...

That's absolute nonsense. Cite a source, and provide a link.

In no way would it be acceptable. If we blew him up and had no preef he was dead he would "live on" and be inspiration for others, but more importantly no matter what no one has the right to kill indiscriminately.

And why does the US have the right to kill 3,000 innocent people? In name of "fighting terrorism"? IF they were really sure it was him, they could've sent some special forces to get him quietly, without anybody harmed. But I'm sure the U.S. would choose the louder option

Extreme Coder

Why fight a war with one hand tied behind your back? Osama is creepy, scary, his henchmen killed thousands of my fellow citizens. I'd like to live in peace but he wants me dead too. As Sherman or was it Patton who said "You don't win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other bastard die for his."
Given the original question of is collateral damage acceptable in order to kill Osama. My opinion is: bomb that village back to the stone age if thats what it takes.

I think with Bin Laden the US would make that a very discrete operation.

If there were no other option, the village gets bombed.

(I still think he's already dead)

It was Patton, and I agree your statement. I simply will not forget 9/11. As Sherman said, "War is Hell", and if Bin Laden is not dead, sure as the sun will come up tomorrow morning, he will be someday.

If you're in the way when retribution is handed down, I'd suggest to those 3,000 village inhabitants, that they either duck and cover, or run like hell.

Edit:

Or another option for the villagers. 3,000 ought to be able to take him, or at least rat him out. If he's there, serve him up on a platter, and you all can split the reward, and live happily ever after. If you don't want to do that, then you take what you get.

The MOAB (remember this one?)



link to the site

Some probably wondered why I started this thread. But already, it is obvious. This kind of question is always good for discovering who the fascists are right off the bat.

As you see, if you've read the thread, most US citz, especially white ones, have no qualms about killing people without a trial. And you really can't get a fair trial in the US anyways. But most don't even care for that. This is the fascist mindset.

You also find that some are willing to kill scores of others to quench the thirst for blood. And, of course, no one feels like a monster (regardless of how monstrous the desires) all assassination attempts and bombings are fully rationalized. This is the face of US fascism.

Security.

Out of curiosity, Fanon, whereabouts are you from. You speak as someone who truly despises the U.S.

I'm also curious about where you received your knowledge of the race of persons within this thread and their leanings politically. This one hypo-pathetic (as opposed to hypothetical) question can not possibly give you all the information needed to make the informed choice that you claim to have made.

I happen to be a U.S. citizen (strike one), white (strike two), and non-fascist (dang, ya' missed me). I don't believe that I have a thirst for blood (unless it's in a nice medium-rare steak) nor do most people I know.

Now, before you go making broad statements about things that you know nothing about, you might want to actually get to know the people you are calling your enemies.

QFT

Witness, everyone. This is the final resort of the jingo. Accusations of hating the empire as a reason to not answer up for support of fascism.

We're not fascists, you just hate us, goes the line. This kind of grade school baiting isn't even worthy of real engagement. I would like it if you might answer some of the serious stuff.

Like killing people without trial.
Or killing people with unfair trials.
Or killing civilians for the opportunity to kill people without a trial.

Respond to those things.

To answer the question one has to decide on whether he is evil enough to justify the collateral deaths.

So lets decide on how to measure evil. If it's by the number of deaths caused, he's no where close. George W. and Blair are higher up the food chain.

If it's in the senselessness of the killings, he's still not up there, lets not forget that Iraq is being occupied and hundreds are dying every day on a false premise.

And then there's the revenge factor. If you wanted to kill this 3000 to take revenge against the 3000 that died in NY, it's already been done more than 100 times over.

And lastly there's the pointlessness of it. In all likelihood, Osama's not in much of a position to actually do anything himself anyway. However his vilification by the US have deified him in the eyes of his followers. In fact most people of the world never heard of Osama before 9-11. And the terrorism being committed in the name of war against terrorism is garnering him more support. Making a martyr out of him isn't going to help. And as in Iraq, most of the crimes attributed to Al Qaeda, isn't being directed by him but rather by independent operators capitalizing on his "brand equity". Killing Saddam didn't solve any problems in Iraq and killing 3001 people after over 300000 have already been killed won't help the world.

Yawn

My dearest Fanon,

Regardless of your barbs and purposeful avoidance of any logical or relevant questioning, I will provide you with some of the insight that you requested in the hopes of enlightenment.

Some of the serious stuff:
Killing people without a trial - happens every day. Right of wrong of it is in the situation. If someone is threatening to kill you and you get the drop on them, then that is a justified killing without a trial. Killing in a time of war - If the individual is an enemy combatant, well, it sucks to be them. No trial needed. If the person is an innocent, then there is no killing allowed. Killing during the commission of a crime - well, i hope you don't need an explanation there.

Killing people with an unfair trial - that's just wrong, ain't it?

Killing civilians for the opportunity to kill people without a trial - See my previous.

It's your turn to shed some logical insight on your views. Many people in this thread have asked you questions that you have deftly avoided. You have simply made a rapid egress to another tangent and attacked someone with typically thoughtless rhetoric.
In the hopes of actually having a discussion and not immature name calling, I would appreciate a little more information than you have given thus far. Please refer to posts made previously in this thread.

Ha Ha!

The US an empire?!?!

It's one thing to criticize the government of the US and its policies, but don't go about taking pot shots at the citizens (even the white male ones)

...

Fanon,

This is from your first post on this forum...

In searching the member list on the Ubuntu forum, I find no record of a member going by the name of "Fanon". What name do you use on that forum?

Fanon, I'm calling you out. I think you're a TROLL. Defend yourself...

LOL

I think that in general, America and the West in general, needs to take its head out of its arse and start treating the rest of the world with a bit of fricking diginity.

Between Britain, America, Russia and France, we collectively have directly and indirectly caused just about every war and major social injustice in the world. That's alot of blood. And all for corporate greed, misplaced pride and "politics". War on terror? Don't make me laugh. There is no war. Its barbarism dressed up, and thats from both sides.

Its ok to bomb the crap out of someone else if you happen to be a "legitimate" country (ie, one validaed by the US or Europe) but apparently its the most evil crime ever to perpetrate the same act if you're not on the magic buddy list.

3,000 children die every day in Africa as a DIRECT result of Western foriegn policy.
Thats a 9/11 every day. But hey, screw them right? They're poor and they're black. They aren't valid human beings.

We forget that most of the population of this planet live in poverty. If you own 1pence or 1 cent, you are in the top 8% richest people on the planet. Think about that.

America needs to grow up and take some responsibility. Instead of backing dodgy dictators and turning a blind eye to attrocities committed by its allies, it needs to have the guts to challenge them.

$500m to Musharif in Pakistan eh? And there was me thinking that the US was against dictatorships... oh wait, musharif wasnt elected, and he took power by coup... but thats ok, America is his friend.

And you wonder why people get pissed with American foriegn policy. Wakey wakey USA. Time to stop believing you're in a fricking John Wayne movie.