Bin laden dead

Splog said:
Not nuclear! Just lots of smaller bombs that kill lots of people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
Click to expand...

A very odd viewpoint IMVHO.

What figures and articles like that and the illegal war brigade fail to make fully clear is that most of the casualties aren't caused by evil Americans or their lap dogs but by terrorists, insurgents, the former ruling party and local thugs.

I think that a nice simple way to look at it is... If you see someone murdering his wife you phone the police, the police come and arrest the would be murderer and then all his scumbag relatives appear and start a riot. Seems odd to blame the police.

My point is that in situations like this it's perhaps easy to lose sight who's actually to blame and to blame George Bush or Tonly Blair seems insane to me when the real guilt should be squarely attributed to the various political, terror and religious groups that have actually been committing the almost daily crimes against humanity against the civilian population.
 
Gremlin said:
You're reallly not getting my point are you. Those killed in the 9/11 attacks and in London were not troops and they were not living in a war zone, they were innocent people going about their everyday lives.
Those that caused their deaths weren't paid to do it they most likely volunteered so they could become martyrs. Yes they too are dead but that was their choice
Click to expand...

The fact they live in a war zone is an irrelevance. It's us that declared war on them and made their home - where they too go about their daily lives, or at least try to - a war zone, and that doesn't make them any less innocent than those tragically unfortunate people who got wrapped up in the attacks we've seen in the US and UK. I also can't see how the fact our soldiers are paid has any relevance on their right to take lives. The damage we've done in Iraq (and i'm referring to the disruption and end to innocent lives here) is massively disproportionate to the impact their attacks have made on us. Unjustifiably so, in my opinion of course.


I'd also like to apologise to Sting for my crass reply a few days ago. It was entirely unnecessary, so sorry Sting!
 
TriggerHappy said:
The damage we've done in Iraq (and i'm referring to the disruption and end to innocent lives here) is massively disproportionate to the impact their attacks have made on us. Unjustifiably so, in my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

And what about the state of play in Iraq before and after GW1?

There were death camps, torture camps, rape on a massive scale, rape camps even, abuse of human rights on a truly massive scale, mass graves... all this seems to be airbrushed from some peoples memories.
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
And has any of that changed?

Ignored Torture
Torture worse after Saddam
Click to expand...

It should be perfectly obvious that it is changing, and hopefully that'll continue.

My point is that the it's the people who are committing atrocities that we should blame. What we shouldn't do IMVHO is buy into this fantasy that it's the evil Americans and the imperialist British that are running around the world murdering the peace loving and noble indigenous populations.

The first step on fixing any problem is surely to recognise the problem and accept that it exists. One view which is at least worth considering is that the biggest threat to freedom generally and freedom from torture, oppression or murder specifically isn't the imperialist west but religious hatred and fundamentalism.
 
Last edited:
What has changed by his death? more importantly what he we achieved in the war on terror?

Propaganda gains on both sides is pretty much it. Threat to us is supposedly worse because of his death as they want revenge, and massive flag waving cos we got "The bad guy" and suddenly at the start of the campaign trial Obama is god as he got the bad guy like it is a real life version of Call of Duty. Sure all those calling him a terrorist will forget about it while waving their flags made in a chinese sweatshop.

Many more innocent people have been killed by us in the war on terror than by Al Qaeda in their terrorist activities. Just because they are not white, english speaking christians does not make any difference.
 
woof woof said:
It should be perfectly obvious that it is changing, and hopefully that'll continue.

My point is that the it's the people who are committing atrocities that we should blame. What we shouldn't do IMVHO is buy into this fantasy that it's the evil Americans and the imperialist British that are running around the world murdering the peace loving and noble indigenous populations.

The first step on fixing any problem is surely to recognise the problem and accept that it exists. One view which is at least worth considering is that the biggest threat to freedom generally and freedom from torture, oppression or murder specifically isn't the imperialist west but religious hatred and fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

I've seen very little from independent sources (i.e. not from the government's mouth) to indicate much change to justify the invasion.

The rest of your post I very much agree with though :thumbs:

Edit: and while we're talking of religious extremism, lest we forget Bush's 'message' from God: here.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
What we shouldn't do IMVHO is buy into this fantasy that it's the evil Americans and the imperialist British that are running around the world murdering the peace loving and noble indigenous populations.
Click to expand...

Conversely, what gives the US/UK the right to dictate to other nations how they should behave? The fact that we steam in when there is trouble in countries with great reserves of oil (Iraq, Libya et al), yet overlook similar atrocities being perpetrated in oil-free places, such as Zimbabwe speaks volumes....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The fact that we steam in when there is trouble in countries with great reserves of oil (Iraq, Libya et al), yet overlook similar atrocities being perpetrated in oil-free places, such as Zimbabwe speaks volumes....
Click to expand...

What you mean their may be an ulterior motive behind it all? Surely not.
 
fabs said:
Pretty sure those bombs weren't set of by the UK or US.
Click to expand...

Not all, I agree but thats a moot point anyway. Any invading force becomes responsible for that country's population. Some eatimates put the death count at 1.5 milion, some say 50,000. The numbers are irrelevant.
 
Splog said:
Not all, I agree but thats a moot point anyway. Any invading force becomes responsible for that country's population. Some eatimates put the death count at 1.5 milion, some say 50,000. The numbers are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

My point was that you post insinuated that allied forces directly killed more than half a million Iraqis. Not the case.
 
The point is:

This is the UK. You have the right to speak freely because people died that you could. If you don't feel like you want to support the UK, go and live in Syria and speak your mind. You won't last long.
 
String said:
The point is:

This is the UK. You have the right to speak freely because people died that you could. If you don't feel like you want to support the UK, go and live in Syria and speak your mind. You won't last long.
Click to expand...

:thinking: OK, so people died to give us our freedom of speech but we still can't be critical of the UK? Some freedom of speech that is!
 
String said:
The point is:

This is the UK. You have the right to speak freely because people died that you could. If you don't feel like you want to support the UK, go and live in Syria and speak your mind. You won't last long.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course it clashes with your own point of view. You're not an American are you by any chance?

Oh, wait I forgot, I disagreed with you, so you're blocking me :lol:

TriggerHappy said:
:thinking: OK, so people died to give us our freedom of speech but we still can't be critical of the UK? Some freedom of speech that is!
Click to expand...

Careful now, or you'll get blocked too :naughty:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Unless, of course it clashes with your own point of view. You're not an American are you by any chance?

Oh, wait I forgot, I disagreed with you, so you're blocking me :lol:



Careful now, or you'll get blocked too :naughty:
Click to expand...

I suspect I'm already keeping you company on the ignore list :wave:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Conversely, what gives the US/UK the right to dictate to other nations how they should behave? The fact that we steam in when there is trouble in countries with great reserves of oil (Iraq, Libya et al), yet overlook similar atrocities being perpetrated in oil-free places, such as Zimbabwe speaks volumes....
Click to expand...

I personally don't buy the “it's all about oil” line and it certainly doesn't explain the steaming in which the west and specifically the USA and UK have done to undeniably good effect in places like Africa and Yugoslavia.

Just a little more on “it's all about oil.” People may forget that GW1 was to kick the Iraqi's out of Kuwait and that after that war there was no peace. What happened was that Saddam got back to the business of genocide and the no fly zones had to be set up in an effort to limit just how many people he could kill. There was actually no peace between GW1 and GW2 and our armed forces were in pretty much continual action.

Even if it is all about oil I wonder how many people would be complaining if our government let the lights go out and transport ground to a complete halt. It's amazing how liberals scream imperialism one day and then themselves turn into imperialists the second little Tazmin and Johnny can't get a lift to school in the family 4x4.

I think that we face difficult moral choices. We could choose to sit back and do nothing (apart from wring our hands and wail, good liberals that we are) and let people by the million be murdered, tortured or perhaps just oppressed because it's nothing to do with us, even when they ask for help, but what would that say about us as a society? Perhaps it would say worse things about us than getting involved and trying to stop it does?
 
Splog said:
Any invading force becomes responsible for that country's population.
Click to expand...

I can't see how you work that out... There is such a thing as personal responsibility and I can't see how some Iranian lobbing a bomb into a market place in Iraq (for example) can be the fault of the UK or USA.

I still think that the best idea is to blame those who are actually doing the killing.

That may not be very PC or very convenient to those who like to place all of the blame on America or to a lesser extent the UK but it makes more sense to me.
 
woof woof said:
I personally don't buy the “it's all about oil” line and it certainly doesn't explain the steaming in which the west and specifically the USA and UK have done to undeniably good effect in places like Africa and Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...

The difference, Alan between Yugoslavia and Iraq is that in the first instance we went in as part of a peace-keeping force to prevent bloodshed, in Iraq we went in as an invading force specifically to overthrow Saddam, in order to appease Bush snr.

Compare and contrast. Saddam is vilified as inflicting horrors upon his people, the US and UK storm in and effect regime change.

Mugabe is accused of similar - Gordon Brown sends him a strongly-worded letter stating that if he doesn't cease and desist the UK will take away his honorary knighthood :lol:

Returning to the original point of the thread, Iran are now claiming to have proof that Bin Laden died a while back of natural causes......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Returning to the original point of the thread, Iran are now claiming to have proof that Bin Laden died a while back of natural causes......
Click to expand...

anyone can claim anything, until the proof is released to an independent adjudicator from either the US to show they killed him or iran showing their proof he died otherwise, we'll never know either way. Someone somewhere is lying.

But to be honest I would be very surprised to hear it is the US - they have a lot more to lose if they are proved to be lying than iran do. I wouldn't imagine it was worth that risk
 
joescrivens said:
anyone can claim anything, until the proof is released to an independent adjudicator from either the US to show they killed him or iran showing their proof he died otherwise, we'll never know either way. Someone somewhere is lying.

But to be honest I would be very surprised to hear it is the US - they have a lot more to lose if they are proved to be lying than iran do. I wouldn't imagine it was worth that risk
Click to expand...

Agreed, someone is lying - so far it's just been the Americans (he had an AK-47, he used his wife as a human shield etc) that have backtracked on their stories when challenged and it is they who have a track record of exaggeration.

Remember Jessica Lynch?
 
woof woof said:
I can't see how you work that out... There is such a thing as personal responsibility and I can't see how some Iranian lobbing a bomb into a market place in Iraq (for example) can be the fault of the UK or USA.

I still think that the best idea is to blame those who are actually doing the killing.

That may not be very PC or very convenient to those who like to place all of the blame on America or to a lesser extent the UK but it makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm.... Don't know where you got all that from? :thinking: I said a 'responsibility' as in 'duty of care'
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The difference, Alan between Yugoslavia and Iraq is that in the first instance we went in as part of a peace-keeping force to prevent bloodshed, in Iraq we went in as an invading force specifically to overthrow Saddam, in order to appease Bush snr.

Compare and contrast. Saddam is vilified as inflicting horrors upon his people, the US and UK storm in and effect regime change.

Mugabe is accused of similar - Gordon Brown sends him a strongly-worded letter stating that if he doesn't cease and desist the UK will take away his honorary knighthood :lol:
Click to expand...

I was and still am very much in favour of removing Saddam. Something had to be done (IMVHO) as sanctions were being routinely busted and no fly zones were never ever going to contain him and the job should have been done in GW1. That brings me back to my point about making choices and the world either doing something or standing by and watching crimes against humanity on a vast scale. That's unacceptable to me and in my view much more worthy of condemnation than doing something to stop it.

I agree that something should be / should have been done about the various woes in Africa but sadly as the US isn't interested, they have no real history of involvement there, and Europe doesn't give a damn and is too caught up in political self interest it'll be left to the Chinese to continue arming / buying up the place.
 
There has to be a threat to world peace under international law to justify the invasion of a foreign country. The justification in the case of Saddam was that he was alleged to have a nuclear capability and was indeed a threat to the rest of the world being the loose cannon he was, if that was the case. Whether or not he actually had that capability is a pretty moot point now, but that was the justification for the invasion. He needed removing anyway imho.

Africa is a different kettle of fish - you can't seriously argue a threat to world peace from the problems there, but the world community should certainly be more concerned than they appear to be about the terrible genocide being committed there.
 
CT said:
Africa is a different kettle of fish - you can't seriously argue a threat to world peace from the problems there, but the world community should certainly be more concerned than they appear to be about the terrible genocide being committed there.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that a similar situation to the one that started WWII :shrug:
 
Gremlin said:
Wasn't that a similar situation to the one that started WWII :shrug:
Click to expand...

Erm.. hardly! WW2 was started when Hitler invaded Poland and subsequently went on to to invade other countries committing genocide on a grand scale in the process.

The problems within Africa are internal and wholly contained there.
 
woof woof said:
I agree that something should be / should have been done about the various woes in Africa but sadly as the US isn't interested, they have no real history of involvement there, and Europe doesn't give a damn and is too caught up in political self interest it'll be left to the Chinese to continue arming / buying up the place.
Click to expand...

And they have no history of involvement because as there is no oil there is nothing in it for them! You can guarantee that if vast oil fields were to be discovered under Zimbabwe the US/UK troops would be in there effecting regime change so quickly Mugabe wouldn't know what had hit him.

With regard to Saddam, I seriously doubt he was any more of a threat than Kim Jong Il, but funnily enough the Americans have been somewhat reticent about storming into North Korea due in part no doubt to them having China's backing.

If Saddam really was the cause of all Iraq's woes then you'd have thought him being ousted from power would have brought peace to the country.

What the Americans failed to appreciate in their haste to revenge Bush snr was that Saddam's regime, brutal as it was, was the only thing preventing the country disintegrating. All the invasion achieved was to pit the various tribes and factions against one and other in bloody conflict at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.
 
Obama wanted to send in Chuck Norris, but the military said they feared collateral damage could be substantial. :bat: :( :gag:
 
Good news Flash, there is Oil in the north sea, scottish independance will see that belong to scotland...regime change pencilled in already! :D

joking aside, can we keep it civil please...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
And they have no history of involvement because as there is no oil there is nothing in it for them! You can guarantee that if vast oil fields were to be discovered under Zimbabwe the US/UK troops would be in there effecting regime change so quickly Mugabe wouldn't know what had hit him.

With regard to Saddam, I seriously doubt he was any more of a threat than Kim Jong Il, but funnily enough the Americans have been somewhat reticent about storming into North Korea due in part no doubt to them having China's backing.

If Saddam really was the cause of all Iraq's woes then you'd have thought him being ousted from power would have brought peace to the country.

What the Americans failed to appreciate in their haste to revenge Bush snr was that Saddam's regime, brutal as it was, was the only thing preventing the country disintegrating. All the invasion achieved was to pit the various tribes and factions against one and other in bloody conflict at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap::clap:
couldn't have said it better myself!
 
Anyone tried a 'Whisky Bin laden' ? ...... A lovely drink!

Two shots and a splash of water :D
 
Splog said:
Anyone tried a 'Whisky Bin laden' ? ...... A lovely drink!

Two shots and a splash of water :D
Click to expand...

You are going straight to hell.................................

and I'm right behind you :lol::lol::lol:
 
photon said:
Remember, there is no "I" in "Team America".

Anyway, didn't Chuck Norris get there first? Alone.
Click to expand...

archamedes said:
navyseal.jpg




Seriously though, what does a man who just killed the most famously hated and wanted man on the planet do after he pulls the trigger? fly home, get debriefed, shake hands with the president and then have a mcdonalds? surely the boys are paying his round of drinks for a long time to come and the most frustrating thing is he cant tell anyone he is the man that killed osama bin laden. not that anyone would believe him even if he did.
Click to expand...

Surely he would have had a Whiskey Bin Laden rather than a MaDonald's? (2shots and a gentle splash of water...) [beaten to it by Splog}
 
Ok bin laden is dead, so what, its not like the main issue has been sorted.

I personally would like to see Tony Blair in court being judged for war crimes.:shrug: Cant help it, to me he is as bad as Laden himself.(Not to mention Bush and other yanks)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top