not a terrorist Charlie, your a really cool and a very friendly guy, Im just saying arguing the same things a terrorist would is a losing battle. I know it's not possible to see things objectively, but that's still always my goal, and I see that you are far from trying to see things from other peoples viewpoints. You saw an attack on your country and you see that as much worse than what have happened to other countries even though they have lost WAY more lives than your country has. I get the impression that you value some lives higher than others. We have totally different opinions regarding this and I'd rather leave this discussion now when we still are on a friendly level. I think you are a cool guy too and I'd be glad to discuss with you in other threads. But this discussion feels done for me now. Hope you understand. It was interesting discussing with you!
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:41:03 GMT -5
No I feel very bad for the people that lose lives in other situations. I have a friend that is a survivor of the events that went on in Bosnia, I am not saying other people in the world don't lose people because of violent acts, to say that would convey ignorance. Im not ignorant of the world around me, I am one of the people that will actually look at something from more than one angle. I feel for anyone that has to lose loved ones because of random acts of violence, war, terrorism, ect........ We don't live in a perfect world and to dream of one is to ingore reality. Now Im not saying don't dream we can all dream hopefully one day it will be peaceful, but the reality is there is always something bad going on in some part of the world. Your objective view on this subject was to say that it was wrong to kill Osama well you see it as a murder and lowering yourself to their level of violence. Your saying the reasons for believing that way is because no matter the cause violence is still violence in the end result and I can see that. But the reality is people were killed for a stupid cause. i would personally have liked to capture Bin Laden to gain valuable information for the military. Hussein was tried successfully so I can see that point of view
|
|
|
Post by Karen Bean on May 9, 2011 8:58:19 GMT -5
Johnny, you have to read what Charlie is saying and look at it from all perspectives. You and I may not look at 911 as "legal kills" but others do. Period! Doesn't matter whether we agree or not or we like it or not, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. And, that in itself is what causes most of the violence in this world - beliefs!
Were we "right" to kill bin Laden? Most people in our country will answer yes. Most people in other countries may answer no. Such is life. We justify killing him due to his involvement in 911 but was he tried, convicted, and sentenced? Sure - because we call it "war". We were "at war" with Osama bin Laden. But were we truly "at war"?
All of our wars are basically declared and labeled. WWI, WWII, Korean War, etc. Vietnam was a "conflict" but it was still a war. Openly declared on a country and fought with casualties on both sides. We were not at war with a country, we were trying to cut off the head of the snake.
I have said for many years that our CIA and Special Forces should have been doing what they do best. Seriously, how hard is it to find a man hiding in rock and sand? We should have crept in, in the dead of night, and slit his throat while he was sleeping. All under the cover of darkness and just simply kept our mouths shut. No major announcements, no bragging, no declaration of winning - just removed our enemy.
But now that we have chosen to make our grand announcements, there will be fallout, that you can count on. We have decided to play the game, by our own rules, so we will have people that do not support our rule changing.
In anything, there are always two sides - both of which believe they are right. We may not agree but we have to be open minded enough and honest enough to at least acknowledge we are no more right than they are.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on May 9, 2011 9:31:58 GMT -5
Karen beat me to it. Nice post Karen. Johnny, the issue here is perception and relativity. I personally agree 100% with Charlie, and here's why. I watched the whole "production" of the OBL murder announcement in my hotel at UAL. The entire time I couldn't really put my finger on it, but I felt that something was off. There was something about Americans partying and chanting USA over someone getting killed. The images of Muslim extremists in other countries chanting and burning US flags after 9/11 popped into my head. THAT'S what Charlie is talking about. At that moment, we became EXACTLY what we were supposed to be fighting. That's what was off in my mind. Then all this garbage about how torturing people 10 years ago was justified (even thought illegal according the Geneva Convention) because it somehow led to "catching" him now. Give me a break...they're milking this for all it's worth, and the sheep fell right in line... Now as far as following the Geneva Convention. There's a reason why Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will not fly to most countries out of fear of being arrested for violating international laws. abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195I don't know if you all remember Churchill from here in CO, when he said "the chickens have come to roost" in regards to 9/11, and the crape storm that followed after he said that. The sad thing is it's somewhat true. We march around the world PUSHING our views on everyone like the schoolyard bully and are surprised when someone fights back or retaliates. I know that the victims of 9/11 were technically innocent, and it totally sucks, but in the minds of the victims of our tyranny everyone in our country supports what our leaders do and are therefore not innocent. Is this morally correct? I'm not sure....just look at how we all reacted after 9/11 and the piles of dead INNOCENT Iraqi and Afghani civilians we've left in our wake. Something to think about. We may think we are the "good guys", but the majority of the world would agree we lost that title LONG ago once we started using our military for MONETARY gain....
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on May 9, 2011 10:09:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on May 9, 2011 10:25:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on May 9, 2011 11:05:29 GMT -5
Osama Deception:
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:15:07 GMT -5
Johnny, you have to read what Charlie is saying and look at it from all perspectives. You and I may not look at 911 as "legal kills" but others do. Period! Doesn't matter whether we agree or not or we like it or not, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. And, that in itself is what causes most of the violence in this world - beliefs! Were we "right" to kill bin Laden? Most people in our country will answer yes. Most people in other countries may answer no. Such is life. We justify killing him due to his involvement in 911 but was he tried, convicted, and sentenced? Sure - because we call it "war". We were "at war" with Osama bin Laden. But were we truly "at war"? All of our wars are basically declared and labeled. WWI, WWII, Korean War, etc. Vietnam was a "conflict" but it was still a war. Openly declared on a country and fought with casualties on both sides. We were not at war with a country, we were trying to cut off the head of the snake. I have said for many years that our CIA and Special Forces should have been doing what they do best. Seriously, how hard is it to find a man hiding in rock and sand? We should have crept in, in the dead of night, and slit his throat while he was sleeping. All under the cover of darkness and just simply kept our mouths shut. No major announcements, no bragging, no declaration of winning - just removed our enemy. But now that we have chosen to make our grand announcements, there will be fallout, that you can count on. We have decided to play the game, by our own rules, so we will have people that do not support our rule changing. In anything, there are always two sides - both of which believe they are right. We may not agree but we have to be open minded enough and honest enough to at least acknowledge we are no more right than they are. You do know there would be serious consequences for sneaking into another country and taking someone and then keeping it on the low. If they find out then it becomes an act of war, best to let them know your going to do it. I did look at both sides, I just didn't agree with the other, did you even read all we talked about??? It finally came down to what the Geneva codes have to say. Not everyones opinion of it. 9/11 was not legal kills and Osama had those done and our kill was a legal one according to the geneva codes, not my opinion. Also Vietnam was a war I agree but by the Geneva code it was a police action which follows slightly different guidelines. Terrorism can really be one or the other or both. I just don't agree that it was wrong to kill him, sneaking up and murdering him in the middle of the night by slitting his throat would be murder though lol and then yes that would be wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:20:34 GMT -5
Geneva code gives the law on someone who isn't visibly armed, they can even be retreating from you and you can still shoot them dead, only way it's a crime is if he surrendered. Last time I checked he had more than 10 years to surrender. I agree about the celebrating, you can look to my facebook for that, I never said that we should go out into the streets and celebrate that is where the line distinguishes between what the terrorist were doing and what we did. The action of him beling killed is justice in my eyes but the celebrating of it is wrong. I don't think it's right to celebrate over any human being killed. Relieved but not happy. Also Chris, so you also agree with Charlie's view that a pedophile should not be put to death then, not sure if you have kids but even if it was one of your own kids that was molested,raped,harmed,ect.... ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:21:51 GMT -5
Gilani has said that future operations without their consent will result in action by them against us. But they stated they really wanted to continue working with us on rooting out terrorist instead of messing up our ties with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:31:09 GMT -5
Now Charlie was posing a different perspective, but even he said it's not wrong to want to kill them. As far as a person's reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:31:35 GMT -5
key word being "want"
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on May 9, 2011 12:36:07 GMT -5
Also Chris, so you also agree with Charlie's view that a pedophile should not be put to death then, not sure if you have kids but even if it was one of your own kids that was molested,raped,harmed,ect.... ?. I don't have kids, but I do have nieces and nephews. This is a tough one for sure. I personally have a few theories on the whole prison system that would actually contradict Charlie's views. I don't think I'd be able to be as good as a human being as Charlie on these cases, but it wouldn't be as cut and dry as just killing them. My prison system reform theory would explain this further, but is not related to the thread, and I don't want it to get high jacked. The whole thing with killing OBL is that we didn't practice what we preached, and basically proved the radicals correct. We are a tyrannical country that will come in and kill anyone we want when we want, and how we want regardless of the rules. Personally, I don't see why we didn't capture him. We had the best of the best go in there, and I'm if we told them that we wanted him alive, they would have brought him back alive. The problem is they didn't get that order. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:53:47 GMT -5
We don't really know what order the SEALs receieved. I just know the way people view things and in the media from our view isn't always accurate of the situations. I agree there needs to be less secrecy but we also have to maintain national security and i do believe that is something important to protect. I haven't lost faith yet, I still think America can be restored to a GREAT country as it was before but we need the right people to do it. What would your decision have been in the matter? I see someone having my children killed, family killed, innocent people killed basically as any less bad than a pedophile. He had innocent kids, women, and men killed. He does deserve what he got but with that said we shouldn't gloat in the street about it. I think you guys try to stay in the middle ground to much on issues sometimes. Sometimes you have to take a side on and issue you can't always stay in the middle grey area and expect a concrete way to develope. But you saying you would go away from Charlies view on that, then you in essence don't agree with Charlie's view as you stated
|
|