# Bin Laden



## insidevoice

President Obama is about to make a statement, but major news outlets are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is dead.


----------



## mama2landon

They're also reporting that his body is in U.S. custody, which is fantastic news as well!


----------



## lookatreestar

does this mean that someone else is the "head" now?


----------



## insidevoice

I wonder how much he's been able to do over the past few years given how ill he was. Certainly, other people will be capable of continuing on his efforts.

I realize that he was not a good person, yet I have a hard time celebrating anyone's death.

I do hope that in the long run, this brings greater peace, but I wonder what the backlash will be.


----------



## eclipse

I can't get behind cheering on anyone's death, especially since i doubt this will do anything but invigorate the terrorist movement and stoke anti-American sentiments in nations that already have problems with us. I felt the same way when Saddam was executed.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I wonder how much he's been able to do over the past few years given how ill he was. Certainly, other people will be capable of continuing on his efforts.
> 
> I realize that he was not a good person, yet I have a hard time celebrating anyone's death.
> 
> I do hope that in the long run, this brings greater peace, but I wonder what the backlash will be.


He was much more than just "not a good person". I am happy he is finally dead, so at least all our efforts were not completely for naught!

I do agree that it will bring backlash.... EVERYTHING we do over there has backlash. My husband is currently in Iraq, so I am just praying he is safe....


----------



## mama_y_sol

wow, this is shocking news to me.


----------



## Dmitrizmom

I am keeping our soldiers in my thoughts as we move forward from this event. I can only hope that moving forward we will be able to avoid further attacks by jihadis.


----------



## insidevoice

Cheering outside the White House following a bawdy rendition of the national anthem... I find myself wondering what the difference is between 'us' and them' when what we all seek seems to be bloodshed, torture, and death. Aren't we supposed to move beyond that at some point?


----------



## jimblejamble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama_y_sol*
> 
> wow, this is shocking news to me. it's such a weird feeling- celebrating a death. My family was directly affected by a terrorist attack he planned, so I'm just really emotional.










:


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Cheering outside the White House following a bawdy rendition of the national anthem... I find myself wondering what the difference is between 'us' and them' when what we all seek seems to be bloodshed, torture, and death. Aren't we supposed to move beyond that at some point?


The difference is that Americans are cheering the justice of the punishment of one horrific criminal. "They" were cheering the deaths of thousands of innocent people.


----------



## treeoflife3

I really do hope the backlash from his supporters isn't worse than he was himself. My husband is in Afghanistan near the border of Pakistan too so yeah.


----------



## jimblejamble

I really don't feel bad for being happy that he's dead, knowing that because of him, children are motherless or fatherless, men and women are widows/widowers, people are missing their brothers, sisters, best friends, and teachers, knowing that a classmate of mine is still alive only because his flight to NY to visit the World Trade Center with his dad was cancelled.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JessicaRenee*
> 
> I really don't feel bad for being happy that he's dead, knowing that because of him, children are motherless or fatherless, men and women are widows/widowers, people are missing their brothers, sisters, best friends, and teachers, knowing that a classmate of mine is still alive only because his flight to NY to visit the World Trade Center with his dad was cancelled.


And to add to that the thousands and thousands of military troops(from all over the world!) who have died because of what he did. Although it isn't over, and I am positive that the violence will get worse, I am happy to know that he did NOT get away with it.


----------



## happysmileylady

Decisions of justice should never be made based on fears of what might happen as a result of justice.


----------



## treeoflife3

Quote:
Originally Posted by *happysmileylady* 

Decisions of justice should never be made based on fears of what might happen as a result of justice.

I apologize that the fear for my husband's life possibly being at greater risk now out weighs my happiness that justice has been reached. However, I have a 2 year old who calls out to daddy every single day and then says sadly that he is 'bye bye.' I won't feel the joy of justice until she is safely in his arms again and unfortunately, that is still a long way off as we've only just reached about halfway recently.


----------



## happysmileylady

Fear for the lives and safety of our troops both in the personal and general sense is totally justified, don't get me wrong. I myself am VERY grateful that my DH left the military when he was able, shortly after 9/11. I absolutely feel for those who are in the position you are in.

I was simply pointing out that retaliation is always a risk in situations like this and that fear of retaliation cannot be a factor in deciding to carry out these types of actions.

The 9/11 attacks were offensive in nature, not in retaliation to any specific action the US took. Retaliation is far from the only or biggest reason that the lives of our military men and women, even our every day citizens, are in danger.


----------



## treeoflife3

Of course it shouldn't be a factor. I never said this shouldn't have happened or that I am unhappy it happened right now. I don't think the feelings I expressed imply that at all.


----------



## happysmileylady

I apologize that I have offended. That's not my intent and I fully support our military and am grateful that they are willing to risk their lives.


----------



## mama2landon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *happysmileylady*
> 
> The difference is that Americans are cheering the justice of the punishment of one horrific criminal. "They" were cheering the deaths of thousands of innocent people.


This, exactly. It's not his death per se that we are cheering, but the notion of justice. I honestly wish he could have been captured alive and stood trial for his crimes, but in absence of that, yes- I am happy he's dead. He was a brutal, evil monster who planned the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He would have gladly seen millions more raped and murdered, simply because of their birth. And yes, I do understand that the U.S. does not always have clean hands here, and that there is a lot of evil we have done in the past, and continue to do in the present. I would like to see all who commit such evils in this world come to justice, no matter where they're from, what they believe, or what country or cause they commit their atrocities in the name of.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *happysmileylady*
> 
> The difference is that Americans are cheering the justice of the punishment of one horrific criminal. "They" were cheering the deaths of thousands of innocent people.


That doesn't make it different, it just makes it easier for some to swallow. Cheering over someone's death is still cheering over someone's death.

I'm in the "I'm happy he's gone, but I don't like to, or want to, cheer over the fact that he's dead and happen to be disconcerted seeing others do it" camp. I make no apologies over the fact that there are other things I think we should be cheering for.


----------



## MittensKittens

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Cheering outside the White House following a bawdy rendition of the national anthem... I find myself wondering what the difference is between 'us' and them' when what we all seek seems to be bloodshed, torture, and death. Aren't we supposed to move beyond that at some point?


I think that Obama is trying to, considering how little civilian lives have been lost in Libya under his command, considering how the president gets to define torture and I'm sure Obama understands waterboarding is torture, etc. The difference between us and them is obviously that we aren't flying planes into buildings to kill innocent people; we're attacking those who have attacked us, to disarm them and prevent future attack.

There may be backlash, and his supporters will be furious...but read the news, the whole world is cheering USA; the whole world is rejoicing in a world without bin Laden. If I get the chance, I will dance on the man's grave someday. I cheer his death, I cheer our military, and I cheer Obama's leadership.

treeoflife - I have a husband who is in the military too and several other loved ones. I have a friend stationed in the UAE right now. I'm worried about him, but not enough to make me NOT celebrate the death of someone who murdered 3,000 Americans including a 2 1/2 year-old little girl, her mama, and her daddy. He can rot.

I was 16 years-old when I watched those towers fall, burning, with people jumping out of them screaming. I was told that, without my military ID, I'd have to wait for my father to pick me up at school to take me home--at 11 PM, while our country was under attack. We lived on the Naval Weapons Station, which housed a great deal of our nation's desert war artillery. We were scared to death. We were even more scared as we watched the gunman board our bus the first day after the attacks. Carrying loads of shells and a machine gun, he rode on our bus with us every single day for the next year. They searched under our bus with mirrors everyday; they searched our backpacks. When the lights went out on base, we worried we were finally being attacked over that artillery. We even had some terrorist suspects detained on our base for a while; it heightened our fear.

No, I can't bring myself to feel any remorse for anyone including myself cheering bin Laden's death.


----------



## rubyhatespets

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> There may be backlash, and his supporters will be furious...but read the news, the whole world is cheering USA; the whole world is rejoicing in a world without bin Laden.


I think that might say more about the media coverage in the USA than it does about the reality of what has happened. I can assure you the whole world is not cheering.

I am not sorry that Bin Laden is dead but I am very sorry that the scenes of jubilant Americans will be shown around the world.


----------



## insidevoice

Most of the friends I have internationally have been shocked at the cheering and celebration in the US. I really don't think it will do us any favors in the long run to publicly celebrate an act of violence.


----------



## raksmama

I am glad that that he is gone but I won't celebrate anyone'd death either. I just wonder if he being gone will really make any difference.


----------



## mtiger

Am I the only one who is waiting for some actual physical evidence showing he's dead? No body, no photo, no DNA results (as yet).


----------



## mar123

They ran DNA tests; he has been dead since Friday, but it was announced yesterday because they were waiting for the results. There is supposed to be a picture (which will not be released, IMO) and the body was buried at sea so as not to create a monument. But those who doubt the reports will always doubt; none of what the government presents will convince those doubters.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> They ran DNA tests; he has been dead since Friday, but it was announced yesterday because they were waiting for the results. There is supposed to be a picture (which will not be released, IMO) and the body was buried at sea so as not to create a monument. *But those who doubt the reports will always doubt; none of what the government presents will convince those doubters.*


Yeah, there are people who still doubt the death of Hitler.


----------



## SilverFish

where are you getting news he's been dead since friday?


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X

In Obama's own words Bin Ladin died Sunday Morning May 1st. They are still awaiting the DNA tests and debating which photo's to show and when.


----------



## mommariffic

You know I have such mixed feelings about this

Personally, I will not be jumping up and down waving my flag for this death. I too wonder if it will make a difference...the thing is I think the celebrating that's been going on is just as equal as the folks that jumped up and down when they killed people over here...


----------



## bonjourmama

praying for peace around the world. For me, this is a sad reminder of the division amongst us.


----------



## KayCSmommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtiger*
> 
> Am I the only one who is waiting for some actual physical evidence showing he's dead? No body, no photo, no DNA results (as yet).


I won't believe it before I see some sort of proof either! Its just too convenient that they did a water burial!!


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X

CNN just posted "DNA confirms Bin Laden dead"


----------



## sahli29

Convenient that he was buried at sea.No proof of death. And when you think about it does it change anything? Was it worth it to spend millions,have thousands of soilders die over the years,and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people(women and children) in the countries we invaded?

IMO it was not worth it. Our nation has created far more enimies than allies. Our military does not always respect human rights. We tortured,raped,and killed a lot of people while we occupied their coutries.How do we justify the death of so many?Do we blame it all on Bin Laden and his followers?

Israel does it better.When they have someone specific they want to kill they have their elite group go in and kill that person....and then they leave.It is unfortunate our nation did not do that in place of invading countries with full military force.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mama2landon*
> 
> It's not his death per se that we are cheering, but the notion of justice.


JUSTICE?!!! what justice?!!!

there is sooo much more to this story.

justice would be to look at actions to find out why Bin Laden was created even in the first place.

more people are dead because of Bush, not Bin Laden. he became the excuse.

right now i am not celebrating. and yes i have been directly affected by 9/11 too. its wasnt just a US thing. it was a world thing.

instead i am full of suspicion.

another faux pas over his body. more reason to hate.

i am sitting here thinking when are we ever going to wake up and look at our policies and stop creating situations where people like Osama was born.

how long is the secret document period?

i







my eyes instead because now the politicians get a break from answering questions on unemployment and the economy.

and i question. did we really not know? or did we actually carry it out now before osama died so we can say we did it.

btw... did you know - just a weird coincidence - that Hitler's death was announced on may 1st too. yup people. may 1, 1945.


----------



## sahli29

Regarding Libya I read that recently NATO killed 4 of *Muammar al-Gaddafi *'s grandchildren.All were under the age of 12. Sad that we disregard the lives of those children so that we can assist in the take over of a government.We always find a way to justify the killing of innocent people,or we simply ignore that it occured.Similar to the 9 boys killed in Afgahnistan recently while collecting firewood. Children caught up in wars that will never really have a winner.


----------



## bonjourmama

I have to say meemee, you are spot on

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> JUSTICE?!!! what justice?!!!
> 
> there is sooo much more to this story.
> 
> justice would be to look at actions to find out why Bin Laden was created even in the first place.
> 
> more people are dead because of Bush, not Bin Laden. he became the excuse.
> 
> right now i am not celebrating. and yes i have been directly affected by 9/11 too. its wasnt just a US thing. it was a world thing.
> 
> instead i am full of suspicion.
> 
> another faux pas over his body. more reason to hate.
> 
> i am sitting here thinking when are we ever going to wake up and look at our policies and stop creating situations where people like Osama was born.
> 
> how long is the secret document period?
> 
> i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my eyes instead because now the politicians get a break from answering questions on unemployment and the economy.
> 
> and i question. did we really not know? or did we actually carry it out now before osama died so we can say we did it.
> 
> btw... did you know - just a weird coincidence - that Hitler's death was announced on may 1st too. yup people. may 1, 1945.


----------



## journeymom

I can't say as I ever feel good about the death of a human being. But it's about time they got him. I do think this is justice.

Evidence: I guess you believe the US government about this or you don't.







The dna evidence proves he was bin Laden. He was shot in the head so making a photo of him public would be controversial. He was buried at sea so his followers can't make a monument at his grave site.

Just a reminder that while Bin Laden hated the US, he said that his inspiration for the 9/11 attack was Israeli aircraft bombing towers in Lebanon in 1982.


----------



## velochic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> btw... did you know - just a weird coincidence - that Hitler's death was announced on may 1st too. yup people. may 1, 1945.


Oh.... you're right. May Day! It's actually independence day for a lot of the world. I'm sure the gov't conspired to make sure this happened on May 1st so that we can declare a holiday in the US and have the day off like the rest of the world. And what cleverness to make links to the past!! They knew about it since August, but WAITED for May Day and the anniversary of Hitler's death to DO.THE.DEED. so that we would all link Bin Laden to that more vile and evil persona.

Gah! The conspiracy theories ABOUND!!

Yes... it was justice. How would he have been brought to trial if they hadn't just killed him?


----------



## mama2landon

The death of a mass murderer is still the death of a mass murderer, regardless of how he came to such beliefs. As I said in the rest of my post, I'm not unaware of the evils that the U.S. has committed and continues to commit, a large part of what bin Laden claims as reason for his jihad. However, the death of an evil person that actually plots and/or carries out attacks that *specifically target* innocent civilians, well, yes frankly, I am glad that such a person is no longer on this earth to plan such evils. As I also said, I would have been happier if he had been captured alive and brought to trial for his crimes, but that is not the case here- all the wishing in the world won't make it so, now. But I can and do still hope that others are brought to justice- that is, to trial- for similar crimes they have committed. Including certain past and present high level American officials, some members of our military who have committed atrocities of their own, and of course, remaining members of al-Qaida.

And the politicians will get- at most- a two or three day break from answering questions about unemployment and the economy. The American public, and by extension it's media, has far too short of an attention span to let the everyday realities of no jobs/no money slip out of sight for too long.

And you're right- what a weird coincidence about Hitler's death being announced on the same day. Coincidence being the operative word here, of course. I am waiting for actual proof though- pictures or what not. But I do believe they got him, just that proof that they did so would be nice.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> JUSTICE?!!! what justice?!!!
> 
> there is sooo much more to this story.
> 
> justice would be to look at actions to find out why Bin Laden was created even in the first place.
> 
> more people are dead because of Bush, not Bin Laden. he became the excuse.
> 
> right now i am not celebrating. and yes i have been directly affected by 9/11 too. its wasnt just a US thing. it was a world thing.
> 
> instead i am full of suspicion.
> 
> another faux pas over his body. more reason to hate.
> 
> i am sitting here thinking when are we ever going to wake up and look at our policies and stop creating situations where people like Osama was born.
> 
> how long is the secret document period?
> 
> i
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my eyes instead because now the politicians get a break from answering questions on unemployment and the economy.
> 
> and i question. did we really not know? or did we actually carry it out now before osama died so we can say we did it.
> 
> btw... did you know - just a weird coincidence - that Hitler's death was announced on may 1st too. yup people. may 1, 1945.


----------



## moonfirefaery

rubyhatespets, I'm sure there are people in the world who aren't cheering, but given the images in the media and the numerous statements released by other world leaders applauding this day, I think it's safe to say most of the people in the world are cheering. Terrorists and their supportors are the only ones who aren't cheering. I'm not shocked at all. The man murdered thousands and would murder thousands more if he could; his death prevents him from doing more murder, and it is a cause for celebration. There are Muslims who are upset at the way he is burried; there will be Muslims who think we are anti-Muslim, always, no matter what. There are terrorists and people/governments who support them who are upset at the loss. But the average peace-loving person in the world is glad. I doubt the news is fabricating the statements being released by other world leaders or that those other world leaders are lying about their countrymen's sentiments.

Death is a natural part of life; we mourn for what they never got the chance to do, will never do again; we mourn for missing them; we mourn for their families. Death itself is not something to mourn and can be something to celebrate. Osama's death makes the lives of innocents safer; the world will not miss him, nor do we have any reason to mourn what he never got the chance to do and will never do again because it would have been murder.

mtiger, per the news, DNA did confirm the kill was Osama. I don't peg Obama for the type to lie about catching Osama. If anyone would have lied about that, it'd have been Bush.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'm sure there are people in the world who aren't cheering, but given the images in the media and the numerous statements released by other world leaders applauding this day, I think it's safe to say most of the people in the world are cheering. Terrorists and their supportors are the only ones who aren't cheering.


Wow, that's a horrific generalization.


----------



## AFWife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> I can't say as I ever feel good about the death of a human being. But it's about time they got him. I do think this is justice.
> 
> Evidence: I guess you believe the US government about this or you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dna evidence proves he was bin Laden. *He was shot in the head so making a photo of him public would be controversial.* He was buried at sea so his followers can't make a monument at his grave site.
> 
> Just a reminder that while Bin Laden hated the US, he said that his inspiration for the 9/11 attack was Israeli aircraft bombing towers in Lebanon in 1982.


Apparently there's a photo somewhere...a "friend" posted it on Facebook. She also went on and on about "wanting to see him dead" Yeah, I'm thinking we won't be friends much longer.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X

The one photo that is out there right now is a fake according to what I have read (unless they have released some since this morning) photo shopped to look like OBL.


----------



## AFWife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MCatLvrMom2A&X*
> 
> The one photo that is out there right now is a fake according to what I have read (unless they have released some since this morning) photo shopped to look like OBL.


Can you find me the article? I'd like to show her.


----------



## journeymom

I won't be surprised if they release the real photo(s) at some point.

"The Obama administration has actual photographs of bin Laden's corpse, but officials are still struggling over what to do with them, says ABC News. The White House is weighing the benefits of releasing the photos to combat skepticism around the world about bin Laden's death versus the gruesome nature of the photos. (There are blood and brains visible in the head wound above his left eye.) In 2003, for example, the U.S. government released photos of Saddam Hussein's sons only after they had been touched up. Perhaps the president is just waiting for Donald Trump to ask?"

WARNING: disturbing photo. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/how_the_us_used_dna_evidence_t.html

Interesting, I did not know those photos of Hussein's sons had been touched up.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Wow, that's a horrific generalization.


Yes, so take it for what it is: a generalization. There are terrorists and their supporters not cheering, and then there is a minority that seems not to be cheering, but I doubt the news is fabricating the statements being released by world leaders and the celebrations in other world countries. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden don't just kill Americans and Christians; they kill Muslims, too. People in the Middle East, even in some of the most turbulent nations, have lived in fear of bin Laden. While he does have supporters there who feel his terrorist approach is justified, aka his supporters, there are many more who fear him. The average man and woman living over there just want to be able to go out to lunch without worrying about being blown up. It's not only Americans who are cheering; there are many places in the world where they are happy. The general consensus from world leaders, with the exceptions of the ones incredibly hostile to us and probably supportive of al Quaeda, is that this is good. If other world leaders have made comments indicating his death is not welcome, it's news to my ears right now. There is no need for people to be hateful, as some are people, but it is not wrong to celebrate that a murderer may no longer do murder.

A shot through the head was way more humane than what our people endured on 9/11.


----------



## lovingmommyhood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Wow, that's a horrific generalization.


So is the person who said their "Friends abroad" are shocked to see the images of US citizens cheering. As if that represents the entire world.


----------



## lovingmommyhood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AFWife*
> 
> Can you find me the article? I'd like to show her.


Yes I'd like to see it too!


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X

Here is the link about the photo
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6568249-webs-bin-laden-death-photo-just-the-photo-is-fake


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> Terrorists and their supportors are the only ones who aren't cheering.


Um, wow...

I an neither a terrorist, nor a supporter of terrorists.

I an not cheering either. For no other reason than I feel that cheering a death is wrong.


----------



## rubyhatespets

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> but I doubt the news is fabricating the statements being released by world leaders and the celebrations in other world countries.


There's a difference between fabrication and interpretation. I haven't seen any world leaders' statements actively celebrating or cheering his death. The only cheering I have seen are the crowds in New York and outside the White House and I don't think that presents the US in the best light.


----------



## AFWife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubyhatespets*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> There's a difference between fabrication and interpretation. I haven't seen any world leaders' statements actively celebrating or cheering his death. The only cheering I have seen are the crowds in New York and outside the White House and I don't think that presents the US in the best light.


Agreed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that he can't harm anyone anymore...but it's not cool to scream and dance about death. That's what THEY did after 9/11 and everyone here in the US talked about how tacky it was.

Something else a lot of people aren't considering is how this might affect US safety.


----------



## Arduinna

A bunch of people cheering a terrorist attack is the not the same a people cheering the death of a terrorist. I'm certainly not crying over his death, he could have surrendered and been taken alive. He chose his path.


----------



## journeymom

Hey People, can I just say how much I'm appreciating this thread (and the other bin Laden thread)? Strong disagreements, civil discourse:


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Am I the only one reading this thread and thinking how strange it is that people still suppose a link between 9-11 and the American invasion of Iraq?


----------



## journeymom

No, you're not the only one. Actually reading up on bin Laden's life today, reading about what he actually believed, just put it into even sharper focus for me. It's not just strange, it's dumbfounding that people still claim that 9/11 justified the invasion of Iraq. It boggles.


----------



## moonfirefaery

MusicianDad - We already established the previous comment was a deliberate generalization meant to show that the general consensus worldwide is relief that Osama can at least do no more harm. People are afraid and may have preferred he be captured alive, but people ARE glad he can't do harm anymore. I wasn't referring to literal cheering in the streets, but rather acknowledging that Osama being no longer able to do harm is a good thing. His capture and his incapicity to do harm are what I cheer, not his death, although I don't mourn him.

I have friends abroad who are cheering, telling me how well they think the administration handled this, etc. Again, I don't think people are screaming and dancing about death. They would have been doing this just the same if he had been taken alive. It's his neutralization that makes people dance. And as someone else said, there's a huge difference between dancing and cheering a terrorist attack and dancing and cheering the death of a terrorist who ordered a massive terrorist attack costing 3000 lives.


----------



## Monarchgrrl

I'm glad he's dead. I personally blame him and GWB for the death of my brother in Iraq. I was happy that the man that planted the IED that blew up my brother was found and brought to justice (I actually don't know what happened to him) and I'm glad that bin laden has been killed. I'm not celebrating or jumping for joy, though. I will be celebrating and jumping for joy when all our troops are brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel like I know how a murder victims family might feel at the execution of the convicted. It does feel like the circle is complete and the book is closed (I don't want the fbi to knock at my door, so I won't say anything about GWB). I'm not HAPPY, by any means. But I do believe that 2 out of the 3 people responsible for my brother's death have been brought to justice. I know how the other almost 6000 soldier's families, and the 3000 victim's families that died on 9/11, feel right now. 9/11 was a prefect excuse for GWB to send my brother into Iraq. I hate bin laden for giving him that excuse. I'm glad bin laden's hate has been silenced. I'm sure another member will step up and take his place, though. I hope at least, that this secures Obama's second term.

I do think it's "funny" that I see all over facebook that we shouldn't be giving credit to Obama because it's the troops that did it, but if it was Bush, he would have been taking credit ("mission accomplished", anyone?) and everyone would be praising him!


----------



## moonfirefaery

Obama ordered Bin Laden to be the #1 priority of national security; he ordered the action yesterday and monitored it real time. His leadership led our military to victory. He deserves credit for that.. and if it secures the reelection, that makes me all the merrier, too!


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> A bunch of people cheering a terrorist attack is the not the same a people cheering the death of a terrorist.


What makes it different? Because Bin Laden was "the bad guy"? To the people cheering the terrorist attack, the US was the bad guy.

There is no difference between cheering for someones death and cheering for someones death.


----------



## Arduinna

If you can't tell the difference between cheering an act of terrorism where over 3000 people died, then there is nothing more for me to say.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> If you can't tell the difference between cheering an act of terrorism where over 3000 people died, then there is nothing more for me to say.


There is no justice at the point of a gun. If we truly wanted to avenge 9-11 we should have made every effort to bring Bin Laden before the world court. Instead his terrorism begat ours...but both are terrorism.


----------



## Arduinna

blah blah blah, that kind of mentality would allow everyone to walk away if they can't be taken alive. Sadly many care more about the life of one of Americas most wanted than the lives of American's themselves, like the CIA agents and Navy Seals that tried to capture him. Not that I'm surprised after all the years I've posted here, it's nothing new.

The most disgusting thing here is that this board has many members with families in the military, it could be that someone here is related to someone that took part in that operation. And those here are acting like their lives are worth less than a terrorist that has is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. I suppose in your world our people that took part in this operation should have just put up their hands and let themselves be killed if he resisted capture, because you are arguing that nothing but live capture is acceptable.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> blah blah blah, that kind of mentality would allow everyone to walk away if they can't be taken alive. Sadly many care more about the life of one of Americas most wanted than the lives of American's themselves, like the CIA agents and Navy Seals that tried to capture him. Not that I'm surprised after all the years I've posted here, it's nothing new.


I don't see the logic in what you are saying. To you our countries laws should only apply to those you choose? That law is only valid if we decide so at the moment? I don't get it.

Because then what is the point of having laws at all? Or civilized society for that matter.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chamomile Girl*
> 
> I don't see the logic in what you are saying. To you our countries laws should only apply to those you choose? That law is only valid if we decide so at the moment? I don't get it.
> 
> Because then what is the point of having laws at all? Or civilized society for that matter.


First things are different in times of war, they just are. And second, the law ALLOWS one to shoot and kill someone when their life or property is being threatened.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> First things are different in times of war, they just are. And second, the law ALLOWS one to shoot and kill someone when their life or property is being threatened.


There is no "things are just different" in a just society...and you would be hard pressed to see an assisination attempt as self defense. If anything the self defense clause could be used to justify Bin Laden's use of force, not ours.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chamomile Girl*
> 
> There is no "things are just different" in a just society...and you would be hard pressed to see an assisination attempt as self defense. If anything the self defense clause could be used to justify Bin Laden's use of force, not ours.


Particularly since it was his compound where he was shot and killed, and not the US`s


----------



## love4bob

In a perfect just society there would be no wars either, but we don't live in a utopia, far from it. Life isn't perfect, The soldiers(and President too) did the best they could in the situation they were in. We could all say how it would have been better, but we were not there, we do not know what the situation was, and we don't have the combat zone experience of those who made the calls. It is so easy for those who have never been there or experienced it first hand to say how it should all work out, but it's not so easy when you are in a kill or be killed environment.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> blah blah blah, that kind of mentality would allow everyone to walk away if they can't be taken alive. Sadly many care more about the life of one of Americas most wanted than the lives of American's themselves, like the CIA agents and Navy Seals that tried to capture him. Not that I'm surprised after all the years I've posted here, it's nothing new.
> 
> The most disgusting thing here is that this board has many members with families in the military, it could be that someone here is related to someone that took part in that operation. And those here are acting like their lives are worth less than a terrorist that has is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. I suppose in your world our people that took part in this operation should have just put up their hands and let themselves be killed if he resisted capture, because you are arguing that nothing but live capture is acceptable.


Way to paint us as horribly, horrible people, when those of us who are upset by the celebration are people who do not put more value on one life over another.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> In a perfect just society there would be no wars either, but we don't live in a utopia, far from it. Life isn't perfect, The soldiers(and President too) did the best they could in the situation they were in. We could all say how it would have been better, but we were not there, we do not know what the situation was, and we don't have the combat zone experience of those who made the calls. It is so easy for those who have never been there or experienced it first hand to say how it should all work out, but it's not so easy when you are in a kill or be killed environment.


I'm sorry that doesn't work for me either. Something like what happened with Bin Laden requires oodles of planning with every contengency mapped out. It was not a spontanious event. If Obama had wanted to take him alive there would have been provided a way to do so. That does not seem to have been the plan.

And look, it is because we don't live in a utopia that fair government and just laws are necessary. But if the law is not maintained for all then it might as well not be maintained for anyone. I would also like to point out that if any other country carried out an assination in cold blood like what happened yesterday the United States government would be howling. Why do we think we are somehow exempt from the standard to which we hold the rest of the world?


----------



## MusicianDad

You know...

All of this "Our lives should be worth more than theirs", "they are the bad guys", and "either you celebrate the death of the bad guys or you are one of them" BS is the same BS they use on their followers to justify their actions.

I have no regrets at finding this kind of rhetoric to justify abhorrent behavior on the part of the people celebrating disgusting. The last thing I expected (or maybe I did expected in a way) is to hear their words used to justify our behaviour.


----------



## SilverFish

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> First things are different in times of war, they just are. And second, the law ALLOWS one to shoot and kill someone when their life or property is being threatened.


that would be like having a burglar break in to your home and get away, then, 10 years later, you track him down across multiple state lines and shoot him dead. that's not justice, that's a vendetta. it makes for a great movie plot line, but it's not the way civilized people run their lives. it makes life a lot simpler that he is dead, and after the disaster that was saddam hussein's "trial" and death, i totally understand why they did it. but it is still a travesty that your country, that prides itself on being the home of democracy and freedom, isn't seriously questioning your leaders on how things turned out. on another note, i find it very interesting that my pakistani family and friends (i happen to have immediate family living in abbottabad where the raid was carried out) are completely nonplussed by the news because they have all assumed he'd already been dead for 5 years at least. bin laden was already pretty much a non-figure... he was very sick, not particularly popular outside of his immediate circle... the death of this one very flawed human soul is hardly going to make a blip on the radar in the long run.


----------



## mooshersmama

I'm pretty sure it's been established that bin Laden would not have allowed himself to be taken alive.


----------



## lovingmommyhood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> *Way to paint us as horribly, horrible people,* when those of us who are upset by the celebration are people who do not put more value on one life over another.


Nope, you did that yourself.


----------



## lovingmommyhood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chamomile Girl*
> 
> I don't see the logic in what you are saying. To you our countries laws should only apply to those you choose? That law is only valid if we decide so at the moment? I don't get it.
> 
> Because then what is the point of having laws at all? Or civilized society for that matter.


We're at war...they were in Pakistan where people are routinely stoned for simple crimes. This "man" was killed humanely which is more than I can say for the men, women and children who were burned, crushed or jumped to their deaths in the attacks on 9/11. A swift bullet to the brain was way more than he deserved, but we aren't monsters like them.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> You know...
> 
> All of this "Our lives should be worth more than theirs", "they are the bad guys", and "either you celebrate the death of the bad guys or you are one of them" BS is the same BS they use on their followers to justify their actions.
> 
> I have no regrets at finding this kind of rhetoric to justify abhorrent behavior on the part of the people celebrating disgusting. The last thing I expected (or maybe I did expected in a way) is to hear their words used to justify our behaviour.


Totally agree. Simply can not believe the things I've seen and heard over the last 24 hours.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> Nope, you did that yourself.


Why? Because I hold myself to a higher standard than the people who support Bin Laden?

Because I hold those who are against him to a higher standard and call them on it when they fail to meet that standard?


----------



## lovingmommyhood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Why? Because I hold myself to a higher standard than the people who support Bin Laden?
> 
> Because I hold those who are against him to a higher standard and call them on it when they fail to meet that standard?


I don't know that any of those people even know you to be concerned with what your standard is for them?


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> We're at war...they were in Pakistan where people are routinely stoned for simple crimes. This "man" was killed humanely which is more than I can say for the men, women and children who were burned, crushed or jumped to their deaths in the attacks on 9/11. A swift bullet to the brain was way more than he deserved, but we aren't monsters like them.


Yes, they were in Pakistan which is an autonomous state fercryingoutloud. It does not matter if you, or anyone thinks their methods of justice less than stellar...the point is we, as Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard than state-sanctioned assasination within the borders of an unknowing autonomous nation. It's like extreme rendition but way worse. And against international law.

ETA: And the "we are at war" thing breaks down here too as we are not at war with Pakistan last I looked. Do you also justify the bombing of Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war by the same logic?


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Why? Because I hold myself to a higher standard than the people who support Bin Laden?
> 
> Because I hold those who are against him to a higher standard and call them on it when they fail to meet that standard?


You aren't the definer of my standards, thank you.


----------



## amma_mama

While I shed no tears for his death, it is difficult to celebrate in light of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens that have been killed by the US military and it's allies in our efforts to bring down Bin Laden. The US has surely been responsible for far more Al Qaeda recruits than Bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts could ever have achieved on their own. We created the violent insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, causing the unnecessary deaths of our own soldiers that were put in a position of instigating more violence than otherwise would have occurred.

I do not celebrate the many freedoms that our nation has sacrificed in the name of our so-called war on terrorism. I do not celebrate the arrogance with which we support the wrong doing of others when it suits our aims and then the misplaced shock that they one day turn their wrath against us.

Our televised celebrations are a testament to our country's moral bankruptcy and depraved indifference to those that suffer from our chosen path.

The death of bin Laden cannot justify a decade of death and destruction at OUR hands.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> You aren't the definer of my standards, thank you.


But I am a definer of the standards I expect of people.

If you can feel good about yourself, being just like them, fine. But I have every right to be disgusted by you acting just like they do.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lovingmommyhood*
> 
> I don't know that any of those people even know you to be concerned with what your standard is for them?


That's not the point.

I make no apologies for expecting people to be decent human beings.


----------



## monkey's mom

At least Bin Laden/Al Queda had the decency to be honest about their motives. Ours was based on lies like Weapons of Mass Destruction and nonsense like, "we're killing you so you can be free."

If he's a monster for killing thousands of innocent people, what does that make us?


----------



## TCMoulton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mooshersmama*
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's been established that bin Laden would not have allowed himself to be taken alive.


In fact he used his wife as a shield during the firefight and she ended up losing her life as well.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> You know...
> 
> All of this "Our lives should be worth more than theirs", "they are the bad guys", and "either you celebrate the death of the bad guys or you are one of them" BS is the same BS they use on their followers to justify their actions.
> 
> I have no regrets at finding this kind of rhetoric to justify abhorrent behavior on the part of the people celebrating disgusting. The last thing I expected (or maybe I did expected in a way) is to hear their words used to justify our behaviour.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> Totally agree. Simply can not believe the things I've seen and heard over the last 24 hours.










I don't know why this doesn't register with some people. I don't understand how people don't comprehend the above? It's just really sad all the way around. The whole thing.


----------



## journeymom

Interesting article: Is it wrong to celebrate bin Laden's death?

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135927693/is-it-wrong-to-celebrate-bin-ladens-death?sc=fb&cc=fp


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> Interesting article: Is it wrong to celebrate bin Laden's death?
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135927693/is-it-wrong-to-celebrate-bin-ladens-death?sc=fb&cc=fp


This article is fascinating. It was posted on a family member's facebook page and has stirred a great deal of controversy there as well.


----------



## Subhuti

I am not dancing in the streets because Osama was killed. It had to be done, I agree, and he wasn't going to surrender. But I don't feel joyful at someone being shot. Maybe a sense of relief is how I would describe my feelings upon hearing that OBL had been killed.

Now, if the war in Afghanistan were declared over .... then I'd be dancing in the streets!


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Subhuti*
> 
> I am not dancing in the streets because Osama was killed. It had to be done, I agree, and he wasn't going to surrender. But I don't feel joyful at someone being shot. Maybe a sense of relief is how I would describe my feelings upon hearing that OBL had been killed.
> 
> Now, if the war in Afghanistan were declared over .... then I'd be dancing in the streets!


And Iraq(it's "over" but not over) and Libya(although it's not a war.... right







) That will be a great day when they ALL come home!


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amma_mama*
> 
> While I shed no tears for his death, it is difficult to celebrate in light of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens that have been killed by the US military and it's allies in our efforts to bring down Bin Laden. The US has surely been responsible for far more Al Qaeda recruits than Bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts could ever have achieved on their own. We created the violent insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, causing the unnecessary deaths of our own soldiers that were put in a position of instigating more violence than otherwise would have occurred.
> 
> I do not celebrate the many freedoms that our nation has sacrificed in the name of our so-called war on terrorism. I do not celebrate the arrogance with which we support the wrong doing of others when it suits our aims and then the misplaced shock that they one day turn their wrath against us.
> 
> Our televised celebrations are a testament to our country's moral bankruptcy and depraved indifference to those that suffer from our chosen path.
> 
> The death of bin Laden cannot justify a decade of death and destruction at OUR hands.


That is well-said.

Quote by MusicianDad:


> All of this "Our lives should be worth more than theirs", "they are the bad guys", and "either you celebrate the death of the bad guys or you are one of them" BS is the same BS they use on their followers to justify their actions.


I don't believe any of that; I just believe it's okay to celebrate that someone can no longer do harm... people would be cheering as loudly if he'd merely been captured, imprisoned, etc.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> If you can't tell the difference between cheering an act of terrorism where over 3000 people died, then there is nothing more for me to say.


Yes.

There is a difference between cheering the deaths of innocents and cheering the death of a man who killed innocents. The difference is whether there is moral justification for the cheering and the death. I seriously do not understand how people cannot get that difference.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> There is a difference between cheering the deaths of innocents and cheering the death of a man who killed innocents. The difference is whether there is moral justification for the cheering and the death. I seriously do not understand how people cannot get that difference.


Well I seriously don't get how people find moral justification in death, period.


----------



## TiredX2

First, if anyone wants to compare dates (Hitler's day of death, or whatever) how about hitting a little closer to home people!

May 1, 2003 is when GWBush declared "Mission Accomplished". May 1, 2011 is when Obama did not declare "Mission Accomplished" but could arguably be said to have accomplished something.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mooshersmama*
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's been established that bin Laden would not have allowed himself to be taken alive.


ITA with this. I have felt torn by my positive feelings of relief at the death of any individual, but I have had the feelings. I am adamently opposed to the death penalty and yet, I can see how there were not a lot of other options. It's not as if his capture hasn't been a stated goal for, what, 20+ years.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Subhuti*
> 
> I am not dancing in the streets because Osama was killed. It had to be done, I agree, and he wasn't going to surrender. But I don't feel joyful at someone being shot. Maybe *a sense of relief* is how I would describe my feelings upon hearing that OBL had been killed.
> 
> Now, if the war in Afghanistan were declared over .... then I'd be dancing in the streets!


I think a lot of the jubulation could be viewed as a cathartic event after a lot time (for some, almost a lifetime) of stress. People have focused that anxiety, that terror if you will, on one person. Once he was removed, you're going to see a lot of unthinking exuberance. I try to not judge too harshly, hopefullly though, people will reconsider their reactions as time goes on.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I don't believe any of that; I just believe it's okay to celebrate that someone can no longer do harm... *people would be cheering as loudly if he'd merely been captured, imprisoned, etc.*


I like to think that as well. bin Laden has been portrayed as the Boogie Man for long enough that, of course, people are going to celebrate an increased feeling of safety. Real or simply percieved, it's definately an emotional time.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chamomile Girl*
> 
> Well I seriously don't get how people find moral justification in death, period.


That is probably the entire basis of our miscommunication.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> There is a difference between cheering the deaths of innocents and cheering the death of a man who killed innocents. The difference is whether there is moral justification for the cheering and the death. I seriously do not understand how people cannot get that difference.


So... You won't be the least bit upset when people, say, cheer the death of GW Bush when it happens?


----------



## amma_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> So... You won't be the least bit upset when people, say, cheer the death of GW Bush when it happens?


It would have been quite satisfying to see back-to-back trials at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

Rather than jubilant, this should be a somber occasion to reflect on the death and destruction that we perpetrated across the globe in the name of justice. Bin Laden was not found due to our "success" in slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq. Bin Laden was not found due to a decade of instability and destruction in Afghanistan. He was found through an amazing pursuit of intelligence gathering that surely could have succeeded just the same without our acts of war. When is our nation going to come to terms with what we have done over the past decade? None of it can be justified by Bin Laden's death. I just cannot understand what people are celebrating. Yes, he was a monster for killing 3000 innocent people. But what are we?


----------



## moonfirefaery

I don't think our hands are anywhere near as bloody when it comes to this matter as bin Laden's are. We can appreciate our role in this awful situation, while still celebrating that he is no longer at large. If you create a monster, isn't it your duty to neutralize it?

Quote:


> So... You won't be the least bit upset when people, say, cheer the death of GW Bush when it happens?


You think that GW Bush, who cost lives due to mismanagement and incompetence, is the same as bin Laden, who deliberately killed innocent people to spread terror? I'm sorry but if you can't understand how and why these two people are not comparable in this regard, it's like someone said earlier that we're really quite done here. We're not going to be able to connect if you cannot see the difference between them, because I think there is a huge difference, not that I'm a fan of Dubya.

In any case, if people cheer his death, no, it won't phase me. They have the right to respond how they choose.


----------



## monkey's mom

You think the Iraqi people who lost families as we "shocked and awed" them for weapons for mass destruction (that we KNEW did not exist) and then continued to kill them to "free them" feel any differently about GWB or *us* than people here feel about Osama Bin Laden??

Cheering his capture is not the same as cheering his death. He's dead. He may have been a monster, but he was a human being. One of us. He leaves a family behind.

If you can "other" him to the point where you can't see his humanity how the heck is tha any different than what he did? I'm not weeping for him. I'm relieved he's gone, but dancing in the streets and fist pumping? That's vile.

This guy in the Christian Science Monitor says it well:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0502/Celebrating-Osama-bin-Laden-s-death-is-anti-American-and-not-very-biblical

There is something deeply wrong with this picture. By celebrating death, even of someone as evil as bin Laden, we let our worst impulses trump what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." We look petty, juvenile, and small. And we should all be worried about that .

.


----------



## moonfirefaery

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.


----------



## monkey's mom

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question.

There is no court case here. You think the blood on our hands is somehow justified. I disagree.

I don't think Osama and Bush are equals. But when you're comparing killing innocents to killing innocents, I think it's pretty short sighted to say, "Well, what we did was different."


----------



## laohaire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.


Your point may be valid but it's the assumption that's under question. Many people believe that Bush's actions were not merely incompetence or mismanagement, but purposeful acts. To those people, Bush is a terrorist.


----------



## amma_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.


Yes, I think this is where we part ways. There was, IMHO, just as much intent in Bush's invasion of Iraq. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction nor an imminent threat of attack. Bush and family fully intended the heartless destruction, destabilization and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and lied to the world to gain permission to do so. Mismanagement was just icing on the cake. The evidence of torture, approved by the Bush Administration, was well outside international law and were otherwise crimes against humanity. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be put before The Hague to answer for their sins. Instead, they wrapped themselves up in an American flag and got away with mass murder.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *laohaire*
> 
> Your point may be valid but it's the assumption that's under question. Many people believe that Bush's actions were not merely incompetence or mismanagement, but purposeful acts. To those people, Bush is a terrorist.


Laohaire you make a good point. Moonfirefaery - How do you or anyone else personally know what Bush's intentions were? How would you personally know he didn't maliciously intend it? I really don't know that. The answer is: you really can't know either. You need evidence to make this conclusion.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amma_mama*
> 
> Yes, I think this is where we part ways. There was, IMHO, just as much intent in Bush's invasion of Iraq. There was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction nor an imminent threat of attack. Bush and family fully intended the heartless destruction, destabilization and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and lied to the world to gain permission to do so. Mismanagement was just icing on the cake. The evidence of torture, approved by the Bush Administration, was well outside international law and were otherwise crimes against humanity. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be put before The Hague to answer for their sins. Instead, they wrapped themselves up in an American flag and got away with mass murder.


Yup. The _evidence_ or lack of evidence in terms of weapons of mass destruction points to some other intent on Bush's part. Hmmm... lying certainly did happen. I agree with everything here. It's disturbing - the lack of accountability we hold our leaders to.


----------



## moonfirefaery

monkey's mom, We'll have to agree to disagree, as we'll probably never agree on whether what we did was different or justified.

laohaire, I have my suspicions about Bush's intent, but until they are proven I will not acknowledge that he holds a candle to Osama. I don't think his intent was as cold-blooded. I suspect that it was. But there must be proof.

MamaofLiam, no one but Bush knows his intent, but I have the right to observe him and his actions and then believe what I like about the intent behind them. Lying most certainly did happen, or rather exaggerating the 30% of evidence that he had WMDs while hiding the 70% of intelligence stating he probably didn't. As to the rest, I'll need proof before I can consider someone a terrorist worthy of the same fate as Osama. Yes, the accountability IS disturbing, especially when we are punishing Bradley Manning instead of the corrupt administration he exposed.


----------



## monkey's mom

I think we, as a people--as a nation, absolutely ought to decide what kind of behavior we expect from ourselves.

Take that kid who shot up Virginia Tech....if crowds of people had gathered around his body at the scene and spit on him, kicked him, pointed and sang "hey hey hey good-bye," and danced on the quad, would we think that was appropriate? Would we not have expected the authorities to step in and say, "Hey, we don't do that." We might understand that people were freaked out of their minds and reacted badly in the moment, but we don't condone that.

Do we drag bodies down the streets? Do we hang people in town squares and cheer as the rope snaps their necks?

There are social mores--cultural norms--that we collectively come up with for what constitutes decent behavior. I think dancing in the streets and singing songs that we sing at victorious sporting events about the death of Osama Bin Laden has struck one of those grey areas for us. Of course people have a right to do it. Just like those infamous men who danced and cheered in Lafayette Park or wherever it was on 9/11. It doesn't make it any less distasteful or embarrassing.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Um, wow...
> 
> I an neither a terrorist, nor a supporter of terrorists.
> 
> I an not cheering either. For no other reason than I feel that cheering a death is wrong.


yeah this...I was SHOCKED to wake up to dh showing me the news where it looked like people were celebrating a super bowl win or something...It was really off putting and bizarre to me... Nothing has changed, Al Qaeda is still functioning, we still have troops fighting a "war" that can't be "won" and I see college kids jumping into a river like morons...I'm not sad he is dead but there is a middle ground and I think partying like it's new years eve is messed up...just me.


----------



## laohaire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> laohaire, I have my suspicions about Bush's intent, but until they are proven I will not acknowledge that he holds a candle to Osama. I don't think his intent was as cold-blooded. I suspect that it was. But there must be proof.


That's ok, I'm not out to convince anyone of Bush's intents or lack thereof. Just pointing out that this is the crux of the difference of opinion.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'm not embarrassed about it... We've been at war for so long, and we will be for years to come...and then there will be more wars. But we have made an accomplishment; a feared murderer can no longer do murder.. and I don't bedgrudge anyone their fleeting happiness at the news.


----------



## mar123

Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20. (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).


----------



## moonfirefaery

mar123, I could be wrong but it was my understanding that most intel suggested he did have WMDs at that time, but that they were moved before the Iraq War erupted. I am, however, glad we got rid of Saddam; I disapprove of the methods used and the exaggerations that led our Congress to approve them.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20. (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).


Clinton also had the opportunity to capture or kill OBL during his presidency, but didn't. You can not blame all of the middle east problems on Bush. It goes back many presidents before, probably starting around Raegan.... or maybe even Nixon since he is the one who started the whole supporting Israel no matter what business.

I do not agree with the conflicts we are currently in because it was not our place to dispose autonomous leaders of other nations(even though Saddam was a very evil man, possibly even more so than Bin Laden was), but it WAS our place to hunt down Bin Laden and Al-Qeda. It is possible to support one and not the other. Just because we have done some things that were wrong does not mean that we are wrong for doing what needed to be done in the case of Bin Laden.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> mar123, I could be wrong but it was my understanding that most intel suggested he did have WMDs at that time, but that they were moved before the Iraq War erupted. I am, however, glad we got rid of Saddam; I disapprove of the methods used and the exaggerations that led our Congress to approve them.


Yes, I believe the initial intel did show that he had them, plus he was being sneaking and evading, and not allowing the UN to investigate which led to even more suspicion. Hindsight is definitely 20/20. I don't think that at the time he had a good decision to make, it was either he did have them and might use them against us or our allies, and we could go in and find out or wait it out and find out if he was going to use them. Both options have the possibility of a terrible outcome.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> as we'll probably never agree on whether what we did was different or justified.


The mass murder of innocent people is never justified.


----------



## insidevoice

New information revealing that he was not, in fact, armed or using his wife as a shield.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489658/Osama-bin-Laden-was-not-armed-and-did-not-use-wife-as-human-shield.html


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Not to get into a debate about the Iraq war, but Bill Clinton said there were WMDs in Iraq when he was president. When Bush 43 took over, he was using the same intel Clinton was. How is one man lying and the other was misinformed? Also, there were weapons found- not what they expected, but there were some found. In addition, I am still convinced that Saddam got rid of many of them- hid them in sand, sold them, etc. I mean NATO only told him about 100 times they were coming to investigate. The man is not stupid. not to mention, we did get rid of Saddam in Iraq. This is a man who experimented on his own people with biological weapons. Is this not reason enough? Where do we draw the line? And Bush never said we would "safe" he said we would be "safer." And you have to put it into the context- this was 9 years ago when all of this was still fresh. Hindsight is always 20/20. (and I am not a huge Bush fan or anything, Actually, I am pretty down on politicians of all parties these days).


Bush was told by the people who gave the US the information that it had been falsified before he even sent troops to Iraq.


----------



## love4bob

I also think it is easy to say what we would/would not do if we were in charge or what should/should not have happened, but until you are actually in that position I don't think that anyone can really say... as Obama is finding out with his presidency. He said a lot about the wars while campaigning, but I think he is finding the reality a lot different.


----------



## insidevoice

The reality here, however is that there was not an effort to capture this man to bring him to trial. He was unarmed. You can not tell me that a couple dozen SEALS could not work to subdue and capture an unarmed, frail, elderly man.

This was clearly, an assassination and the his death was not, truly necessary. I have no doubt that the members of the military who carried this operation out were given directions to kill him. That is very very different than the initial portrait of a man armed and using a woman as a shield. Regardless of his atrocities in life, we have sunk to such a level that we chose to kill an unarmed man in the name of revenge. Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> I also think it is easy to say what we would/would not do if we were in charge or what should/should not have happened, *but until you are actually in that position I don't think that anyone can really say.*.. as Obama is finding out with his presidency. He said a lot about the wars while campaigning, but I think he is finding the reality a lot different.


It is our job as members of a democracy...as people who vote...to pay attention to what is going on and to form our own analysis. It is my job as a teacher and as a historian to look at what is happening now in the light of what has happened in the past and to compare them. I will never believe that I just can't know something because I am not in charge (because those in charge tend to obfuscate) and I will never believe that we don't have a right to all the information we can get about everything (thank you Wikileaks!). This is supposed to be why we have the media, to provide a check (and a reality check) on those in charge...I'm not so sure they do such a great job usually.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.


If the difference between morally justified violence and terrorism is intentionally targeting civilians, it's not too hard to find examples in US history where we intentionally targeted civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind, with somewhere between 100,000 - 200,000 civilians dead in those attacks (and it wasn't collateral damage - we targeted the entire city). We justify it by saying that we were at war; that we had to drop the bombs in order to shorten the war and save American lives, etc. Going back to the comparison between people who celebrated the 9/11 attacks and people who are celebrating OBL's death, I imagine the people who celebrated the 9/11 attacks justified that attack in the same way we justify Hiroshima. They believed they were at war and a damaging strike had been made against the enemy.

I don't see any moral difference between the people who publicly celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the people who are publicly celebrating OBL's death, because in both cases the people are celebrating based on beliefs about why the violence was justified.

I'm really glad OBL is gone. But I don't think it is appropriate to celebrate it. We live in a complicated world and sometimes it is necessary do bad things. But we should always keep in mind that they are bad things, not something to cheer about.

Quote:


> Take that kid who shot up Virginia Tech....if crowds of people had gathered around his body at the scene and spit on him, kicked him, pointed and sang "hey hey hey good-bye," and danced on the quad, would we think that was appropriate? Would we not have expected the authorities to step in and say, "Hey, we don't do that." We might understand that people were freaked out of their minds and reacted badly in the moment, but we don't condone that.


This.


----------



## Subhuti

I, too, am very disturbed to hear that Bin Ladin wasn't armed. After the years of work and all the expertise that went into this operation, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't restrain themselves from killing an unarmed man.

Capture him, try him, and sentence him. Don't, as much as we are all relieved to have OBL out of the picture, just go in an assassinate him!


----------



## moonfirefaery

Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't. I also don't think that taking out a murderer is a bad thing. I have never approved of the Hiroshima & nagasaki bombings, but I don't think it's comparable to stopping a murderer from doing more murder.

insidevoice - This was not a revenge killing; it was a matter of national security to prevent this man specifically from doing further harm by inciting his many followers to violence again.

love4bob - I agree that it is possible to support one and not the other, and I agree that just because we have done wrong in some cases that doesn't mean we weren't right to take out bin Laden. Well-said.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Subhuti*
> 
> I, too, am very disturbed to hear that Bin Ladin wasn't armed. After the years of work and all the expertise that went into this operation, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't restrain themselves from killing an unarmed man.
> 
> Capture him, try him, and sentence him. Don't, as much as we are all relieved to have OBL out of the picture, just go in an assassinate him!


 With all the conflicting information I won't condemn it just yet. Even if he wasn't armed, if it appeared that he was, I would understand taking him out. The goal was to get him, one way or another, without any of our men dying, and if we had any suspicion that he was armed and could harm our men, we did right by not giving hiim the chance.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets.


NO NO NO, we as a nation most certainly did not do that. Do not put me in that category. PLEASE note that the vast majority of the US's 308 million people did not dance in the streets.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> The reality here, however is that there was not an effort to capture this man to bring him to trial. He was unarmed. You can not tell me that a couple dozen SEALS could not work to subdue and capture an unarmed, frail, elderly man.
> 
> This was clearly, an assassination and the his death was not, truly necessary. I have no doubt that the members of the military who carried this operation out were given directions to kill him. That is very very different than the initial portrait of a man armed and using a woman as a shield. Regardless of his atrocities in life, we have sunk to such a level that we chose to kill an unarmed man in the name of revenge. Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> NO NO NO, we as a nation most certainly did not do that. Do not put me in that category. PLEASE note that the vast majority of the US's 308 million people did not dance in the streets.


I think insidevoice was maybe saying that its _perceived_ that we as a nation are celebrating by dancing in the streets b/c of what is shown on media outlets. I think people from other countries could very well think that b/c that's all they see. But I totally agree with you - I do not want to be put in that category. Definitely, definitely not. It's great that you point that out.


----------



## Ldavis24

Hell on ESPN they had coverage of people dancing in the streets, Ohio state kids swimming in a lake or something and people just going crazy...

Half the people on my FB were doing little war dances online about they would love to piss on his dead face...WTH is wrong with people that they say and do this stuff...It is just so...i don't know, I don't even have a word for it.

I am still bothered by what I saw on the TV with people celebrating like we had won WWII all over again. I get that it was a moral victory but as other PP's have pointed out why are we celebrating murder? What exactly about that is ok? I still just can't wrap my brain around it.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't. I also don't think that taking out a murderer is a bad thing. I have never approved of the Hiroshima & nagasaki bombings, but I don't think it's comparable to stopping a murderer from doing more murder.


You've packed an awful lot of assumptions into that sentence. Were we trying to save lives (the official version; dubious considering we had already defeated Germany and Japan was pretty weak) or were we testing out an awesome new weapon for the word to see? And how do you know the people celebrating 9/11 didn't think the attack might save the lives? I remember the celebrations mostly being centered in Palestinian territories, where a lot of lives have been lost in the ongoing conflict with Israel, which receives US support. It's not unreasonable that those celebrating may have hoped that US support for Israel would weaken as a result of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in less of their people dead. There was also a lot of resentment at the time about the deaths caused by the US-led embargo against Iraq; again, it is reasonable that they might have hoped the US would pull out of the area resulting in less dead Iraqis.

That's not how it turned out, of course. But when you say the people celebrating the 9/11 attack weren't trying to save lives, you are making huge assumptions about their intentions. Earlier, when talking about Bush's intentions re: the Iraq invasion, you said it is important to have clear proof of his intentions before judging him. But it seems you are not applying the same standard when judging the intentions of the people who celebrated 9/11. My guess is that there was probably a wide variety of intentions involved, from people who hoped that the attack would cause the US to stop facilitating things that were killing their people, to people hellbent on vengeance who felt like a big victory had been scored. From what I've seen, the people celebrating OBL's death have the same range of intentions.

I agree that stopping a murderer from doing more murder is a Good Thing. Stopping the murderer by murdering him, however, is achieving a Good Thing through committing a Bad Thing. I think it is wrong to celebrate a Bad Thing, no matter how necessary it may have been.


----------



## monkey's mom

So in the VA Tech situation, where taking out the shooter absolutely saved lives, do you feel a celebration of his death--complete w/ waving the school's flag, singing their school fight song and the "Goodbye song," and high-fives--would be appropriate?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't.


----------



## moonfirefaery

monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well. I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed. As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.

Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion. I doubt the people celebrating 9/11 thought that it would stop America from taking any more lives; I give the world more credit than to be that obtuse. Those people weren't celebrating the deaths of murderers, but of innocents, and they probably weren't thinking "Yes, we've knocked down the WTF; now no more lives will be lost to American politics!" I don't believe the people of the world, given America's history, are naive enough to believe that the 911 attacks would bring peace. Attacking America never, ever brings peace, until we've attacked back. I'm not making an assumption about their intention; I'm stating that I find it improbable that they believed this terrorist act would change our actions in the Middle East for the good. In any case, it was the murder of innocents, and what we did to Osama was not as he was not innocent in any way, shape or form. he wasn't murdered.


----------



## Irishmommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> If you can't tell the difference between cheering an act of terrorism where over 3000 people died, then there is nothing more for me to say.


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well. I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed. As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.
> 
> Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion. I doubt the people celebrating 9/11 thought that it would stop America from taking any more lives; I give the world more credit than to be that obtuse. Those people weren't celebrating the deaths of murderers, but of innocents, and they probably weren't thinking "Yes, we've knocked down the WTF; now no more lives will be lost to American politics!" I don't believe the people of the world, given America's history, are naive enough to believe that the 911 attacks would bring peace. Attacking America never, ever brings peace, until we've attacked back. I'm not making an assumption about their intention; I'm stating that I find it improbable that they believed this terrorist act would change our actions in the Middle East for the good. In any case, it was the murder of innocents, and what we did to Osama was not as he was not innocent in any way, shape or form. *he wasn't murdered.*


No matter how deftly you can apparently twist morality you cannot make that assertation. He was killed in cold blood...he was unarmed. He was murdered, no matter if you call it just or not.

Here is the problem I have with your logic. You seem to be holding people to two different standards dependant on if you think they are "good guys" or "bad guys". So because Osama is a bad guy the US should be allowed to take any action they want to make him dead? Yes? What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)? Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy? Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?

This is a real situation and it is the reason why extradition law exists. It should not matter how "bad" the bad guy (because who can really know...unless there is a trial). We all need to follow international law or they risk sending a message to the rest of the world that the USA feels they should be exempt. Which is a message that is already out there and one that already causes much bitterness and resentfulness.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives,


Trying to save American lives, to hell with all those non-American, non-White, non-Christian lives.

At least thats how it looks to the rest of the world.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Chamomile Girl,

A murder is an unlawful kill. The kill was lawful; therefore, it was not murder.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, because the good/bad guys terminology is yours alone.

We are at war with people that take much more liberal liberties than we do.

Irishmommy - A freedom fighter fights back against an oppressive regime by attacking the military and government, not the innocent citizens who have very little to do with the real running of the country.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well. I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed. As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.


But he WAS killed. And, to me (and many others) that dictates a certain level of behavior that is decent and civilized--behavior that is not the same as one might respond to capture.

I was personally impacted by Bin Laden's actions. My house shook when the Pentagon was hit. I was 7 mos. pregnant, about to head into DC (Library of Congress) right past the Pentagon. My friends and neighbors were first responders. I, literally, thought I was going to die that day. I left work to go home to be with my husband because if I was going to die, it was going to be with him. My sil was in a gov't building trying to get home to her babies--we couldn't get in touch with her. We were hearing that the White House had been hit, the FAA building in NoVA had been hit, the phones didn't work, rumors were flying, traffic was insane, etc. It was the most terrifying thing I've ever experienced.

And even if that day that the person responsible had been found and killed, it still would have crossed all lines of decency to party in the streets over the news. Just like it does 10 years and trillions of dollars later.


----------



## babygirlie

If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?

I must say I am glad it's not me making these decisions.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.


Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians (men, women and children) who were killed as a direct result of US activity fighting "terrorists".


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.


How do you get to decide what the reality is? There are others who would assert that the reality is the direct opposite of what you are saying and that the US are terrorists. And as far as what the US is targeting: who knows what the US is targeting... There is so much the US has done that has me







. It's just not as simple as "good guys" (e.g., US) and "bad guys" (e.g., terrorists). BTW I can tell you for a fact that there is growing sentiment around the world that the US is NOT the good guy. How do you make sense of that? And as a pp pointed out, you can't hold people to 2 different standards depending on whether you think they are "good" vs "bad". I think the problem I'm having understanding your view point is that I'm not seeing you acknowledge other perspectives outside of the pro-USA bubble. You're certainly entitled to think whatever you want, but limiting yourself to only one perspective is limiting your own understanding.

BTW the vast majority of quotes out there that I've seen about Bin Laden have been leaders of nations who are strong US allies, i.e. agreeable to the US's viewpoint. But that's not the entire world. Has anyone else heard what other non-Christian, white nations think about Bin Laden's death? I'm curious...


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?


A "fair chance?" What, exactly, is the alternative? Vigilante killings based on UNfair chances?

Are we civilized people here, or what?


----------



## Thao

(For some reason I can't get the quote button to work.)

"Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion."

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are based on fact and some on assumption. So far, all you've given to back up your opinions is assumptions about what you think people thought. I would agree with you that probably nobody thought the 9/11 attack would bring peace, but then again nobody I've talked to or heard talking about OBL's death thinks it will bring peace either. In the short run it will almost certainly increase the risk of a terrorist attack. But we hope that it will weaken AlQueda (sp?) and in the long run make terrorists think twice about attacking us. Why would it be improbable for a Palestinian to have a similar train of thought on 9/11? After all, Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon shortly after the terrible attack on our barracks there. Terrorist violence is sometimes effective.

You are right that the 9/11 attack was against innocents, whereas OBL was most definitely not innocent. That's why I brought up the Hiroshima bombing, where we attacked innocents. Yet we don't call that a terrorist attack. In the same way, I imagine the people who supported the 9/11 attack did not consider it a terrorist attack, but rather justified violence against the population of a country which they are at war with. It's all a matter of perspective. Which is why I think the only consistent way to deal with such things is to say killing is Bad, period, and never to be celebrated. But sometimes necessary.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Wow... this thread just really erupted! lol


----------



## babygirlie

Actually he's killed hundreds of thousands of non-american, non-white, non christian people also.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Trying to save American lives, to hell with all those non-American, non-White, non-Christian lives.
> 
> At least thats how it looks to the rest of the world.


----------



## babygirlie

No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
> Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.


What are you talking about?









the definition of the word vigilante is: done *violently* and summarily, *without* *recourse* *to* *lawful **procedures* adj or noun any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, asby avenging a crime.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
> Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.


No, are WE civilized?

And that answer has nothing to do with how we are treated, what is done to us, or how uncivilized anyone else is.

Are WE civilized?

Are WE people who do things fairly and justly and behave with dignity and respect no matter what?


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Chamomile Girl,
> 
> A murder is an unlawful kill. The kill was lawful; therefore, it was not murder.
> 
> .


I think the lawfulness of this kill has yet to be established. Is it lawful because we (meaning the US Government) say it's lawful?


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> No, he was anything but civilized. It was not vigilante it was soldiers.
> Most muslims despised him. Most of the universe despised him. You would have to be crazy to show this turd any respect.


So because he's the bad guy that give the US the right to stoop to his level? Why the hell should I show any respect either parties in this matter? The US's response to Bin Laden has come off as very "Kill 'em. Kill 'em all!"

If you want to tout yourself as being above the person you hate, you have to actually be above the person that you hate.


----------



## Thao

"What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)? Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy? Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?"

Actually, I was thinking Reagan for his funding of the Contras, who targeted civilians in their attempt to overthrow their (democratically elected) government. They should have sent in a commando team. As long as it was legal by Nicaraguan law, it would have been okay, right?


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *babygirlie*
> 
> If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?
> 
> I must say I am glad it's not me making these decisions.


There are plenty of people willing to give Bush a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt...


----------



## eclipse

And to continue in that vein. . .Say, for example, Mexican authorities found out that a drug cartel leader, who they believed (but had yet to be arrested or convicted) had been indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexicans due to instructing his/her underlings to carry out assassinations, police ambushes, and other acts of terror, was living across the border in the United States. Say then that Mexico sent in Mexican soldiers, without notifying or cooperating with the United States government or law enforcement, to bring him in dead or alive. Say, in the course of that raid, several people (including the initial target) were killed. How would the United States (government and citizens) react to something like that? Would those kills be lawful? Mexico is, quite literally, at war with the drug cartels (more literally than the USA is at war with this amorphous concept of "terror") - would it be justified as an act of war?


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thao*
> 
> "What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)? Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy? Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?"
> 
> Actually, I was thinking Reagan for his funding of the Contras, who targeted civilians in their attempt to overthrow their (democratically elected) government. They should have sent in a commando team. As long as it was legal by Nicaraguan law, it would have been okay, right?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> And to continue in that vein. . .Say, for example, Mexican authorities found out that a drug cartel leader, who they believed (but had yet to be arrested or convicted) had been indirectly responsible for the deaths of Mexicans due to instructing his/her underlings to carry out assassinations, police ambushes, and other acts of terror, was living across the border in the United States. Say then that Mexico sent in Mexican soldiers, without notifying or cooperating with the United States government or law enforcement, to bring him in dead or alive. Say, in the course of that raid, several people (including the initial target) were killed. How would the United States (government and citizens) react to something like that? Would those kills be lawful? Mexico is, quite literally, at war with the drug cartels (more literally than the USA is at war with this amorphous concept of "terror") - would it be justified as an act of war?










Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.


You're right. My bad.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.










That probably shouldn't be funny b/c it is so true.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly ladies, it's only legal if the US does it.


Well, if you're not with us, you are against us.


----------



## insidevoice

I think the key here would be to determine if assassination/execution is a legal action to take against an unarmed man.


----------



## hakeber

Osama Bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist organization, yes...but we have been given ZERO viable proof that he was behind the attacks of 9/11. So if people want to say they finally got justice for the crimes of 9/11...they are sadly mistaken on a number of counts.

1) it could have been and likely was our own government who instrumented the 9/11 attacks.

2) the death of one elderly figure head of a religiously and politcally motivated organization does not balance out the physical, emotional and social destruction that has ensued as a result of those attacks.

3) the Obama administration (and this BREAKS my heart to see!) is using this as a politcal smoke and mirror stunt for votes. If it were about anything else, the CIA would have done it like they do everything else, silently and without a whisper.  This is a total media whore stunt and Obama should hang his head in shame. Change indeed, sir, Change indeed.









4) Terrorist organizations, particularly religiously motivated ones, are typically, historically the hydras of the world. When you cut out the long time unifying figure head, two come back in its place. If the Palestine-Israel conflict, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown us anything there should be at least two more leaders to come forward in the near future and they will certainly be seeking their own brand of justice for not only an unlawful, death that was justified by "resisting arrest" when there was never enough evidence to press formal charges for 9/11 in the first place (I personally know of NO ONE who is rejoicing the death of this man because of his heinous crime of bombing a US embassy in 1998, do you? Most people I know had never even heard of the man before 9/11) but also because the US forces didn't have permission to be there, and from what I understand, they wiped out a fair number of innocent Pakistani civilians along their mission to OBL.

If you still think this was about justice, if you still think the US gets out of this one with a shiny white coat of glistening armour and a reputation as the saviors of the world, you need to think again. The people the world where I'm hanging out are horror stricken and the people who admired amd followed OBL are merely in grieving for their leader and when that passes, they will be coming for blood, no doubt about it in my mind.

I am so glad I am here in the relative safety of Colombia.

At the end of the day, not even one ounce of wickedness and evil are wiped out when a man is murdered. Perhaps we might feel a sense of peace knowing that this ONE person cannot commit any acts of evil again, but we should never rejoice the death of a human being, no matter what they have done. It speaks of a bitterness and cruelty of the soul that can only be described as inhuman. It also speaks of a dangerous naivete that truly believes that erradicating a murderer brings us one step closer to erradicating murder. This has never proven true and never will.

I pray for the revellers that they may find peace in their hearts, but I cannot join in their foolish denial of what has really happened here.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> Well, if you're not with us, you are against us.


Exactly. As Arthur ****** Pointed out through Danforth, during the McCarthy trials, the long repeating refrain of our society from Salem to now...You either stand with us or against us, there is no road between.

How can any US American Patriot cheer an execution without a trial? Without even a solid case for a valid warrant for arrest? How? Do we even teach History in the schools anymore?


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.


You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence. Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world. That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security. Bin Laden was an elderly figure head. He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence. Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world. That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security. Bin Laden was an elderly figure head. He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already.


In my opinion, the greatest evidence of terrorism's success was watching American people celebrate this man's death in such an atrocious manner.

Bin Laden had not been anything more than a figurehead for many years. He was a sick old man. Killing him will not effect any real change, other than to galvanize desperate people who saw him as an answer to their desperation.


----------



## monkey's mom

Great posts Hakeber.

I agree, insidevoice.....I kept thinking that tired old refrain of "If we xyz, the terrorists have won," and kept coming back to, "Wow. We've become them. How's that for winning?"

Those videos of celebrating will be looped and looped at whatever training camps these people have and will surely incite more new recruits than we could ever imagine.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> You cannot erradicate terrorism with violence. Terrorism happens as a result of violence, usually of the passive kind, against a people who feel no other recourse but to use physical violence to be heard, to matter to someone, to assert their value and their autonomy. The answer to terrorism is not to silence them with bigger displays of violence, but to seek justice and equality for all, and to erradicate the NEED for terrorism to exist by meeting the basic human needs of all citizens of the world. That is the ONLY way we will ever have global security. Bin Laden was an elderly figure head. He will be replaced within hours if he hasn't been long long ago already.












For every civilian killed in the name of fighting terrorism, even more terrorists are made. Those who were hurt by the actions of those fighting "the war on terror". They will seek revenge in the name of those they lost. The path the US has taken is only breeding more terrorists.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians (men, women and children) who were killed as a direct result of US activity fighting "terrorists".


Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.


----------



## moonfirefaery

hakeber - We do need to meet the basic human needs of all citizens of the world, but please remember terrorism isn't only about having needs met. Terrorism occurs for a number of reasons; it's not always due to a "need." Sometimes it's a bunch of tyrants trying to enforce their will on the world around them, including their fellow countrymen, and Osama was one of those tyrants. Nothing except violence would have stopped him. Hamas makes humanitarian efforts and seems to care about getting some needs met, but is still a terrorist organization. Organizations like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't humanitarian at all. They're just tyrants. Do they have a valid reason to be angry at the US? yes. Does it justify their actions? No. We on the other hand aren't acting out of anger, but to protect ourselves.

MamaofLiam - I get to decide what MY view of reality is. It is a well-known fact that not everyone in the world considers us the good guys. Please note that good/bad guys is your terminology, not mine.

Thao - My opinions are based on the facts that I have become aware of through my research, not assumptions. I have a very low opinion of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I don't know that I don't consider them terrorist attacks.

eclipse - We weren't the only government who wanted this guy; we also weren't the only one who wanted him dead or alive.

Thao - If an American citizen stole and crashed a plane into a building, killing thousands of innocents including children, and a foreign country decided to assassinate him, I'd be cool with it.

hakeber - Your post was great except that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, we have arrested many members of al Qaeda that took part in the attacks, Obama didn't claim victory like Bush and made it clear it was our military that caught the guy (his SUPPORTORS are using it to sing his praises, not him). When you destroy a group's leader, especially when that leader is charismatic and inspirational, you do weaken the organization. Perhaps they will find a new head that manages to pull them back together. Perhaps they will not.

insidevoice - This was a mission to neutralize a monster the US helped create by any means necessary. The SEALS were the ones on the spot, endangering their lives, making the decisions. If we don't shoot, will he kill us? Will he get away? What is more important, neutralizing this murderer or ensuring he gets a trial?


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> Exactly. As Arthur ****** Pointed out through Danforth, during the McCarthy trials, the long repeating refrain of our society from Salem to now...You either stand with us or against us, there is no road between.
> 
> How can any US American Patriot cheer an execution without a trial? Without even a solid case for a valid warrant for arrest? How? Do we even teach History in the schools anymore?


----------



## Niamh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.


You do realize that you just equated 'thousands' of civilians killed by terrorists to the 'tens of thousands' of civilians (as you quoted MusicianDad saying - and his number is not exaggerated in the least) killed as a direct result of our actions fighting said terrorists.

Are 'our' civilians lives worth more than 'their' civilian lives?


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> eclipse - We weren't the only government who wanted this guy; we also weren't the only one who wanted him dead or alive


I never said we were. But a bunch of governments wanting something to happen doesn't make it legal for that thing to happen. On what do you base your assertion that it was a legal killing? FTR, I don't think something has to be legal for it to be a morally correct choice. There are lots of situations in which I think the moral choice and the legal choice are polar opposites. Admitting that something was likely illegal doesn't mean you're saying it shouldn't have been done anyway. But by saying it was a legal killing makes me think you and I have a different definition of legal. What country's laws do you think we should be examening to determine the legality? Ours? Pakistan's? International law?


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.


I *think* Musician Dad's point was that the lives of all of those civilians - both those that were killed as a result of terrorist attacks likely orchestrated or encouraged by OBL and those that were killed by US military action were equally precious, and that it's equally devastating that any of them died. The lives lost on the receiving end of the violence caused by OBL and those like him were not any more (or less) valuable than those lost in fighting the war on "terror." And I, for one, would be willing to say that to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11, or anyone who lost a civilian loved one in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> insidevoice - This was a mission to neutralize a monster the US helped create by any means necessary. The SEALS were the ones on the spot, endangering their lives, making the decisions. If we don't shoot, will he kill us? Will he get away? What is more important, neutralizing this murderer or ensuring he gets a trial?


He was unarmed. You can not convince me a full team of SEALS would not have been capable- having already gotten THROUGH the defenses around him, of capturing him alive. This was an assassination from the get go. He could have been wearing a pink dress and offering a cup of tea to people as they came in the door, he was going to be killed no matter what. I have a great deal of outrage that that is the path people felt had to be taken. I doubt it was ultimately the SEALS' call- I suspect their orders were very much KOS. If it was their call, frankly, they made a bad one. Yes, I would rather have seen one of our combatants hurt or killed in combat than I would see them commit murder of an unarmed man. These guys choose this path, they know and accept the risks. The fact that he was unarmed makes us look very much like we were out not to create safety, but to seek revenge, and I think the long term repercussions of that will cause a great deal more suffering and death worldwide.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

OASN, speaking of 9/11, anyone know if we can discuss conspiracy theories now? They always got removed in the past.

yeahthat to everything hakeber said.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.


Moonfire; The terrorists who have attacked US soil in the past have never done so out of the clear bue sky, or as George Bush would have had us believe because they "hate our freedom".

In particular the terrorist groups of the middle east (and there are and have been several of them for a reason) exist in large part because of our financial involvement in the civil wars of the region where we pick and choose which side to back with WMDs and which ones we choose to financially sanction and ostracize for reason that can only be viewed by an sane person as racist, and evil. Our govenrment has historically played a major role in the financial support of violent regimes that have cruelly and viciously opressed the peoples of that region for some time...and then we are shocked when they don't want to play nice? We have lied and set them up for our politcal gain...goading the people (even outright lying and making false promises of either staying out of it or providing support) into attacking their oppressors and then pulling the rug out from under them so many times we are like Lucy to their Charlie Brown.

They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves...well Israel seems like a lost cause, and the heathens are all mostly erradicated...who should we hate on next? It was a gradual and consisten build up of loathing that was in many ways contrived by the US government for the benefit of the most wealthy people in the world.

The wonder isn't that terrorism like 9/11 happens (hence why the US government could easily frame any terrorist group they wanted really, including one they hand picked, after having trained and funded him for decades in their own guerilla wars in the region...I mean if they wanted to.), but that we as a people have not risen up against our government in our own violent coup demanding that we put down the guns, that we stop financially raping the region and we start finding solution to the humanitarian issues that are plaguing the area and have been since post world war 2.

So if you are looking to explain to the victims of 9/11 (dead or alive) who is to blame for the tragedy of that morning, we have no further to look than ourselves. The American people, as a rule, we tend to live in a fog of blissful ignorance and moral impunity -- it's not me, it's my government. You can't hold ME responsible for the actions of my government! I'm just an innocent civilian-- in a country that prides itself on having a government of the people, by the people and for the people...well, we simply can't have it both ways. Either we start to educate ourselves and fight for the changes in policy that we feel will work towards peace, or we go back to the mall and buy another pair of jeans to go with our "Ding dong BinLaden's Dead" T-shirt and consider this a victory...for what I still can't tell.

But know this...the terrorists of this world, as awful as we may perceive them to be, have a reason to believe we owe them something, if nothing else, our full and undivided attention.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:

Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 

*Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality.* The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat toglobal security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> MamaofLiam - I get to decide what MY view of reality is. It is a well-known fact that not everyone in the world considers us the good guys. Please note that good/bad guys is your terminology, not mine.


That's right, you do. But you also can't tell and project it on everyone else that it's their reality too. I think you need to clarify that it's YOUR reality. You state it as a statement of fact - see the bolded. I certainly don't share your reality as far as this goes.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Moonfire; The terrorists who have attacked US soil in the past have never done so out of the clear bue sky, or as George Bush would have had us believe because they "hate our freedom".
> 
> In particular the terrorist groups of the middle east (and there are and have been several of them for a reason) exist in large part because of our financial involvement in the civil wars of the region where we pick and choose which side to back with WMDs and which ones we choose to financially sanction and ostracize for reason that can only be viewed by an sane person as racist, and evil. Our govenrment has historically played a major role in the financial support of violent regimes that have cruelly and viciously opressed the peoples of that region for some time...and then we are shocked when they don't want to play nice? We have lied and set them up for our politcal gain...goading the people (even outright lying and making false promises of either staying out of it or providing support) into attacking their oppressors and then pulling the rug out from under them so many times we are like Lucy to their Charlie Brown.
> 
> They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves...well Israel seems like a lost cause, and the heathens are all mostly erradicated...who should we hate on next? It was a gradual and consisten build up of loathing that was in many ways contrived by the US government for the benefit of the most wealthy people in the world.
> 
> The wonder isn't that terrorism like 9/11 happens (hence why the US government could easily frame any terrorist group they wanted really, including one they hand picked, after having trained and funded him for decades in their own guerilla wars in the region...I mean if they wanted to.), but that we as a people have not risen up against our government in our own violent coup demanding that we put down the guns, that we stop financially raping the region and we start finding solution to the humanitarian issues that are plaguing the area and have been since post world war 2.
> 
> So if you are looking to explain to the victims of 9/11 (dead or alive) who is to blame for the tragedy of that morning, we have no further to look than ourselves. The American people, as a rule, we tend to live in a fog of blissful ignorance and moral impunity -- it's not me, it's my government. You can't hold ME responsible for the actions of my government! I'm just an innocent civilian-- in a country that prides itself on having a government of the people, by the people and for the people...well, we simply can't have it both ways. Either we start to educate ourselves and fight for the changes in policy that we feel will work towards peace, or we go back to the mall and buy another pair of jeans to go with our "Ding dong BinLaden's Dead" T-shirt and consider this a victory...for what I still can't tell.
> 
> But know this...the terrorists of this world, as awful as we may perceive them to be, have a reason to believe we owe them something, if nothing else, our full and undivided attention.


























That says everything I've thought about before, but wow you said it way better than I ever could!


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> hakeber - We do need to meet the basic human needs of all citizens of the world, but please remember terrorism isn't only about having needs met. Terrorism occurs for a number of reasons; it's not always due to a "need." Sometimes it's a bunch of tyrants trying to enforce their will on the world around them, including their fellow countrymen, and Osama was one of those tyrants. Nothing except violence would have stopped him. Hamas makes humanitarian efforts and seems to care about getting some needs met, but is still a terrorist organization. Organizations like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't humanitarian at all. They're just tyrants. Do they have a valid reason to be angry at the US? yes. Does it justify their actions? No. We on the other hand aren't acting out of anger, but to protect ourselves.
> 
> *A) Actually terrorism is absolutely about having needs met and little else. ALL violence is about meeting an unmet need. Selfishly? Horribly? Yes. But the need to be heard, to be a valid part of the human fabric of life is met, and it is an undeniably basic human need.*
> 
> 
> 
> *B) I bet the families of those who join the forces of these groups see them as humanitarian. I bet the families who are well looked after (far better than by their own governments who allow them to live in poverty and who are generally financially backed by the US and much much more importantly the World Bank) see them as humanitarian and more importantly, THEY see themselves as humanitarians, liberating the world from the emprical forces that oppress so much of the developing world. And I disagree...it justifies their actions to THEM, hence why they happen. And we were never acting to "protect ourselves". His death will not stop murder, terrorism or violence. To think otherwise is extremely naive.*
> 
> hakeber - Your post was great except that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, we have arrested many members of al Qaeda that took part in the attacks, Obama didn't claim victory like Bush and made it clear it was our military that caught the guy (his SUPPORTORS are using it to sing his praises, not him). When you destroy a group's leader, especially when that leader is charismatic and inspirational, you do weaken the organization. *Perhaps they will find a new head that manages to pull them back together. Perhaps they will not.*
> 
> *Actually those tapes were declared fakes (the source never revealed and mysteriously being made for no apparent reason whatsoever other than to conveniently implicate himself???and then he denies it???? does that make sense???) and it has been denied again and again, even unrelated sources, source who have nothing to gain from them being false, have sworn that the man in those tapes is not Bin Laden at all. *
> 
> *The "confessions" of the "AlQaeda members" and their "testimony" that Osama was the ring leader, as you may recall. were taken after "extreme interrogation" IE torture and anyone who believes a confession made under the threat of torture is a valid confession both hasn't read our constitution and also is a bit of a fool, to be frank. Furthermore, the report in which these confessions were published was written by people who were neither allowed to interview the confessors themselves nor allowed to make inquiries to verify the truth of these confessions...so in my book...rubbish. Sorry...but this has never been evidence enough to convince a Grand Jury and it's not evidence enough for me either.*
> 
> *OBL has been neither charismatic, nor inspirational for the last decade...he has been in HIDING (though, now it seems not so much...apparently hanging out on a big hugely visible castle like compound...hmmmm, weird how they couldn't find him, eh? given they can find a pocket sized cellphone through satellites, but they just missed a giant caslte like compound in the most suspect place ever...weird.) Trust me, it's not going to weaken their resolve. Hell, most of the taliban supporting chat boards don't even believe he's really dead. *
> 
> *Finally, if you think President Obama just sits back while his supporters control the media and he and his press office have no control over how the news is being conveyed you have a naive vision of how media and poltics work together. Haven't you ever seen the West Wing? *


ETA: You don't really believe that last part I highlighted in Red and underlined...do you? For Goodness sake...please tell me this is a wind up.

ETAA: And I JUST realized, by looking at your siggie, that you were probably about 15 when these attacks happened, weren't you? So, probably you haven't done a lot of study into the media circus that was (and is) 9/11, not to mention middle east politics, economic policies, Regan/Bush Era history, the World Bank, Iran Contra, the struggle for Jerusalem...stuff like that, eh? If you are interested in reading more about some of the actual facts in the region and finding out some of the international opinions on the matter, and if you are at all interested in learning more about some of the issues pointed out here, PM me. I have some fanatasic articles for you to read. You should check out some of Noam Chomsky's interviews on these topics.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.


Hell of a lot easier than telling then those deaths were justified because of "the war on terror".

"Oh, don't worry, I know a whole lot of people died, but it was for a good cause."


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Let me turn that right back around: Tell what you have to say to the thousands of civilians, American and non-American, who have lost their lives because of those terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> I *think* Musician Dad's point was that the lives of all of those civilians - both those that were killed as a result of terrorist attacks likely orchestrated or encouraged by OBL and those that were killed by US military action were equally precious, and that it's equally devastating that any of them died. The lives lost on the receiving end of the violence caused by OBL and those like him were not any more (or less) valuable than those lost in fighting the war on "terror." And I, for one, would be willing to say that to anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11, or anyone who lost a civilian loved one in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the only difference is the supposed "good guys" are trying to justify the deaths of civilians as a result of the war on terror using the deaths of civilians killed by Bin Laden.

If you are going to condemn one person for doing something, you can't then turn around and do the same thing and justify it as right. Not unless hypocrisy is your goal.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I think the SEALs who were the ones in their moment risking their lives made the decision they thought was best in the heat of that moment for accomplishing their goal of bringing him in, dead or alive.

I have already acknowledged that we contributed to the factors that led to these terrorist attacks. We did not, however, highjack and crash those planes and therefore, no, we aren't the only ones to blame.

I haven't projected my reality on anyone; I have acknowledged time and again that this is my opinion, while you all tell me how wrong my opinion is and how right yours is... if anyone is guilty of projecting their own reality on another, it's not me.

And yes, I do believe that when you remove the head of an organization, you wound the organization. Some organizations recover; some don't. You don't know that an already weakening al Qaeda will recover from this. OBL IS charismatic and inspirational to the group he leads; even in hiding, he releases videos meant to encourage violence against the west world.

I haven't said that any civilian deaths were justified. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. The only death I've called justfied is bin Laden's, because he was a worldwide wanted murdering terrorist.

And once again, here you all are using the good/bad guys terminology, when I have yet to use it.









We have more than just testimony obtained under torture. We have testimony of the man running the flight training school, where a highjacker trained. We have identified many of the highjackers and investigation of their roots have only turned up more evidence. We have a videotaped confession, which would hold up in court. We have the previous attack on the WTC organized by bin Laden. Why do you think that the only testimony we have is from the al Qaeda detainees who were tortured? It's NOT. We have other evidence.


----------



## monkey's mom

White House now says bin Laden was unarmed.....and the reactions ain't good.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-legitimacy-idUSTRE74318620110504

Quote:


> Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there.
> 
> "It was quite clearly a violation of international law," .
> 
> It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.
> 
> "It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London.
> 
> "This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination."


Quote:


> A senior Muslim cleric in New Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, said U.S. troops could have easily captured bin Laden.
> 
> "America is promoting jungle rule everywhere, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Libya. People have remained silent for long but now it has crossed all limits."


----------



## insidevoice

Indeed. There will be backlash. It will be deserved.

It did not have to happen the way it did.


----------



## moonfirefaery

It didn't have to happen like it did, but any other way there would still have been backlash. And any other way would have had other drawbacks as well. Everyone has their own opinion, but the leaders of the world--with the exception of terrorists--so far are not calling it unlawful. I hope you're talking about backlash in the form of critique of our actions from the rest of the world, rather than violent backlash; because if it's the latter, I find the comment absolutely disgusting, borderline suggesting that the innocents who died on 9/11 deserved it over their government's actions in the Middle East.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> It didn't have to happen like it did, but any other way there would still have been backlash. And any other way would have had other drawbacks as well. Everyone has their own opinion, but the leaders of the world--with the exception of terrorists--so far are not calling it unlawful. I hope you're talking about backlash in the form of critique of our actions from the rest of the world, rather than violent backlash; because if it's the latter, I find the comment absolutely disgusting, borderline *suggesting that the innocents who died on 9/11 deserved it over their government's actions in the Middle East.*


I think it is a fair cry from suggesting people deserved to be killed on 9-11 to acknowledging that it was American actions that directly led to the event. One is madness and the other is history.


----------



## Amatullah0

My (mostly unorganized) thoughts:

Does this remind anyone else of Voldemort? I mean, the way people are celebrating would make it seem like OBL=all evil in the world, and his death means no more evil.

My cousin is supposed to be going on a (pre-scheduled) school trip to DC this week. I don't think it's wise, and I also don't think it's wise for people to be celebrating as if this is the end of all evil. I mean if al-qaeda is "the enemy" we should keep in mind that it exists for a reason, and that reason is based off of (real or perceived) oppression and injustice. They're not going to go away just because a figurehead dies. The "war" in the middle east didn't end just because Bush's presidency did--(though that might not be a good example).

AND, if people are upset about his assassination(and i'm sure there are people who are upset, whether it's the loss of a leader or the burial issue or whatever other reason) it's to be expected that they will do something about it. Especially if they have the same capabilities that we assume OBL had. It's not like he was alone in whatever he may or may not have done.

I'm waiting for the next bin laden video to be released. Not that I really care, but I'm among those who don't really think he's dead --- but even if he is dead, I don't think it matters, because it's not a man who "we" were ever fighting. It isn't as tangible as that.

I don't support terrorism of any kind, but at the same time, I've been in agreement with PPs who've spoken to the effect of not really knowing who "the terrorists" are. Is it "ok" to use terrorism against perceived terrorists? is it "ok" to "fight back" if you don't have an established country supporting you? is it "ok" to kill unarmed civilian men, women, and children?(both "sides" have/do)

Is anyone else here uncomfortable with the fact that a big country can battle against a smaller, seemingly less organized, group of people, and have it be called a "war" but that less structured battle (9/11 definitely qualifies) is considered an act of terrorism? I think it's interesting, that even our terminology is "unfair" but whatever makes "you" feel better about yourself, I guess.

and the term "shock and awe" still hits me wrong. I didn't know why before, but this thread has made me realize that "shock and awe" is the exact goal of "terrorism"

In this, I'm not on either "side." I'm a Muslim living in the US, and NEITHER "side" is fighting for anything that I value(though both "sides" seem to think they are). My government has made me uncomfortable with being Muslim in my society. I fear what might happen to me or my family if it gets worse. I feel much more comfortable living in abroad, and we will most likely move out of the states when we get a chance.

"side" is in quotations because this is way more complicated than good and evil or black and white or what have you.

re: the hating freedom thing, I actually feel more freedom here, in Pakistan, than I do in the United States. I can speak my mind here(in my own home) without fear of the government. That isn't something that I'm comfortable doing at home.

I also think that it's interesting that the house that he was in is being called a compound. It was just a house, no?

Thats pretty much all I have though, I think. I'm honestly not too interested in this, and I don't feel like me knowing about it further does any good.


----------



## eclipse

I was wondering about the "compound" thing, too. I guess there were multiple buildings on the property, at least from the drawing I saw of it. From the outside, it doesn't look any different than a house I'd see on my street here in Tijuana, Mexico, though. My house is one of the few that doesn't have high walls restricting the view on to the property, many have barbed wire at the top, all have gates that need to open to allow cars to pass on to the property, many have small out buildings (usually storage/laundry rooms or small studios). It certainly didn't look like the "mansion" the media are reporting it as. I saw some footage supposedly shot inside after the raid, and it didn't look extravagant. I'm not sure what the standard of living is in that part of Pakistan, but it didn't look much different than my large but otherwise average Mexican house.


----------



## Amatullah0

And, I looked up the whole compound/house thing, (this article: http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/conspicuous_hideout_06b3f495-0776-4b39-9fcc-dff067688b1c.html ) and honestly, most of the description of the place reminds me of a lot of the houses around here(pakistan). We live in a normal, 2-story, 2-family house. There is a super rich house in the neighborhood, they once had a wedding in the family, and invited everyone in the town. The house across the street from us is pretty big, there is an empty plot of land nextdoor to that (directly across the street from us) and there is is a way more simple, tiny, unfinished looking 1-story house next to that. Right next door to that, a humongous 2 story house is being built, and the house+yard will take up 3 plots of land. Our PARKS -- the places where kids are supposed to(and do) play are surrounded by barbed wire. If there is any yard or driveway in the house at all(the normal/rich/newer houses all have some form of this) there is going to be a 12ish(haven't measured, lol) foot wall surrounding it. All of the houses have some form of "barrier" preventing people from jumping the wall, whether it is barbed wire, spikes, or glass shards and broken bottles that have been embedded in the concrete covered walls. The inside of our house has got to be 4 times larger than the small one across the street from us, and there are way bigger houses around too. Most of the richer people, or those with nicer houses, hire guards to protect their house, and they stand outside the gate with huge guns over their shoulder. EVERYONE burns garbage around here. It's either that, or throw it in an empty lot somewhere. Many places don't have trash pickup, and even in places that do, people don't actually use it (they burn their own garbage, instead of having someone else do it) Some rich person in our town paid to give all of the residents trash cans for garbage collection so they would actually take advantage of the collection. He got mad when he found out that some people were using the cans to store (non-garbage) things in. Oh, and people don't put ANYTHING outside. not mail, not trash. If you have a letter, the mail person rings your doorbell. There isn't a mailbox. If you have garbage, and you're actually going to use the trash collection, you keep it in the house until they come and ring your doorbell to tell you they're here to get your trash.

My point is, most of the description just sounds normal.... except the $1mil.... thats a crazy amount of money, especially here, but people that have it will definitely use it.(and some people do have that kind of money, especially if they have family working overseas.)


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> It didn't have to happen like it did, but any other way there would still have been backlash. And any other way would have had other drawbacks as well. Everyone has their own opinion, but the leaders of the world--with the exception of terrorists--so far are not calling it unlawful. I hope you're talking about backlash in the form of critique of our actions from the rest of the world, rather than violent backlash; because if it's the latter, I find the comment absolutely disgusting, borderline suggesting that the innocents who died on 9/11 deserved it over their government's actions in the Middle East.


I was speaking in terms of political fallout and international criticism. My mind doesn't ever go to people deserving violence which, really, is the whole point of everything that has been said here.

The biggest question for me is whether the SEALS were ordered to kill him, or whether one of them made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. I want that answered.


----------



## eclipse

Amatullah - yeah, I think to people only used to living in a suburban US neighborhood, that house would look weird - but it wouldn't be out of place here. There's been a lot of talk about how the neighbors should have been suspicious - but that place being built on my block wouldn't have phased me. Having a house here that allows people to walk up to the front door without being allowed on the property is seen as crazy and dangerous. We don't have a 12 foot wall, but we do have a huge wrought iron fence, with spikes at some points (although my 10 year old can scale the fence without getting hurt, so I doubt it would keep a determined criminal out!). And, yeah, parks and playgrounds have barbed wire.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Thao - My opinions are based on the facts that I have become aware of through my research, not assumptions.


I'm wondering what sort of facts you've found that you can confidently say that all of the people celebrating the 9/11 attacks were motivated by (hate? vengeance?) and not any desire to better the lives of their people?


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> The biggest question for me is whether the SEALS were ordered to kill him, or whether one of them made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. I want that answered.


Yes. Some sort of introspection and analysis on whether or not we violated the law and how the raid went down and why we thought he was armed....oh wait....no, he wasn't.

I mean, really. Does no one care about OUR part in any of this?


----------



## insidevoice

Indeed. I realize that it can't bring him back to life, but I do think that everyone has a right to know whether this was an assassination or if something went out of control. I heard a blip on a news story that only three people were in the room when he was killed, but it is also my understanding that there are cameras in the helmets- I would much rather THAT footage be made public knowledge than some gory photo of a dead man. I want to understand why the decision was made to kill him in that moment.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Was it a bad decision? The goal was to take him alive or dead, without injuring any of our men. In the heat of the moment, during a gunfight, when your enemy reaches for something, it is not unreasonable to assume he is reaching for a gun and to shoot him before he can get it. When you know your enemy approves of suicide bombing, it is not unreasonable to suspect he may be wearing a device that he could detonate, killing himself and you in the explosion. When you know your enemy is remarkably evasive and your goal is to capture him dead or alive, if you have any indication that he may get away, it is not unreasonable to take the dead option. A woman rushed our men; we didn't know if she was had a weapon of some kind on her (a knife, gun, explosive device). She could have given Osama the window he needed to get away. Osama could have had a knife, gun, or more likely an explosive device on. Our troops could have no way of knowing what was beneath his clothing. I don't blame them for limiting the risks to their lives by not allowing him anywhere near their bodies until after he was no longer alive.

Thao - As I've said, I don't consider the people of the world to be naive enough to think that killing 3000 Americans will improve the lives of anyone, as history as shown what inevitably follows an attack of America. That is my opinion. If you think they were all cheering thinking "Yes, we've attacked America, and now our lives will be better!" then I would like to see what facts you have to back that up, too. Attacking America has never made anyone's life better throughout history.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I was speaking in terms of political fallout and international criticism. My mind doesn't ever go to people deserving violence which, really, is the whole point of everything that has been said here.
> 
> The biggest question for me is whether the SEALS were ordered to kill him, or whether one of them made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. I want that answered.


Fair enough.

Yes, I'd like to know what the exact orders were. I'd like to know what the motive of the man who fired the shot was. Did he suspect Osama was an armed threat? Did he think Osama had a good chance of escaping during the confrontation? We can't know what's on a man's person unless we search him, and searching him while he's alive can result in death to the man doing the searching if Osama is indeed armed especially with explosives. He wasn't...but that doesn't men our young men acted wrongly. Their lives were at stake, too.


----------



## eclipse

insidevoice, when you heard "three people," do you know if they were talking about three SEALS, three members of the Bin Laden family, or three total? I'm interested because supposedly Bin Laden's wife was in the room, and his 12 year old daughter claims that she was witness to the shooting (and incidentally, that he was in custody before being shot, though I know we can't take her word for it as absolute truth). I'm just wondering if the three people being referred to were OBL, his wife, and daughter.

And, yeah, I want to know what the orders were. Were they kill on sight? Were they "bring him in alive if you *can*", wink, wink, wink. . .Or did they really want him alive if possible? Was the SEAL who shot him, or any of the other soldiers, or any of the civilians in immediate danger if they didn't shoot to kill? Did the SEAL react in a moment of panic? (and honestly, I can't say I'd blame him if he saw something that scared him and he fired - I just want to know). I doubt we'll ever see unedited footage from those cameras, though - we're supposed to take on face value that everything that the military and the government says about the operation is true.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Amatullah - Yes, this whole thing has reminded me of Voldemort and Harry Potter; I didn't want to be the first to bring it up though. I didn't want people to think I didn't take it seriously or something. OBL is a real-life Voldemort; al Qaeda are real life Death Eaters. I see the parrallels. But even in the book, they acknowledge that there have been and always will be other evils. Even the people celebrating know that this is not the end...but to many, maybe not to all, it is still an accomplishment worth noting. Also in the books, Death Eaters functioned without their leader, but were not as coordinated, organized, and united without him. When your leader binds you together as a group with his charisma and ideals, and then you lose him, the group is left vulnerable unless another leader can step up and be just as strong. That doesn't always happen. Evil will always find someone to rally behind, but we shouldn't stop trying to fight back against those tyrant leaders as if there's no point.

About fighting fire with fire... I think sometimes, you're obligated to. Obama's obligation first and foremost is to safeguard his people, Americans. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have prepared videos to release after his death; they've probably planned ahead.


----------



## moonfirefaery

eclipse, I agree... even if it was a bad decision in a moment of panic, how can you blame him? I can't even imagine what a situation like that must be like, what it must feel like, how your heart must pound, how alert you'd have to be. Even if they weren't in immediate danger, they had very good reason to believe they were. They were about to kill a man who has no qualms about killing himself to take others out. He could have had anything on his person. I think they just wanted to complete the mission and come home alive. Yes we should question their motives and want to know what happened, but I think we need to remember the unique pressures these men were facing, the dire jeopardy their lives were in when we are assessing their actions.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Amatullah - Yes, this whole thing has reminded me of Voldemort and Harry Potter; I didn't want to be the first to bring it up though. I didn't want people to think I didn't take it seriously or something. OBL is a real-life Voldemort; al Qaeda are real life Death Eaters. I see the parrallels. But even in the book, they acknowledge that there have been and always will be other evils. Even the people celebrating know that this is not the end...but to many, maybe not to all, it is still an accomplishment worth noting. Also in the books, Death Eaters functioned without their leader, but were not as coordinated, organized, and united without him. When your leader binds you together as a group with his charisma and ideals, and then you lose him, the group is left vulnerable unless another leader can step up and be just as strong. That doesn't always happen. Evil will always find someone to rally behind, but we shouldn't stop trying to fight back against those tyrant leaders as if there's no point.
> 
> About fighting fire with fire... I think sometimes, you're obligated to. Obama's obligation first and foremost is to safeguard his people, Americans. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have prepared videos to release after his death; they've probably planned ahead.


hmm totally off topic but I find very little in common with harry potter and OBL...now HP and the nazis, I could wax on and on about that. "Show us your papers!"


----------



## mar123

This article is very interesting about those who are celebrating the death; once I thought about it, I realized that most of the people truly jubiliant are young people and the article brought up some interesting points.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/04/bin.laden.911.generation.react/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> This article is very interesting about those who are celebrating the death; once I thought about it, I realized that most of the people truly jubiliant are young people and the article brought up some interesting points.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/04/bin.laden.911.generation.react/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1


very interesting! thank you for posting...I was 14 at the time, we weren't sheltered, I find myself disagreeing with a lot of what the articcle says but I am typing one handed because dd is sleeping on my other arm so I can't write a novel about it now.


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> This article is very interesting about those who are celebrating the death; once I thought about it, I realized that most of the people truly jubiliant are young people and the article brought up some interesting points.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/05/04/bin.laden.911.generation.react/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1


Young college students tend to go overboard crazy about everything... the world should really not base what America is about on our college students! You didn't see any soldiers(deployed or otherwise) rejoicing in celebration, and the are the ones most directly effected by this.


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Indeed. There will be backlash. *It will be deserved*.
> 
> It did not have to happen the way it did.


How disgusting.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> How disgusting.


insidevoice made it clear that she was not talking about violent backlash, but political backlash a few posts down thread from this quote.

Anyhow, the WH has just announced that they won't be releasing photos of his body.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Ldavis24 - HP is definitely most comparable to the Nazis, but I think there are some parrallels here as well. In HP and with AQ you have an organization that hates everyone who is not like them, led by a terrorist leader, that keeps the world in fear for decades. It's not as close a comparison as with the Nazis but I do think it's there.

And I agree that the young people are celebrating the most, and I understand why. Some were children when 911 happened; they grew up seeing this man's face on TV, knowing he was the world's most wanted and feared terrorist, knowing that he killed 3000 people and remained at large. For those of you who are 30, 40, 50, ten years is just that: a decade...but for people who have only lived two decades, or even one, this manhunt is an era that has taken up almost half of our lives, or more. For it to end is a huge deal.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Ldavis24 - HP is definitely most comparable to the Nazis, but I think there are some parrallels here as well. In HP and with AQ you have an organization that hates everyone who is not like them, led by a terrorist leader, that keeps the world in fear for decades. It's not as close a comparison as with the Nazis but I do think it's there.
> 
> And I agree that the young people are celebrating the most, and I understand why. Some were children when 911 happened; they grew up seeing this man's face on TV, knowing he was the world's most wanted and feared terrorist, knowing that he killed 3000 people and remained at large. For those of you who are 30, 40, 50, ten years is just that: a decade...but for people who have only lived two decades, or even one, this manhunt is an era that has taken up almost half of our lives, or more. For it to end is a huge deal.


well for that matter we could compare it to any organization that hates those unlike them..

I am a mere 25 years old and I don't like being lumped in with your generalization about our generation. it is NOT the end of anything. it is the death of a single man, I think you are inflating the impact this will have tremendously.


----------



## monkey's mom

And, I guess as an older person, it's a "huge deal" to watch our people behave in ways we have historically condenmed. It seems like moral depravity. To be met with, "Eh...I'm fine with it," is quite shocking.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Is anyone else here uncomfortable with the fact that a big country can battle against a smaller, seemingly less organized, group of people, and have it be called a "war" but that less structured battle (9/11 definitely qualifies) is considered an act of terrorism? I think it's interesting, that even our terminology is "unfair" but whatever makes "you" feel better about yourself, I guess.


Good point.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> And, I guess as an older person, it's a "huge deal" to watch our people behave in ways we have historically condenmed. It seems like moral depravity. To be met with, "Eh...I'm fine with it," is quite shocking.


ugh I feel like I have to defend those of us young people who are NOT ok with the way people were acting. I was pretty disgusted frankly.


----------



## monkey's mom

no, mama.....i know.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I said "this manhunt is an era" and thus was referring only to the end of the man hunt. It's not the end of everything, but it is the end of the man hunt, which is all I called it. If you are 25, then this manhunt HAS spanned almost half of your life, just as it has mine. That was the only generalization I made, and it is a true one--unless a decade is no longer close to half of 25. I'm not inflating the impact it will have; my last sentence: "For it to end is a huge deal" was an expression of my opinion only, and given the news reports of so many youths celebrating way more loudly than I, I'm not the only one who holds that opinion by far. That's the point that I was attempting to make. No one here is saying that all youth are celebrating, but per the news reports the people making the grossest display of their celebration are young. I identify with their reaction, and I explained why.

I disagree that we have historically condemned celebrating the death of murderers and threats to our national security. My nonchalance about the celebration is as shocking to you as your shock and indignation about it is to me. We condemn celebrating the death of innocents. I haven't seen any historical precedence that condemns the celebration of the death of tyrants as undignified.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I said "this manhunt is an era" and thus was referring only to the end of the man hunt. It's not the end of everything, but it is the end of the man hunt, which is all I called it. If you are 25, then this manhunt HAS spanned almost half of your life, just as it has mine. That was the only generalization I made, and it is a true one--unless a decade is no longer close to half of 25. I'm not inflating the impact it will have; my last sentence: "For it to end is a huge deal" was an expression of my opinion only, and given the news reports of so many youths celebrating way more loudly than I, I'm not the only one who holds that opinion by far. That's the point that I was attempting to make. No one here is saying that all youth are celebrating, but per the news reports the people making the grossest display of their celebration are young. I identify with their reaction, and I explained why.
> 
> I disagree that we have historically condemned celebrating the death of murderers and threats to our national security. My nonchalance about the celebration is as shocking to you as your shock and indignation about it is to me. We condemn celebrating the death of innocents. I haven't seen any historical precedence that condemns the celebration of the death of tyrants as undignified.


"tyrant" and there in lies the point where I know we will never agree about the topic at hand...ah well..I'm off to go talk about peeing showers!


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I disagree that we have historically condemned celebrating the death of murderers and threats to our national security. My nonchalance about the celebration is as shocking to you as your shock and indignation about it is to me. We condemn celebrating the death of innocents. I haven't seen any historical precedence that condemns the celebration of the death of tyrants as undignified.


You might want to scan the news and opinion pieces.....it's been *kind of* a controversy. As I said previously, this seems to fall into a new gray area of social mores. To be met with such indignation about, "you can't even see the difference in these celebrations??" is just....wow. No. I can't. And it seems a LOT of other people can't either. To ME it is the same kind of social "given" as many other things....you just don't celebrate death. Just. don't.

And I will give it to Obama on the release of the picture....or lack thereof. His quote, "We just don't do that. We don't spike the football." Exactly.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> Thao - As I've said, I don't consider the people of the world to be naive enough to think that killing 3000 Americans will improve the lives of anyone, as history as shown what inevitably follows an attack of America. That is my opinion. If you think they were all cheering thinking "Yes, we've attacked America, and now our lives will be better!" then I would like to see what facts you have to back that up, too. Attacking America has never made anyone's life better throughout history.


Attacks against America have certainly occasionally achieved the political goals of the attackers, which their supporters would have believed (at the time of the attacks) would bring about a better life for them, whether or not a better life actually materialized later on or not. I've already mentioned Beirut, where the terrorist attack on our Marine barracks was a major factor in Reagan deciding to pull out of that country. Vietnam is another major example where violent resistance defeated the Americans and caused us to pull out. That's just two examples off the top of my head. So if it could happen then, why not after 9/11? Of course the attacks did not have the effect they wanted them to - we got more, not less involved in the middle east - but since it is a fact that violence has occasionally caused the US to change its policy, it is reasonable to think that some people hoped the 9/11 attacks would do so too.


----------



## moonfirefaery

We left Vietnam because it was a war we couldn't win, and as far as Regan pulling out of Beirut, I admit I am not familiar with that situation. I would like to see more examples where we were attacked--and fled because of it. Most of the time when we're attacked, 911 and Pearl Harbor two shining examples, we come down on them with an iron fist. The terrorists may have thought we'd leave; that's the basis for their "war." But I still doubt the average citizen was thinking "Now they will leave." The world didn't seem surprised when we increased our efforts in the Middle East; they expected it based on our history. Is that right? No, probably not; I remember learning about the Japan bombings and feeling aghast at my country. Our methods of protecting our people need improving, and when they do, our image will improve in the world (hopefully) and (also hopefully) help serve to protect our people.

I disagree that you "just don't" celebrate death, ever. Death is a part of life; it brings peace, healing, cleansing, renewal, and rebirth. That is what I believe has happened to bin Laden; he's certainly in a better 'world' than the one he left behind. When someone dies, I celebrate their life, but some deaths should be celebrated. Osama was corrupted by reprehensible circumstances, and I hope that in death he can find the healing and peace that he obviously never found in his life. I believe his death will do more good than his continued life. This is also what I hope his death can bring to the world. No, it won't bring world peace; it doesn't heal all hurts. But many people do feel like it begins a new day, ends an era of fear (even if it begins a new one), and brings closure. That's what people are celebrating (in addition to the removed threat). I have seen some people be crude, vulgar, and grossly inappropriate, and I don't approve of that but I don't mind people celebrating death. I'm also not going to rain on their parades because I don't like the way they are expressing their elation.

I think there is a difference between the celebrations, and I agree that we're probably not going to agree about that. I don't condemn those people celebrating, their right to celebrate as a means of freedom of speech. I find less justification in their motives and I disagree with them but I defend to the death their right to celebrate, well, whatever they want really. Is it distasteful to me? Yes. But it's their right. And this is ours. And because we're talking about the death of a man corrupted by hatred, a man whose life seems to bring mainly harm and destruction due to the corruption of his heart, a man who hopefully can now heal and be at peace, I don't think it's distasteful to celebrate it

As far as the photos, I applaud him. It's a classy move. Bin Laden's new silence will hopefully eventually serve to silence the skeptics, although I doubt they will ever be completely satisfied that he's gone even with the photographic evidence. We don't need to be parading his dead body around like barbarians in any way. I'm satisfied with how Obama has handled this so far.


----------



## monkey's mom

Oh, believe me, I defend their right to celebrate, burn a flag, you name it.

And after 9/11 when those men were famously celebrating at Lafayette Park (or wherever it was) and people were outraged saying they should be arrested and deported, I defended their right to celebrate as the MOST American thing that could happen.

But what was said at that time was "You do not celebrate death."

Not "death of innocents" not "they were celebrating al Qaeda's sucess." "You do not celebrate death." Period. Full stop. We all seemed to agree and understand that it was just The Way. They had a right to do it but it was offensive, vulgar, and not US.

That's why there's been so much "unAmerican" and "anti-American" qualifiers in the discussion of these celebrations. And shock, I guess. But if people were not privvy to that national discussion, it makes a lot more sense.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I don't approve of those qualifiers, but my perception was that a distinction was made that the celebration was wrong because it was innocent lives that were lost, so many of them, so many people that didn't deserve to die and left grieving families. Clearly our perceptions are very different. I do have to say that I feel so sorry for all his little daughters and sons, to lose their father and see people celebrating it. I can't imagine what that's like. Osama chose his actions, and these are the consequences of his choices. The whole world has felt those consequences for a decade; now the consequences of his death are felt by all.


----------



## moonfirefaery

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy-seals-return-united-states-killing-osama-bin/story?id=13525344

WHY are we telling the world where these valiant men are?! Doesn't that endanger them and make Andrews AFB a target? Terrorists will want the blood of these men, and they know exactly where to try and attack. Whether an attack would be successful is a matter of debate, but I don't agree with saying "This is where these guys are!" It's almost like we're "asking for it." Is it just me that thinks maybe we ought to shut up about where these young men are? Am I being paranoid here?


----------



## hakeber

So I was talking about this in my media studies class today with my students from Colombia. I said "what happened when the Leader of FARQ was assisinated here last year? Did you all dance in the streets? They looked at me like I was stupid or something. They said "what's to celebrate, there's already three new leaders ready to take their place." Their grunts have nothing left to live for, not even self-worth or dignity or a sense of country, and the people who have worked their way up through the organization see no way out alive but up. If AlQaeda are any different, I would like know why.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I have already acknowledged that we contributed to the factors that led to these terrorist attacks. We did not, however, highjack and crash those planes and therefore, no, we aren't the only ones to blame.
> 
> *So, just to be clear on what your opinion is: We helped to create the existence of these terrorist but we are resolved from any and all responsibility for the violence than ensued as a result of their existence? Is that right?*
> 
> *Also I reject the premise of your argument. I believe we (and by we I mercenaries working on behalf of members of the US government and the World Bank) very well MAY have hijacked the planes and crashed them into the targets. I find the evidence provided for those theories FAR more convincing than the ones given to condemn Osama.*
> 
> And yes, I do believe that when you remove the head of an organization, you wound the organization. Some organizations recover; some don't. You don't know that an already weakening al Qaeda will recover from this. OBL IS charismatic and inspirational to the group he leads; even in hiding, he releases videos meant to encourage violence against the west world.
> 
> *History of these sort of organizations (IRA, FARQ, ETA...) have a very different tale to tell. The only organizations of this ilk that have weakened or softened their resolve have generally done so due to finally having some modicum of peaceul negotiation or a drying up of private funding. I have yet to see any organization of this ilk lose it's head and not rise again from the ashes just as strong as before. This isn't like the Wizard of OZ or the Chronicales of Narnia where you kill the wicked witch and the spell of evil is lifted from their followers. If anything it grows more blinding than ever.*
> 
> We have more than just testimony obtained under torture. We have testimony of the man running the flight training school, where a highjacker trained. We have identified many of the highjackers and investigation of their roots have only turned up more evidence. We have a videotaped confession, which would hold up in court. We have the previous attack on the WTC organized by bin Laden. *Why do you think that the only testimony we have is from the al Qaeda detainees who were tortured?* It's NOT. We have other evidence.
> 
> *Because I have not seen, heard or read about any testimony that is not hearsay or circumstantial. If there were real evidence of his guilt, then UN forces would have forced Pakistan to hand him over ages ago, but Pakistan asked for Proof and the US couldn't give it to them. The Grand Jury could not indict Osama because there was not enough factual evidence. The video tapes did NOT stand up in court and were in fact thrown out as fakes and have only been used in the media circus to feed the fuel of hatred in this country. If you have links to this hard evidence and sworn testimony gotten without diress, that are not merely "I heard him say he said to do it." or even "he told me to." Can you share them, because I would love to see it. What I have seen and heard of and read about is NOT evidence. No murder trial in the WORLD will convict a man because three or three hundred people said "he did it." That's not how justice works. You have to have a smoking gun, you have to provide proof. There is none. Either because he is very smart, OR PERHAPS, because he didn't do it. We won't know now, because they shot him. How's that for tying up loose ends? *


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> About fighting fire with fire... I think sometimes, you're obligated to. Obama's obligation first and foremost is to safeguard his people, Americans. And I wouldn't be surprised if they have prepared videos to release after his death; they've probably planned ahead.


Can you see the irony here? They are not allowed to attack US soil despite the unofficial war of violence and terror our financial support has waged on their people for generations, but we can take that eye back...because we have a flag recognized by the UN? Or what? I mean what is the logical process that takes you from this comment to they have no right to use fire power against our innocent people. But we have the right to use fire power against one man and his family, and his guards? Were those surrounding and living in the house not innocent? For that matter were the tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed along the 10 year search for this man just what had to be done? If sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...when is it justified and when isn't it? If it was just one man who was killed here I could see what you mean, but it has taken 10 years, and many more thousands of innocent lives to reach this point. It has been much more like fighting fire with a global arsenal of mass anihilation, don't you think?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> And, I guess as an older person, it's a "huge deal" to watch our people behave in ways we have historically condenmed. It seems like moral depravity. To be met with, "Eh...I'm fine with it," is quite shocking.


Yes, It is. Not just shocking truly terrifying. If we cannot count on our younger generations to question authority now more than ever, if we cannot count on them to

examine the propaganda sold to them and to criticall evaluate the information they are presented...I fear for the future of the world. Basic ethics, thinking skills and logic are missing here...did these programs get cut in the educational budgets of the Bush era? Didn't this generation take those classes in High school?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy-seals-return-united-states-killing-osama-bin/story?id=13525344
> 
> WHY are we telling the world where these valiant men are?! Doesn't that endanger them and make Andrews AFB a target? Terrorists will want the blood of these men, and they know exactly where to try and attack. Whether an attack would be successful is a matter of debate, but I don't agree with saying "This is where these guys are!" It's almost like we're "asking for it." Is it just me that thinks maybe we ought to shut up about where these young men are? Am I being paranoid here?


No, I do not think you are not being paranoid, but you are failing to connect the dots...why oh why would the US media/government want this information out there...hmmmm, I wonder? If we're lucky, you're right and AlQaeda will be too scared to try anything with Big Bad America now that their leader is dead, and we can prove that we won the war on terror by being even more terrifying. But I doubt that is the reason...what do you think?


----------



## hakeber

This article is the worst written article ever.

Quote:


> The SEALs worried that bin Laden might be wearing a suicide vest or have the room booby trapped.
> 
> White House spokesman Jay Carney reaffirmed that the murder of an unarmed bin Laden was lawful.
> 
> "The team had the authority to kill Osama bin Laden unless he offered to surrender, in which case the team was required to accept his surrender if the team could do so safely. The operation was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the laws of war," said Carney at a press conference today.


So they were instructed to kill him...unless he might want to surrender, except if you think he might be aramed with suicide vest don't wait for surrender, Shoot to kill...and it was "lawful" because we (a STATE) were at war with him (a MAN), despite never having declared official war on him because after all a war can only be declared by a STATE on another state...but it was legal for them to kill him...unless somebody thought he was going to surrender...unless they thought he might be wearing a suicide vest.

errrr....okay then.

These people are just not that stupid. There is a reason the the PTB want us to be in constant death grip of battle with this part of the world. There is a reason this is being orchestrated. I just can't believe that they don't even bother to cover it up well anymore. Just goes to show how much they think our intelligence.


----------



## eclipse

Yeah, I'm wondering how long they waited to give him a chance to surrender after bursting into his bedroom and shooting his wife.


----------



## insidevoice

Based on his health complications, is it realistic to expect him to have surrendered? I mean, this was a frail and elderly man who may not have been well enough to really resist- OR surrender. Something about it feels off to me, and I find myself praying that some SEAL got overzealous and stupid (though that would be exactly what SHOULDN'T happen with their training...). I hate to think that there was an order given for summary execution.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> How disgusting.


And why is that disgusting? There shouldn't be political backlash when a nation chooses to function outside of international law?


----------



## Thao

Quote:
Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 

We left Vietnam because it was a war we couldn't win, and as far as Regan pulling out of Beirut, I admit I am not familiar with that situation. I would like to see more examples where we were attacked--and fled because of it. Most of the time when we're attacked, 911 and Pearl Harbor two shining examples, we come down on them with an iron fist. The terrorists may have thought we'd leave; that's the basis for their "war." But I still doubt the average citizen was thinking "Now they will leave."

But I still say that doubt is based on an assumption, probably based on what you would think in that situation. You've given two examples where we did not withdraw after being attacked. I've given you two examples where we did withdraw after being attacked (I'm not sure why you dismiss my example of Vietnam? - yes, it was a war we couldn't win, and the reason we couldn't win it is because the Vietnamese consistently attacked us, therefore it is a perfect example of violent attacks causing us to withdraw.) So as far as facts go, we are even. With further research, we could probably both come up with more examples where the US either did or did not withdraw from a situation after being attacked, but it wouldn't make much difference. Because the fact is, sometimes violence works and sometimes it doesn't. And you can't possibly know whether the people celebrating the 9/11 attacks were thinking of Beirut or Pearl Harbor.

Heck, even if you could prove that we had NEVER withdrawn after an attack, it still wouldn't be proof of the intentions of the people celebrating. Because there is always a first time, you know? The US had never been beaten in a war when the Vietnamese took up arms against us. By your logic, they must all have known that they had zero possibility of success, and were just in it for vengeance and sheer bloodthirstiness. Which would be wrong. The Vietnamese were in it because they hoped to win, and of course they did.

As for your take on celebrating death, sure, death can be celebrated sometimes. Maybe when an elderly or very sick person naturally passes away. But I do not think it is ever appropriate to celebrate the killing of someone against their will. Celebrating a new era with a weakened Al-Qaida, okay. But from what I saw a lot of the people celebrating where celebrating the killing of OBL. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thao*
> 
> As for your take on celebrating death, sure, death can be celebrated sometimes. Maybe when an elderly or very sick person naturally passes away.


Actually, even then it's not so much about celebrating the fact they are dead. It's about celebrating the life the had had before death/debilitating illness.

I am pretty sure the people celebrating Bin Laden's death, weren't celebrating because of the life he lived.


----------



## love4bob

I get that he was ill, but he wasn't elderly by any means.... he was 54.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Based on his health complications, is it realistic to expect him to have surrendered?


See, for me, based on........dudes in jump out gear just stormed in....is it realistic to expect him to have surrendered? Were they identifying themselves? You're in a home invasion situation--how likely are you to put your hands calmly up and surrender yourself. I mean, did he even know it was the USA? That just seems ridiculous.

I've been in a home when the DEA busted in w/ automatic weapons and vests and masks. That shit is insane. Everyone's screaming all at the same time. I can't imagine adding gunfire and your children to the mix. Wha


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> I get that he was ill, but he wasn't elderly by any means.... he was 54.


I guess for me it's more a matter of health/well being than actual age. I've met some 85 year olds I have a hard time thinking of as 'elderly' and some folks in assisted living facilities in their 40s who are frail enough to seem so- I guess that's my thought. He's been on dialysis for over a decade- I just can't envision him as the picture of health.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> See, for me, based on........dudes in jump out gear just stormed in....is it realistic to expect him to have surrendered? Were they identifying themselves? You're in a home invasion situation--how likely are you to put your hands calmly up and surrender yourself. I mean, did he even know it was the USA? That just seems ridiculous.
> 
> I've been in a home when the DEA busted in w/ automatic weapons and vests and masks. That shit is insane. Everyone's screaming all at the same time. I can't imagine adding gunfire and your children to the mix. Wha


I completely agree. I was unfortunate enough to awaken once to the SWAT team going into the home next door. Meanwhile my family was directed to our basement in the chaos. It's not particularly feasible to simply follow instructions instantly in that kind of craziness and noise.


----------



## eclipse

I also think that if there were real concerns about booby trapped rooms and suicide vests, they wouldn't have been shooting - there's too much chance for a bullet to go stray and set off the bomb they're trying to avoid setting off.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> I also think that if there were real concerns about booby trapped rooms and suicide vests, they wouldn't have been shooting - there's too much chance for a bullet to go stray and set off the bomb they're trying to avoid setting off.


Not to mention, there is nothing to say these supposed traps don't have remote detonation that someone could press as soon as bullets started firing.


----------



## insidevoice

I just want an honest answer. I want to know at what point it was decided this man was not leaving alive. If it was the President, I want to know that. If it was a single member of the team who went in, I want to know that as well. I think that information is pertinent and should be public knowledge.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I just want an honest answer. I want to know at what point it was decided this man was not leaving alive. If it was the President, I want to know that. If it was a single member of the team who went in, I want to know that as well. I think that information is pertinent and should be public knowledge.


I'd guess we'll get that sort of information around the same time as when we'll see the top secret concrete evidence the US government has that Bin Laden is guilty of being the mastermind behind 9/11 which they have been keeping confidential as a matter of national security.

I also find it suspicious that Bush does not wish to join Obama at Ground zero for a lasso twirlin' yee-haw over this. Why not, G-Dub?


----------



## love4bob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> I'd guess we'll get that sort of information around the same time as when we'll see the top secret concrete evidence the US government has that Bin Laden is guilty of being the mastermind behind 9/11 which they have been keeping confidential as a matter of national security.
> 
> I also find it suspicious that Bush does not wish to join Obama at Ground zero for a lasso twirlin' yee-haw over this. Why not, G-Dub?


Why would he? And maybe he agrees with you all that it is not a cause for a celebration?


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'd like the answers to all these questions but as to this:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> I also think that if there were real concerns about booby trapped rooms and suicide vests, they wouldn't have been shooting - there's too much chance for a bullet to go stray and set off the bomb they're trying to avoid setting off.


I don't think you're as qualified to make that assessment as our nation's highly trained "elite of the elite" soldiers.


----------



## insidevoice

Oh, I agree that it's unlikely we will ever get that information. It frustrates me. I will always hold out hope that things will improve in the US, but it is not where we plan to raise our family in the long run.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *love4bob*
> 
> Why would he? And maybe he agrees with you all that it is not a cause for a celebration?


I'm sort of being fascetious with my why not. The thing is, his family has had long ties with the BinLaden crew for the last twenty odd years. This might not be something worth celebrating for George Bush, but I don't think it's for the same reasons as we are lead to believe. But the rhetoric in some of his speeches regarding this man would have lead one to believe he utterly loathed him beyond belief, that Bin Laden was the most vile human being alive, that he was the center of axis of evil and that Bush would not rest until Bin Laden was found and punshied for his crimes. That was the story his press office told us for nearly 8 years. Every speech he made seemed some how to work in a comment about how he was on the job of erradicating terrorism and it would start with Bin Laden. Evidence or no evidence he would track him down like a dog and see him pay for the crimes he committed...even if he didn't commit them.

So...why be quiet about 9/11 now? What's that all about? It just doesn't add up, and I would appreciate it if my own government and the media conglommerates that portray them, didn't think so little of my intelligence that they think they can get away with half-truths, logical clusterf*&^ks, and major omissions under the blanket of "national security" and I'll just swallow it. Frankly, I am started to feel really insulted by the whole thing.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Oh, I agree that it's unlikely we will ever get that information. It frustrates me. I will always hold out hope that things will improve in the US, *but it is not where we plan to raise our family in the long run. *


I hear that!


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'd like the answers to all these questions but as to this:
> 
> I don't think you're as qualified to make that assessment as our nation's highly trained "elite of the elite" soldiers.


I know what my ex husband's training was regarding those vests, and it would not be to shoot within the confines of a building. If they are going to shoot to kill (and they do) it is at range with a head shot. This is why so many children who are used as messengers have been shot, they can't allow them to get close enough to see if there is a bomb or not. He was/is one of the 'elite' in a different branch.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> Yeah, I'm wondering how long they waited to give him a chance to surrender after bursting into his bedroom and shooting his wife.


She RUSHED them. She could have had a knife, gun, grenade, suicide belt, or other explosive device on. They had NO idea. What should they have done? Grabbed her and restrained her? Even if it meant blowing up, getting shot, or being stabbed?

Thao, I think that the common citizens that support terrorists are deceived and that terrorists themselves act primarily out of vengeance, the desire to control and to be in power, and hatred. Terrorists warp religion into a radical form that doesn't resemble the accepted dogma much at all, then they enforce that religion on others. They believe they are fighting right, but they are cruel and domineering. Others may be deceived into believe they are fighting for the right, because no one else seems to be doing it. The people in the world that celebrated 911 were terrorists and their supportors... and to celebrate the deaths of 3000 innocents, they must have been at least a little bloodthirsty. I think there are many people in the world who were blood thirsty for bin Laden, too...but at least we punished bin Laden for his crimes, not innocent people for their government's.

Osama's heart was corrupted with hatred. He killed children. He kills Muslims. I do look at it as being very much as if a very sick person has died.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'd like the answers to all these questions but as to this:
> 
> I don't think you're as qualified to make that assessment as our nation's highly trained "elite of the elite" soldiers.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I can't imagine that bullets flying around explosives could ever be anything but crazy dangerous. But in any case, I'm just as qualified as any one else to call bullsh!it when I hear it. On the one hand, "If OBL had surrendered, we would have taken him in alive." On the other hand, "We were super duper extra worried about suicide vests and booby traps, so we had to take him out before he triggered them. So, how's a guy going to surrender if they're so worried that he's going to blow them up that any move he makes could be construed as "about to set off a bomb" ? What I hear from that is that there was an official part of the order to take him alive that they made impossible.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> So...why be quiet about 9/11 now? What's that all about? It just doesn't add up, and I would appreciate it if my own government and the media conglommerates that portray them, didn't think so little of my intelligence that they think they can get away with half-truths, logical clusterf*&^ks, and major omissions under the blanket of "national security" and I'll just swallow it. Frankly, I am started to feel really insulted by the whole thing.


I had to leave a career in journalism because I was told I needed to stop asking questions and simply report the news. It was very Orwellian.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I know what my ex husband's training was regarding those vests, and it would not be to shoot within the confines of a building. If they are going to shoot to kill (and they do) it is at range with a head shot. This is why so many children who are used as messengers have been shot, they can't allow them to get close enough to see if there is a bomb or not. He was/is one of the 'elite' in a different branch.


They had no choice but to shoot him within the confines of a building; that's where he was... and he did die of a head shot.


----------



## insidevoice

Moonfirefaery,

Would you be supportive if you knew that the orders given had been to execute him period? Just curious, but I suspect this is where we can't see eye to eye.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> I will always hold out hope that things will improve in the US, but it is not where we plan to raise our family in the long run.


i hear you too, but i am finding it difficult to find the kind of place i'd like to raise my dd in (not that i could even if i wanted to as i coparent) but i like looking around.

the iraq war is not having repurcussions just in US and iraq. its affecting other countries in teh world. the cancer of xenophobia is taking over. sweden has one of the easiest immigration policy to immigrate. guess what today it is a HUGE issue there and there is a lot of hatred towards the iraquis who are seeking refuge there. now france has banned the hijab. to me it seems like almost all countries have some sort of issue going on that i disagree with. sweden has completely canged in the last 10 years. the face of europe has changed.

almost every continent has something that makes me not want to live there. in a sense i feel like i have no idea where to go. even siberia - has discovered oil and it looks quite different today.


----------



## moonfirefaery

hakeber, we're not responsible for what other people choose to do. We are responsible for what we do. That others are reacting to us doesn't make us responsible for their reaction; they could have chosen differently.

I think his confession is a smoking gun. I am not shut off to the idea that Bush, being affiliated with the bin Ladens, helped the attack along. I'm not at all. But we, the American people, are responsible for punishing all involved. We know bin Laden was involved, and if we ever have more evidence that Bush was, we can try and hang him too.

Yes, we have the right to use fire power against a wanted man and anyone defended him to bring him to justice for killing thousands. We were at war with his organization, and he conspired to murder thousands on our soil by attacking a military installation and the capitol, as well as two large buildings important to the world. He admitted to the murder, then evaded capture for ten years while continuing to incite violence.

And I do question people...doesn't make me less glad there's one less terrorist in the world.

Our SEALS were ordered to take him in only if they could do so safely. They had no idea what could have been on him; I am glad they did not endanger themselves to find out, even if he turned up unarmed. Had he been armed and wounded someone or escaped, we'd have wondered why they didn't just shoot him ASAP.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *insidevoice*
> 
> Moonfirefaery,
> 
> Would you be supportive if you knew that the orders given had been to execute him period? Just curious, but I suspect this is where we can't see eye to eye.


I would be disappointed, but accepting. I consider him a threat to national and global security and I think it is the president's obligation first to do whatever he thinks best protects the people of this country and its allies. I trust his leadership, and his judgment seems sounds to me.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> i hear you too, but i am finding it difficult to find the kind of place i'd like to raise my dd in (not that i could even if i wanted to as i coparent) but i like looking around.
> 
> the iraq war is not having repurcussions just in US and iraq. its affecting other countries in teh world. the cancer of xenophobia is taking over. sweden has one of the easiest immigration policy to immigrate. guess what today it is a HUGE issue there and there is a lot of hatred towards the iraquis who are seeking refuge there. now france has banned the hijab. to me it seems like almost all countries have some sort of issue going on that i disagree with. sweden has completely canged in the last 10 years. the face of europe has changed.
> 
> almost every continent has something that makes me not want to live there. in a sense i feel like i have no idea where to go. even siberia - has discovered oil and it looks quite different today.


Much of my family has lived internationally, though most have decided to keep the US as their 'home' and travel to live and work. I am lucky in that we have a very easy door to relocate as I am not married to a US citizen


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I think his confession is a smoking gun.


The problem with major criminal acts... You can't trust that someone did it just because they confessed. You'd be surprised how often people confess to much lesser crimes than mass murder because of some perverted ideas on how to because famous.


----------



## insidevoice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> I would be disappointed, but accepting. I consider him a threat to national and global security and I think it is the president's obligation first to do whatever he thinks best protects the people of this country and its allies. I trust his leadership, and his judgment seems sounds to me.


And that is where I can not see eye to eye. That action would be blatantly against international law, and I would expect the President to be held accountable. (Frustratingly, as in general I have been fairly impressed with him, and think he has been quote good in his role as president and done a lot to begin to heal international relationships.) If he did make that choice however, I would be unable to find any support for his remaining in his position, or, in fact, for his not being brought up on charges.


----------



## moonfirefaery

We have other evidence that he's guilty, and I think his confession is legit. I don't know if Bush had any involvement.

I don't think it is against international law, as we weren't the only country or organization that wanted him, and I think the government has the right to act to protect its people and allies. So yes, that is a fundamental difference in our principles.


----------



## eclipse

As I said up thread, the legality of the action has absoloutely nothing to do with how many people/governments want it to happen. Being accepting of assassinations is a very, very slippery slope. If a country (or, hell, a concept like "terror") sends someone to assassinate one of our leaders, and succeeds, do we then just consider that a regrettable loss due to a war?


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> hakeber, we're not responsible for what other people choose to do. *We are responsible for what we do.* That others are reacting to us doesn't make us responsible for their reaction; they could have chosen differently.
> 
> *But we have not been held accountible for what we have done around the world in the name of capitalism, and "democracy". We have not been made responsible in the same ways that these people are constantly made responsible for their actions. It is as though ONLY the developing world must learn to keep its place and the rich global north can continue to trample all over the impoverished of the world with total moral impunity because...wait...why is that? I still don't get it. The 9/11 attacks if we are to believe they were the work of Osama (and again the so called* *confession tapes** have been shown to be fakes, the source dubious and the figure speaking most definitely NOT Osama Bin Laden) and his gang, but more specifically more recent attacks and attempts are proclaimed to be doing EXACTLY what we did this weekend...holding responsible the people who have acted in violence and collusion against THEM. Albeit indirectly, we individuals are responsible for the continual abuse of the impoverished people of the world. Our obvliouness does not absolve us from responsibilty, in my humble opinion. No one deserves to be attacked or murdered (NO ONE), but we as individuals are and should be held responsible for othe actions of our governments against peoples smaller, less heavily armed, and less richly funded than we are. We need to stand up and demand answers and demand justice for everyone, not just the pain we feel.*
> 
> I think his confession is a smoking gun. I am not shut off to the idea that Bush, being affiliated with the bin Ladens, helped the attack along. I'm not at all. But we, the American people, are responsible for punishing all involved. We know bin Laden was involved, and if we ever have more evidence that Bush was, we can try and hang him too.
> 
> *If his confession were real, I might agree. But I don't think it is. If it was, UN forces would have finished this thing 10 years ago.*
> 
> Yes, we have the right to use fire power against a wanted man and anyone defended him to bring him to justice for killing thousands. We were at war with his organization, and he conspired to murder thousands on our soil by attacking a military installation and the capitol, as well as two large buildings important to the world. He admitted to the murder, then evaded capture for ten years while continuing to incite violence.
> 
> *International Law of war does not allow a STATE to declare war on a MAN or an organization unaffiliated with a state. It is a State to state thing, and it is an act that can only be done by those who are recognized heads of state. That is why we have declared war on Iraq and on Afghanistan, but NOT Osama...Because he is not a head of State. We are not at war with Al-Qaeda. That is not how war works in international law. Check out the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war*
> 
> *Note:*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.These declarations...*have no legal standing in themselves...*.
> 
> 
> 
> *He has come out again and again denying those "confession tapes" and denying his involvement in the towers. Was he evading arrest or were we really not looking all that hard? A few months ago he was "believed to be in a cave somewhere on northern border of Pakistan"...turns out he's in the burbs of a major city...c'mon! How stupid do they think we are? *
> 
> *Furhermore, if we respond to the illegal declaration of war upon us by a a group of armed forces made up mostly of impoverished and undereducated people manipulated by someone we believe to be an evil genius with retalliation...what does that make us? The bully on the playground who proudly shoves down anyone who dares to question our authority? Even if it means playing dirty? I'm not comfortable with that.*
> 
> And I do question people...doesn't make me less glad there's one less terrorist in the world.
> 
> *Our SEALS were ordered to take him in only if they could do so safely.* They had no idea what could have been on him; I am glad they did not endanger themselves to find out, even if he turned up unarmed. Had he been armed and wounded someone or escaped, we'd have wondered why they didn't just shoot him ASAP.
> 
> *If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. *
Click to expand...


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> We have other evidence that he's guilty, and I think his confession is legit. I don't know if Bush had any involvement.
> 
> I don't think it is against international law, as we weren't the only country or organization that wanted him, and I think the government has the right to act to protect its people and allies. So yes, that is a fundamental difference in our principles.


Just because other countries want it done too, doesn't mean it's within the law.

I would hope to god that the law doesn't allowed the US to send people into another country just to kill someone. The US already seems to think it can do what ever the hell it wants, we don't need even more arguments to support that.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Thao, I think that the common citizens that support terrorists are deceived and that terrorists themselves act primarily out of vengeance, the desire to control and to be in power, and hatred. Terrorists warp religion into a radical form that doesn't resemble the accepted dogma much at all, then they enforce that religion on others. They believe they are fighting right, but they are cruel and domineering. Others may be deceived into believe they are fighting for the right, because no one else seems to be doing it. The people in the world that celebrated 911 were terrorists and their supportors... and to celebrate the deaths of 3000 innocents, they must have been at least a little bloodthirsty. I think there are many people in the world who were blood thirsty for bin Laden, too...but at least we punished bin Laden for his crimes, not innocent people for their government's.


Yes, I get that you think this. I've tried to point out that things are not as simple as you think, but you are still making sweeping generalizations like "terrorists act primarily out of vengeance". I could list quite a few groups that have committed terrorist acts that did not spring from vengeance, but rather a calculated attempt to achieve a political goal (I suppose I'd start with the US and Hiroshima). But I'm thinking there's no point, as you haven't really engaged with the facts I raised above, but rather just repeated what you believe.

We agree, however, that a world without Osama is a better place, so let's just leave it at that. And I'd encourage you to keep researching and learning about history and foreign events.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thao*
> 
> Yes, I get that you think this. I've tried to point out that things are not as simple as you think, but you are still making sweeping generalizations like "terrorists act primarily out of vengeance". I could list quite a few groups that have committed terrorist acts that did not spring from vengeance, but rather a calculated attempt to achieve a political goal (I suppose I'd start with the US and Hiroshima). But I'm thinking there's no point, as you haven't really engaged with the facts I raised above, but rather just repeated what you believe.
> 
> We agree, however, that a world without Osama is a better place, so let's just leave it at that. *And I'd encourage you to keep researching and learning about history and foreign events.*


YES please! You are in serious need of some history lessons. And also apparently civics.


----------



## hakeber

Given the amount of lies the American people were told about 9-11 I find it hard to believe that the people we saw celebrating after 9-11 were celebrating that at all. Just because that's what CNN, ABC and Fox News told us those peoplewere celebrating doesn't mean it was. It could have been footage of just about any celebration in the world.

I am way too skeptical of the media to believe that.


----------



## moonfirefaery

eclipse, I am waiting while the legal scholars debate the legality of this, but I do think it is in keeping with international law. We didn't assassinate the leader of a country/nation; we assassinated the head of a terrorist organization.

hakeber, the confession tapes haven't been shown to be fakes, and 911 hasn't been proven to have been done by anyone other than bin Laden. At this time both of those theories are considered to be conspiracy theories, ones that I don't currently subscribe to. I can't follow you along this line of debate because of that. That he hid well, and probably had help from the Pakistan government, doesn't mean we just simply weren't looking for him. That's an insult to the men and women of the armed forces and intelligent agencies that have spent so many years gathering the information that finally led to his capture. We're not responding to an illegal declaration of war; we're responding to an attack on our nation by removing the threat to our national security, which we do have the legal right to do. Again, let the world punish us if not. So far it doesn't seem inclined to. I don't appreciate veiled insults over my beliefs, especially when I'm not the one buying into conspiracy theories without substantial proof; the bridge-selling comment was unnecessary and rude.

Thao, those "sweeping generalizations" have always been paired with the admission that I understand terrorists act out of other motives as well; I'd be happy to repost the several posts I've made acknowledging that, even going into detail about it, distinguishing Hamas from al Qaeda, etc. I research and learn about history and foreign events everyday. I spend my whole day at work, with the exception of busy days, reading the news, article after article. I don't appreciate the insinuation that because I disagree with you so ardently I must need to do more research and learning. I am aware of the events that led up to 9/11 and I have been paying wide-eyed attention since that day.

Laws are made by governments, so yes, what other governments deem legal and acceptable does have an impact on the legality of an action.

Chamomile Girl, I have taken history lessons in high school as well as civics; I'm sure I will continue these in college. I am, however, well-acquainted with history, it being one of my major interests. That I disagree with you over civics doesn't mean I don't understand civics. It means that we disagree. Again, being accused of ignorance because I disagree with you is something I don't appreciate. Even scholars of civics have debates over it; it doesn't mean one camp needs to go back to school.

I seem to be the only one remaining; the others in my "camp" seem to have given up on this debate, not that I blame them since arguments are not being based on conspiracy theories touted as fact--and since disagreement is being met with accusations of ignorance. I'm leaving this thread now, because I don't debate with people who turn to insults--even veiled, insinuated ones--as part of their debate. "The reason we don't agree is because you just need to learn more!" doesn't fly with me. It's poor logic, a poor argument, and a poor way to handle an argument. Back up your statements with facts, not "Well, you just need to be more educated." The US does need to be held accountable for its actions, but that doesn't make 911 justified nor does it rid us of our legal right to self-defense and to punish criminals. Good day to you all.


----------



## hakeber

If the video was not a fake, and it was viable, and the source was verifiable. If the testimony is viable evidence and there is enough to prove his involvement...just please answer me this...

Why didn't the UN forces demand Pakistan hand him over sooner? Why DIDN'T the Grand Jury indict him?

If our evidence against him is so rock solid...why didn't we prove it in court instead of trying the case in the media?

Just answer that question and I'll let it go.


----------



## monkey's mom

Well, just for kicks I (for the first time) checked out the FBI Most Wanted List the other day. Sure enough, there's Bin Laden w/ a big red "deceased" across his picture and a blurb about why we want(ed) him.

Know what's NOT there? Anything about 9/11.

Why would that be?

Wouldnt' that be first thing? I mean, no offense, but "killed 3,000 innocents in WTC bombing" seems a LOT more evil and compelling than "killed 300 in USS Cole attack" (to paraphrase).

But it's not even mentioned. So how much of wild-eyed conspiracy are we looking at here?

(And I will admit that I do not know tons about this, but c'mon...)


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> hakeber, the confession tapes haven't been shown to be fakes, and 911 hasn't been proven to have been done by anyone other than bin Laden.


First, hakeber wasn't just talking about the confession tapes. There were a lot of lies told about 9/11, the war in Iraq, the "evil doers", after a while most other news stations started separating fact from fiction more and more, but Fox news just kept trying to perpetuate plenty of BS.

Second, just because the confession tapes hadn't been faked, doesn't mean the confession is accurate. Probably one of the first things law enforcement personal learn about interrogating someone in regards to a crime is don't take a confession at face value. I mean, I think like a dozen people came forward and confessed to being the Boston Strangler back in the 60's. That is not counting DeSalvo, and his own confession has evidence against it. For all we know, Bin Laden could have simply been attempting to take credit for another person's work to boost the moral of his supporters.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> eclipse, I am waiting while the legal scholars debate the legality of this, but I do think it is in keeping with international law. We didn't assassinate the leader of a country/nation; we assassinated the head of a terrorist organization.


An assassination doesn't have to be of the leader of a nation. Aside from that, shooting an unarmed person is still illegal under international law, unless it is in self defense - meaning that the shooting has to happen to directly prevent immediate loss of human life. There is no evidence that this shooting meets those standards. Shooting at his wife might have met those standards, assuming that she lunged at the SEALS as has been reported - but they managed to only shoot her in the leg, which was presumably enough to bring her down and subdue her. She was just as likely as OBL to be strapped with a suicide vest and was in the same potentially booby trapped room. There has been no claim that OBL lunged at anyone, reached under his robe, or really did anything but stand there and watch his wife get shot. Maybe he did do something that the SEALS could reasonably have assumed was a danger to them, but there's not been any evidence offered to support that. In fact, there hasn't even been an explanation, a story.


----------



## Thao

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I don't appreciate the insinuation that because I disagree with you so ardently I must need to do more research and learning.


Just to be clear: I don't think you need to do more research because you disagree with me, but rather because I see you making simplified generalizations about a very complex issue without much factual basis. Like saying that everyone who celebrated 9/11 was just in it for the vengeance, and supporting that by saying we didn't back down after Pearl Harbor so the terrorists must have know we wouldn't back down after 9/11. When I pointed out that we have sometimes backed down after being violently attacked, your response was simply to repeat what you believe.

Also, you didn't know about the Beirut bombing, which was a very big deal at the time, so I figured you probably have a lot of knowledge about recent history (9/11) but maybe not so much about the long-term context.

But there's a lot I agree with you about - I don't think the US government was involved in 9/11, and I'm not terribly concerned about whether the operation to get OBL was an arrest operation or kill operation, because had he been arrested and tried I have no doubt but that he would've gotten the death penalty. I think that the SEALs safety was more important at the time than taking OBL alive.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Chamomile Girl, I have taken history lessons in high school as well as civics; I'm sure I will continue these in college. I am, however, well-acquainted with history, it being one of my major interests. That I disagree with you over civics doesn't mean I don't understand civics. It means that we disagree. Again, being accused of ignorance because I disagree with you is something I don't appreciate. Even scholars of civics have debates over it; it doesn't mean one camp needs to go back to school.


I don't think I am well aquainted with history and I have been studying it since I started college twenty years ago. It's a rabbit hole.

I'm not just saying you need history (and civics) lessons because I disagree with you, but because you are consistently expressing way too much faith and trust in the government (and in the system, per your thoughts on the CPS debate). Your constantly expressed opinion is that if those in charge say something is then it is. I find this deeply disturbing, because history is all about how governments lie and manipulate information to get the results the leaders want. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a professional historian. You learned history in high school? I teach history in highschool (and college). Please believe me when I say that there is way more going on here than what is apparent on the surface. There always is.

I also encourage you not to wait for someone with power to tell you what to think and believe. Don't wait for some nebulous "they" to tell you if what happened violated international law...look it up yourself. Obviously lots of folks are having problems with the illegality of the situation, blind trust and faith in Obama, or anyone else is not the counter to that.

Plus I also recommend history lessons because of your absolute belief in "terrorism" and "terrorists" which are simply the communists/boogymen of our day. You know nothing about the motivations of terrorists because you do not know the history of the regions where they live. Educate yourself about the history and it will blow a hole in your monolithic view of what a terrorist is. Groups like Hamas are a good start because they are officially recoginized as a terrorist organization and their motivations are pretty transparent. Why have we labled them as terrorists but not the Israeli government? They both kill people (civillians) on purpose. Because one supports out interests and the other does not. So spouting that terrorists are full of evil or whatever you said upthread (I don't have time to look right now) *is* ignorant. It shows ignorance, I'm sorry that you don't appreciate the sentiment.

You get kudos for navigating this dogpile on you (being at the bottom of the dogpile myself recently in a different thread I know how that feels) with grace and patience but there is a reason that people are taking the time to disagree with you, and much of it has to do with your steadfast faith in the powers that be.


----------



## eclipse

Heather, I missed the last paragraph of your last post about leaving the thread. I really hope you don't do that. I know most of us still posting are disagreeing with a lot of what you have to say (though not all of it. I'm with you in not buying theories that the US government planned 9/11, and I believe OBL was involved in the planning of 9/11 - I just think it needs to be proved in a court of law before punishment is meted out, and I'm 100% anti-death penalty anyway, so. . .), but it doesn't mean that we aren't *interested* in hearing what you have to say. You've brought up a lot of interesting points for discussion.


----------



## hakeber

Fwiw, Moonfire, what is called conspiracy theory in the US Media is considered obvious logical conclusions in much of the rest of the world (or at least amongst the communities I have lived in over the last 10 years including several countries in South East and Western Asia, Northern Europe, and South and Central America.)

I don't think you are stupid. I was trying to be light hearted. It was just a joke, honestly. Badly timed, though, so I apologize unreservedly.

I do think a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good idea when listening to any governmental body or source of media, and that the more points of view you consider the better off you (that's the royal you, not you in particular) will be.

PS: I did see that you said you were leaving, but as you have noticed...I am skeptic.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Our government is riddled with flaws, but I do have a significant amount of faith in the spirit of America and the principles upon which are government was founded. I trust Obama as a leader; I voted for him, but I don't allow him or anyone else to tell me what to believe. I know the history regarding the US and the Middle East well enough to understand how complicated terrorism is, and learning more won't make me deny terrorism; terrorism is very real, and everyone who has ever died in a cafe bombing knows it.

Thao, any generalization I've made has been followed with an acknowledgement that it is not an absolute observation by any means. I don't know everything there is to know about history, but I know enough to understand the complexities of this situation. I also acknowledge that the people who run our government have way more information than they allow me to have. I also didn't say that EVERYONE who celebrated 9/11 was acting out of vengeance. Historically speaking we don't respond to attacks by withdrawing unless we're in a situation we can't win. People who celebrated 911 were either terrorists or people who (obviously) support (as in are okay with) terrorism. Terrorists are retaliating against us for our actions in the Middle East, but that doesn't make the death of innocents any less evil. We were attacked primarily because certain people want us out of the Middle East as they feel they're better off without us there, but for al Qaeda to fight the war in the way it does, the hearts of its "soldiers" must be corrupted by fear, hatred, and vengeance. For people to cheer in the streets at the loss of innocent life, there must be fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts. Terrorists believe they are fighting for what's right, and there's no doubt in my mind that they hate the enemy: us. Is that hatred justified? Yes, probably. Does that make terrorism any less evil? NO. I realize this leads to the logical conclusion that those of us cheering in the streets at the loss of bin Laden must have fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts... I do not deny that.

eclipse, bin Laden didn't have a gun but he was reaching for one. An AK 47 and a handgun were within arm's reach. Had they hesitated, that hesitation could have allowed him to reach that gun and take out or critically wound one of our men. They did well to neutralize the woman by shooting her merely in the leg, rather than shooting to kill. Had she been reaching for a gun, they may have done the same simply to be soft on a woman--but it is also likely she would have been incapacitated the same way. I think it's really disrespectful to those brave men to downplay the amount of danger they were in.

MusicianDad, the war in Iraq is seperate from 911, and the tapes aren't the only evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 911. As far as whether Bush was involved... I really wouldn't be surprised. But that shouldn't free bin Laden from the consequences of his role in the attack. I look forward to the day when Bush is held accountable for the corruption of his administration.

hakeber - that I don't know the answer to those questions is not proof of his innocence, only of my ignorance of the answers. I know that his testimony isn't the only evidence we have. I know that we have caught some of the hijackers and have their testimonies; I know that we have the testimonies of people who interacted with the hijackers. Not all of it was obtained through torture. We have been watching this organization for decades. I don't like Bush, and I suspect he played a role in the attack. I HAVE a healthy dose of skepticism... I'm just skeptical of different things than you seem to be. I'm not skeptical that bin Laden was involved in 911 or that he is dead; I'm not skeptical of whether the kill was lawful or of whether those SEALs were in danger. I am extremely suspicious of George Bush and his administration, however.

Chamomile Girl, I recognize that governments are capable of committing terrorists acts, too. I do know the history of the Middle East; I do know the myriad of motivations behind terrorism. Believing that it is evil doesn't make me ignorant. Terrorism is evil, whether committed by an organization or a government. I think you show your ignorance by calling terrorists boogeymen, as if they don't exist. Everyone who has ever died in a car bombing knows firsthand that terrorism is a real threat. Don't call me hon. We don't even know each other. That is so rude and infantilizing. Don't use what/who society does/does not label as terrorists as proof of my ignorance, and please especially don't call me ignorant and then follow up with hon.







You don't even know me. Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know. I know that there is more going on here than what is on the surface; if you read the thread you see where I acknowledged that *we created this monster*. I'm not blind, and my eyes aren't closed--so stop accusing me of it. I found your whole post extremely patronizing and riddled with unfounded, rude assumptions.

We all have different experiences; we all are knowledgeable about different things; we all have different perspectives to bring to the table. I'm young and I don't know everything, but I'm not so ignorant that I deserve to be written off as uninformed. It felt very much like that was what was happening. We're all ignorant of some fact or another; it doesn't make us ignorant people. I appreciate those of you who apologized.

I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> eclipse, bin Laden didn't have a gun but he was reaching for one. An AK 47 and a handgun were within arm's reach. Had they hesitated, that hesitation could have allowed him to reach that gun and take out or critically wound one of our men. They did well to neutralize the woman by shooting her merely in the leg, rather than shooting to kill. Had she been reaching for a gun, they may have done the same simply to be soft on a woman--but it is also likely she would have been incapacitated the same way. I think it's really disrespectful to those brave men to downplay the amount of danger they were in.


I'm not downplaying the amount of danger they were in. I'm saying I don't know the amount of danger they were in. May I ask where you got the information about there being guns in arms' reach? Everything I've read was that he "made a threatening move" and that they were worried about suicide vests and booby traps. I'm not saying you're wrong - I'd just like to read what you read about it. I haven't watched the news or read any on line today, and I know the story is developing.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I don't know it either; only they do. But I've seen numerous sources say that he was reaching for a weapon and that weapons were within arm's reach. Even if he wasn't reaching for a weapon, our guys had no way of knowing what he was doing when he made the "threatening move." He could have been reaching for a gun, and he might have been about to pick a wedgie. We don't know, and they probably didn't either. They knew what he was capable of, though, and they knew they were in the fox hole with a man who wants to kill as many Americans as possible.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/

Even FOX is saying guns were within reach, and they hate Obama lol

I read an article just this morning saying he had reached for those guns, but it was on my work computer so I have absolutely no idea where it was. If I do see another article referencing him reaching for the gun I'll post it.


----------



## eclipse

I also think a big question, and it's one that has been up in the air and never answer to my satisfaction at least since 9/11 - how do we define terrorism? What is the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war? Are recognized countries and their armies the only people who can participate in war? Can recognized countries and their armies commit acts of terrorism? (and recognized by whom?) Is terrorism only manifested through violence? What about financial terrorism? Political terrorism? How do we view trade sanctions that, inevitably, harm innocent civilians? Is flying airplanes into buildings a "worse" (in terms of morality) war tactic than bombing cities? Does it matter if the bombs are being sent by recognized governments vs rebels vs freedom fighters vs anarchists?


----------



## moonfirefaery

I am going to have to think long and hard about several of those questions before answering them, but I don't think that terrorism is manifested only through violence. No, airplanes into buildings is not worse than bombs on cities, no matter who is doing it and no, it's not just governments and their armies that can be participants in war. I don't condone trade sanctions that harm innocent citizens either. When we fight wars, we should do what harms the government, not the people. often when we are opposed to a government, it's because that government oppresses their people. Why then would we punish that government by doing harm to the people they oppress? You raise valid questions, but I admit I cannot answer them all yet. I'm still deciding what I think about a lot of things that go on in the world.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I don't know it either; only they do. But I've seen numerous sources say that he was reaching for a weapon and that weapons were within arm's reach. Even if he wasn't reaching for a weapon, our guys had no way of knowing what he was doing when he made the "threatening move." He could have been reaching for a gun, and he might have been about to pick a wedgie. We don't know, and they probably didn't either. They knew what he was capable of, though, and they knew they were in the fox hole with a man who wants to kill as many Americans as possible.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/05/official-1-killed-bin-laden-raid-armed-firing/
> 
> Even FOX is saying guns were within reach, and they hate Obama lol
> 
> I read an article just this morning saying he had reached for those guns, but it was on my work computer so I have absolutely no idea where it was. If I do see another article referencing him reaching for the gun I'll post it.


Thanks, I'll check it out.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Chamomile Girl, I recognize that governments are capable of committing terrorists acts, too. I do know the history of the Middle East; I do know the myriad of motivations behind terrorism. Believing that it is evil doesn't make me ignorant. Terrorism is evil, whether committed by an organization or a government. I think you show your ignorance by calling terrorists boogeymen, as if they don't exist. Everyone who has ever died in a car bombing knows firsthand that terrorism is a real threat. Don't call me hon. We don't even know each other. That is so rude and infantilizing. Don't use what/who society does/does not label as terrorists as proof of my ignorance, and please especially don't call me ignorant and then follow up with hon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know me. Don't make assumptions about what I do or don't know. I know that there is more going on here than what is on the surface; if you read the thread you see where I acknowledged that *we created this monster*. I'm not blind, and my eyes aren't closed--so stop accusing me of it. I found your whole post extremely patronizing and riddled with unfounded, rude assumptions.
> 
> We all have different experiences; we all are knowledgeable about different things; we all have different perspectives to bring to the table. I'm young and I don't know everything, but I'm not so ignorant that I deserve to be written off as uninformed. It felt very much like that was what was happening. We're all ignorant of some fact or another; it doesn't make us ignorant people. I appreciate those of you who apologized.
> 
> I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.


You are right that I do not know what you know, but I am basing my assumptions on what you have posted in this thread.

If you recognize that governments are capable of terrorist acts then does that also make those governments, per your defination, evil? Is the United States evil for firebombing Tokyo and Dresden in WWII, and using Agent Orange in Vietnam? Would the murder of a single man by a nation be considered a terrorist act? Is using drone bomb attacks terrorism? I guess I don't understand where the definition of terrorism begins and ends, and so I don't really know what the heck terrorism is. But I do know that apparently Americans need something to fear in order to look the other way when the government pursues uncalled for action around the world. I say that terrorists are the new boogymen because I grew up during the Cold War and saw all the myriad of ways that the US used the fear of communism and the craptacular domino theory to pursue nation building in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, to the extent of knocking down democratically elected governments to put American-backed thugs in power (who seemed to specialize in the genocide of their own people). These things were done to fight the specter of communism, and it was all smoke and mirrors. I lump our current "war" on terror into the same category, damn straight We are using terrorism as an excuse to meddle in places we do not belong, done to secure our economic interests there. And when people who live in these places see what is being done to their country and their future, and see how they have been (and will forever be) marginalized they become radicalized and willing to kill and die for the hope their children will have a better future. Does this make them evil or simply hopeless? Why is it evil to resort to violence when there is no peaceful path?

I don't think I believe in evil because it is a too convenient way to write off the motivations of people who do awful things. If we actually try to understand these motivations (like after 9-11) we are chastised because there can be no understanding of "evil". Bleurg.

And on a side note:

How much courage does it take for a bunch of heavily armed Navy SEALS supported by the strongest military power in the world to break international law to murder someone in cold blood so that someone never gets legal justice. If that is courage then every bully that ever lived is rejoicing in having found a new character trait. Because anyone that knows anything about bullying knows that it is done out of fear and not out of courage. It would have taken much much more courage to take Bin Laden alive...even at the risk of their own lives.

I'll take out the hon if it is so offensive to you







but in my defense I was trying to be kind not trying to be condescending. I'm not saying you're dumb I'm saying that you don't appear to have all the facts.

edited to remove some snark.


----------



## happysmileylady

> Quote:





> How much courage does it take for a bunch of heavily armed Navy SEALS supported by the strongest military power in the world to break international law to murder someone in cold blood so that someone never gets legal justice. If that is courage then every bully that ever lived is rejoicing in having found a new character trait. Because anyone that knows anything about bullying knows that it is done out of fear and not out of courage. It would have taken much much more courage to take Bin Laden alive...even at the risk of their own lives.


I have been reading and staying out because I wanted to avoid snark, but I just cannot let this slide...

Are you KIDDING me? How much courage does it take to raid the home of someone known to surround himself with guns and many many people to shoot those guns? A substantial number of the videos of Osama released show him surrounded by and shooting guns, teaching others how to shoot guns etc. Assault rifles everywhere. Beliefs about his postion as a terrorist, beliefs about what makes up a terrorist, beliefs about whether or not Osama was responsible for 9/11, ALL of those beliefs aside....I don't think it can be disputed that the man surrounded himself with firearms and people well versed in shooting them. And that's just the guns. There's absolutely no way to know ahead of time how many bombs and grenades and bazookas and whatever other arms there might have been in that compound. I think it takes a TREMENOUS amound of courage to put yourself into that position. It doesn't matter if the entire world army is behind you when you know it only takes one bullet from the person standing in front of you to end your life.

I am just horrified that anyone would question the courage of a Navy SEAL raiding that type of location.

If it's so easy, why don't you go join a militia to fight our big bad government and make our country exactly how you want it. Join a militia and affect the change you want. Find out just how much courage it takes to be a soldier.

Wow. Just Wow.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> hakeber - that I don't know the answer to those questions *is not proof of his innocence*, only of my ignorance of the answers. I know that his testimony isn't the only evidence we have. I know that we have caught some of the hijackers and have their testimonies; I know that we have the testimonies of people who interacted with the hijackers. Not all of it was obtained through torture. We have been watching this organization for decades. I don't like Bush, and I suspect he played a role in the attack. I HAVE a healthy dose of skepticism... I'm just skeptical of different things than you seem to be. I'm not skeptical that bin Laden was involved in 911 or that he is dead; I'm not skeptical of whether the kill was lawful or of whether those SEALs were in danger. I am extremely suspicious of George Bush and his administration, however.
> 
> *No, it doesn't, but it does prove he has not been found beyond beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of them. He never gave testimony. The tapes in which he supposedly confesses were tapes that showed (someone who looked like) Osama Bin Laden discussing his plot with an advisor. Testimony of everyone else is pretty much hearsay. The hijacker involved in 911 are all dead. The hijackers of latter attempts were not involved in 911, so their testimony is useless, especially since they would have been offered a deal to testify against Public Enemy Number One, and that in and of itself does not constitute viable evidence. That's why legally it has all been useless in building a case, and why Pakistan was unwilling to aid the US, and weren't so until war and destruction seemed imminent, and then they were all "okay, we'll help!" But they didn't. *
> 
> *The legality of it is really a matter of perception. The law says if you think you are in imminenet danger, you can kill a man if he is attacking you. Targetted killings are allowed in situations of war. Now we could say that we we were at war with OBL IF we believed and had a statesment from him as the head of AlQaeda directly declaring war on the US....but we don't. To the best of my knowledge an act of war cannot substitute for a verbal declaration of war. Furthermore, Pakistan was (semi) friendly territory. For us to violate their sovereign ground to perform a targetted killing is against the humanitarian laws of the UN. However, if we felt he was about to plan and implement in the near future another attack (no evidence of that has come forward but as you point out, that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have the evidence and choose not to share it) we may have the right to defend ourselves given some loose readings of international law...Below are some links to some articles on international law and targetted killings. The SEALs were in danger...but that's sort of their job, isn't it? They were in danger the minute they signed the registration form to be a part of our armed forces. But the point is they were instructed to KILL, and then the secondary instruction was , unless you think he'll go peacefully. If it was a case self defense they could have shot his leg, or used a stun gun, or disabled him as they ARE TRAINED TO DO VERY WELL. They killed him because that is what they were told to do...the video in your link had the head of the CIA saying that point blank. The legality of being able to both kidnap him and/or murder him is where it gets grey.*
> 
> *Of course the US administration and the CIA will say it's legal. What are they gonna say "yeah, it was totally below the belt, but that's how we roll, dudes!" They are trained to repeat like Ollie North and his "I cannot recall at this time." Clinton and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", like Bush and his WMDs...We followed the law to the letter "He did not raise his hands in surrender."*
> 
> *If you are Skeptical of the Bush Administration, you should consider the fact that though the face of the state has changed, not much else has.( please correct me if I am wrong) The government is still a government of the people, by the people and for the corporations. I have yet, despite my longing and wishful thinking, seen ANY evidence to the contrary. Please share what you have seen that has not been broadcast in the international news. I need to restore a little faith back to the hope I felt back before the elections. As far as I can see it's the same adminstration with different figure heads.*
> 
> I was listening to a song on the radio today, the lyrics of which are "You can sleep with a gun, but when are you gonna wake up and fight?" I think that really sums up my thoughts on the action we took against bin Laden. We've been trying for so long to neutralize this threat; other presidents failed to do so, and we paid for it dearly. I applaud Obama for having the courage to follow through.


But how does killing one man neutralize the threat of an organization? Because I have seen here in Colombia how that has not proven true. Tthey have killed THREE Leaders in the last ten years and things may die down for a few years whole they regroup and train, but it doesn't take long for them to start targetting civilians again, and each time they do the attacks are more devestating and more sneaky. The hatred and moreover the sophistication and the financial backing of their forces are a teeny tiny fraction of that of Al-Qaeda., and the size of the pool from which the FARQ can recruit is also miniscule in comparison to Al-Qaeda. What is the proof from which you are making this pudding?

Would you explaining to me what examples yo have heard of that have lead you to believe that this has or even MAY "neutralized the threat"? I can't think of any.

http://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/institutes/ilp/targetedkilling_papers/KretzmertargetedKillings.pdf

http://www.haaretz.com/news/high-court-international-law-does-not-forbid-targeted-killings-1.207185

http://www.asil.org/insigh133.cfm

http://www.krcrtv.com/osama-bin-laden/27774925/detail.html


----------



## hakeber

PS...Thanks for coming back.


----------



## monkey's mom

http://www.timwise.org/2011/05/killing-one-monster-unleashing-another-reflections-on-revenge-and-revelry/

*Killing One Monster, Unleashing Another: Reflections on Revenge and Revelry *

A snippet:

Quote:


> Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the celebrations unleashed in the wake of bin Laden's demise was the cynical way in which the president suggested that his killing proved "America can do whatever we set our mind to." If this is, indeed, the lesson of bin Laden's death, then this only suggests we clearly don't want to diminish, let alone end, child poverty, excess mortality rates in communities of color, rape and sexual assault of women (including the many thousands who have been victimized in the U.S. military), or food insecurity for millions of families; because we aren't addressing any of those things with nearly the aplomb as that put to warfare and the killing of our adversaries.
> 
> We are, if the president is serious here, a nation that has narrowly constricted its marketable talents to the deployment of violence. We can't manufacture much of anything, but we can kill you. We can't fix our schools, or build adequate levees to protect a city like New Orleans from floodwaters. But we can kill you. We can't reduce infant mortality to anywhere near the level of other industrialized nations with which we like to compare ourselves. But we can kill you. We can't break the power of Wall Street bankers, or jail any of those bankers and money managers who helped orchestrate the global financial collapse. But we can kill you. We can't protect LGBT youth from bullying in schools, or ensure equal opportunity for all in the labor market, regardless of race, gender, sexuality or any other factor. But we can kill you. Booyah, bitches.
> 
> But somewhere, I suspect, there is a young child - maybe the age of one of my own - who is sitting in front of a television tonight in Karachi, or Riyadh. And he's watching footage of some fraternity boy, American flag wrapped around his back, cheering the death of one who this child believes, for whatever fucked up reason, is a hero, and now, a martyr.
> 
> And I know that this child will likely do what all such children do; namely, forget almost nothing, remember almost everything, and plan for the day when he will make you remember it too, and when you will know his name. And if (or when) that day comes, the question will be, was your party worth it?


----------



## moonfirefaery

Chamomile Girl, if an administration targets unarmed civilians , I think it's evil. Our government has done evil things; I would never deny that. That doesn't make our government eternally and perpetually evil, and it doesn't make AQ's actions any less evil.

hakeber - The SEALs job is not just to be in danger, but also to ensure that all of their teammates come home alive. I have faith in the current administration. We haven't neutralized al Qaeda, but it does weaken the organization. We have neutralized the threat of Osama bin Laden only. Obama is fighting back against corporations. He's not going to let them force us to buy unaffordable health insurance. He's not letting them send our jobs overseas for tax breaks; he's giving tax breaks to people who hire at home. He's seen new bank legislation pushed through that will severely limit overdraft fees. It's at the cost of free checking, but most banks are charging $10 or less which equates to perhaps $120 a year. That is worth the ability to opt-out of Reg E overdraft services. He's given women the ability to bring action against corporations that discriminated against them for years decades ago.

monkey's mom - I read today that Osama bin Laden said of his daughter, born just after 911, that she would grow up to kill Islam's enemies too. This is the same daughter that may have seen him shot. I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden's prophecy is fulfilled solely because of our actions on Sunday. Violence does beget more violence. But our SEALs should still be under no obligation to sacrifice their lives for a murderer by hesitating to take him as he reaches for a gun.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> MusicianDad, the war in Iraq is seperate from 911, and the tapes aren't the only evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 911. As far as whether Bush was involved... I really wouldn't be surprised. But that shouldn't free bin Laden from the consequences of his role in the attack. I look forward to the day when Bush is held accountable for the corruption of his administration.


First, I am aware the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but you know what? The connection has been made by many, many people, most of whom are the ones who come up with a lot of the rhetoric you have been spouting here.

Second, there is evidence, there isn't any proof. Evidence and proof are two very different things. The fact that they haven't stated definitively that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 tells me that something about the confession didn't match up with the facts.


----------



## monkey's mom

So sad....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> monkey's mom - I read today that Osama bin Laden said of his daughter, born just after 911, that she would grow up to kill Islam's enemies too. This is the same daughter that may have seen him shot. I wouldn't be surprised if bin Laden's prophecy is fulfilled solely because of our actions on Sunday.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Musician - I interpret the evidence as proof that he was responsible for it, but not as proof that he had no help. I form my own ideas and opinions; this isn't rhetoric that I've heard from other people that they came up with. This is simply how I word my thoughts. Please stop assuming that everything that comes out of my mouth was inserted into my brain by the government; I formulate my own thoughts, and insinuations otherwise are getting tiresome and rude. I am not making such assumptions about you or the other posters. Iraq and 9/11 are unrelated, except that Bush exploited 9/11 to help justify the Iraq War. You can't state that they are unrelated while arguing as if they are.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Musician - I interpret the evidence as proof that he was responsible for it.


How can you interpret anything as proof of anything when you don't even have access to this information you claim is 100% accurate? The people who are saying "may have been responsible for" are the ones who have actually looked at the evidence while investigating the attacks. You may have your opinions, but that doesn't trump the facts as they are found and interpreted by people who have many more years of experience than you in investigating this type of thing. I can't apologize for not taking your claims that he is definitively responsible when your opinion clashes with what is actually known.


----------



## MamaofLiam

hey - i just want to say thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. you all have made this a REALLy interesting read. everyone has brought up really good points, and given me a lot to think about. i think eclipse brought some very interesting questions in regards to how we define terrorism:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> I also think a big question, and it's one that has been up in the air and never answer to my satisfaction at least since 9/11 - how do we define terrorism? What is the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war? Are recognized countries and their armies the only people who can participate in war? Can recognized countries and their armies commit acts of terrorism? (and recognized by whom?) Is terrorism only manifested through violence? What about financial terrorism? Political terrorism? How do we view trade sanctions that, inevitably, harm innocent civilians? Is flying airplanes into buildings a "worse" (in terms of morality) war tactic than bombing cities? Does it matter if the bombs are being sent by recognized governments vs rebels vs freedom fighters vs anarchists?


Anyone want to take a stab at defining terrorism or answering any of these questions? These are just great questions and I would love to hear some discussion about it. So what about financial terrorism? Is there an example in history that someone could point to on that one?

I don't think I can define terrorism, but it seems to me, the way the term is used is this: we don't like what someone else has done (i.e., an act of violence), we call it terrorism. but when the US commits an act of violence, we are at war (i.e., "the war on terror"). i know, really crude and overly simplistic, but i hope you get what i mean.


----------



## moonfirefaery

MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a *reasonable* doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill." Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?


----------



## MsBirdie

Wow, this has been such an interesting thread. I have to say I am happy to see that others are critical thinkers when it comes to our nation's foreign policy.

In terms of defining terrorism vs an act of war, one person's idea of terrorism can be another's idea of "pre emptive strikes," defense, or acts of war.

As an orphan from Lebanon that spent years malnourished in an orphanage in the 1980s during the invasion of Lebanon, my idea of terrorism is very different from another person's idea for that "war." I can say truthfully that I can see both sides of the issue, and, in the end, no one was right and the innocent are always the ones that suffer.

The world is shades of gray, and there are very few wars that have evil and good sides. Violence is horrible at anytime and I wish that everyone could just live with tolerance, but I guess that is just wishfull thinking.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a *reasonable* doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill." Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?


They aren't saying "Osama was not proven guilty" because he hasn't been prove innocent either. I wouldn't be surprised if they were afraid of the US too, to be perfectly honest. The US doesn't have a good track record with countries they don't like.

As for the rest, well if that is all you need to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I can only hope you don't end up with jury duty.


----------



## moonfirefaery

All I have is plenty, and if a plane crashes into a building killing my son, I hope you don't end up with jury duty for the terrorist who incited the pilot to that violence. Guess we're even.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> MusicianDad - I can interpret evidence however I want, just as you can. I believe the information I do have access to is enough to prove beyond a *reasonable* doubt that bin Laden was partially responsible for 911. He may have had help, but he did it. I wonder that the leaders of our world have not come out, as you are, saying "Osama was not proven guilty of 911; this was an unlawful kill." Is that because they're scared of the big bad terrorist bankrupt USA?


ummmm, some of them are.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/nik-aziz-world-is-not-safer-with-osamas-death/

http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistan-ssp-jud-call-osama-bin-laden.html

http://www.canada.com/news/human+rights+boss+questions+legality+Laden+killing/4721045/story.html#ixzz1LV3yyRCp

http://english.eluniversal.com/2011/05/03/venezuela-calls-for-an-end-to-the-us-occupation-in-central-asia.shtml

Mamaof Liam, Some good examples of Financial Terrorism are the ways in which te World Bank offers loans to nations in trouble such as Argentina and then when the nation in question cannot pay back the loan they levee outrageous interest rates and basically financially OWN them. They tried this in Argentina and Argentina told them to go screw themselves, but not all impoverished nations have been so ballsy. Most acquiesce and find their ability to get out of debt nearly impossible. Many of the nations in the middle east are in these sort of positions, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, are all financially ensalved in many ways to not only the US but also the World Bank which is funded by private companies largely in the US, UK and the EU (not to mention the UAE). Other forms of financial terrorism are the sanctions placed on countries whose policies we don't like, like Cuba to name a most famous example. By ostracizing them from trade and commerce in the area we cut them off from their main market and as a result sent a whole nation into a state of financial poverty wherein the people became dependant on the social systems of a nation ruled by a despot. But we have done the same to North Korea, most recently, pulling aid. A third form of financial terrorism, is when we back selected entities in their violence against others. If I buy my friend a gun on the black market and that gun is unlike any gun anyone in the area can afford or lay their hands on and the fire power of that gun is far superior to anything their opponents have, I'm like a violence pimp. I am financially supporting the violence of others...but the world turns a blind eye to our violence. Unlike Osama who is being held responsible for crimes both which was indicted for and those which he was not, the US government carries on with total impunity. And no I do not think it is just our enormous arsenal that keeps us safe. It keeps us safe from the pipsqueaks, but not from the UN and the like.

I have a theory which will probably be poo-pooed as conspiracy, but I believe one of the reasons the US is not sanctioned and held responsible for our actions is that despite our economy being in the toilet (not actually bankrupt yet but pretty close) is that our ethos as consumers is so deeply ingrained that even a whole community as whaky and out there as ours here at MDC can't counter act the mass consumption we achieve. We stand, for the members of the World Bank, as a model world citizen, each of us willing to become indebted for life to belong through perceived ownership of STUFF (we make up 5% of the world's population but consume 30% of it's stuff -- www.thestoryofstuff.org). It is our massive buying power, and with that our incredibly massive credit debt that keeps the PTB saying to the world, "look the other way. Nothing to see here but a beautiful country living the American dream." Because for whatever reason, as the first to shirk the empire of the British throne, we have come to embody a global idealism that cannot be shook for all the hateful actions we could take and have ever taken. And as a result the world is obsessed with our TV shows, our music videos, our movies and our ads and the products that go along with all of that. The largest US export is US media and with it the value system of buy buy buy more more more. If they sanctioned our country now in any of the myriad ways the UN has sanctioned war criminal nations of the past, our buying power would not just be diminished it would disappear. We're talking epic depression like not even the likes of the Great Depression saw. The whole world would reel.

That's my thoughts on the matter.

Maybe on domestic issues I have to concede that there are some issues being pushed through in the Obama Admin, just not the ones I thought. When I hear Universal healthcare I think free healthcare for everyone, not mandatory purchasing of healthcare. Colombia and Argentina both have far poorer banks than the US even in its current state and yet they both manage to afford quality healthcare for free to anyone who shows up on the hospital steps. ANYONE. I had my son for free in the Argentina public hospital. It was clean, safe, top quality care...okay I had to bring my own bed sheets, but I had a week long stay and traumatic birth that wound up in a C-section....and not a single penny. I was thinking closer to that sort of thing...but baby steps, right? From what I see they let him push through a few concillatory items, to appease the voters, but foreign policy issues haven't changed much and if anything have grown more absurd. Visa requirements are stricter than ever. Relationships with many nations have not grown better but more tense (Venezuela to name one) and his Obi-wan zen like presence that drew the world to his side has really seemed to wane this week. I am disappointed and I know most of my friends here in latin America are too.

Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing? Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book? And who uses check books anymore anyway? That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something. Domestic finance has never been my strong point. I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money. That's my groceries for about two weeks.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing? Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book? And who uses check books anymore anyway? That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something. Domestic finance has never been my strong point. I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money. That's my groceries for about two weeks.


I'm wondering this too. I think it already started at my bank, but I haven't noticed any charges to our accounts yet. I'm worried, because that is a lot of money, and if we see a charge, we will probably close all of our accounts with this bank, and try to find real free checking (and that's really going to suck for paying bills)


----------



## hakeber

Mamaof Liam,

For what it is worth I define terrorism in my Peace and conflict classes as an act or acts which serve to terrorize (incite fear and submission) a group of people in their civilian lives with the goal of sending a message (these range from, shut up and toe the line to give us back our homeland).

Both nations and rogue states/entities can be guilty of this and have been throughout history.

I believe in my heart that the only way to destroy terrorism is to transform the need for terrorism to exist, not through violence but through conflict transformation. Standing up and fighting doesn't need to include brute force as the only tactic, nor does it need to include more passive forms of violence as Eclipse has mentioned before. You can't fight terror with terror, no matter how legal it may or may not be, all you wind up doing is creating more fear. Fear, as we MDC parents all know, is never a long term valid motivation to keep the peace and motivate positive action. It only serves to repress agression, not resolve it. Repressing violence is not a good enough solution for me. We can do better, IMO.

Moonfire,

if I were on the jury of a terrorist's trial, I would weight all the evidence of both the prosecutors AND the defendants and make a decision without prejudice and hope I made the right choice. But of course you have to be indicted to have a trial.









OFF TOPIC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amatullah0*
> 
> I'm wondering this too. I think it already started at my bank, but I haven't noticed any charges to our accounts yet. I'm worried, because that is a lot of money, and if we see a charge, we will probably close all of our accounts with this bank, and try to find real free checking (and that's really going to suck for paying bills)


You need a checking account to pay bills? We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore. I haven't had one in about 10 years. I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account. Do you actually have a check book? like with paper checks?


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> You need a checking account to pay bills? We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore. I haven't had one in about 10 years. I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account. Do you actually have a check book? like with paper checks?


Sticking with the OT stuff - my Mexican bills get paid in cash at the super market, the liquor store, or the company office. Except my rent, which is paid in US dollars deposited into my Mexican landlord's US account







. I could do that in cash, but a check makes it easier. US bills that we still have come out as debits, but some things still require checks - some children's activities for example. The thing is, some banks will process point of sale debit transactions even if you don't have the money in your account (and they know you don't) and then charge you overdraft/bounced check fees. And of course they process all the transactions in order from largest to smallest, so "bouncing" one transaction will then bounce a bunch more, regardless of the order you actually made the transactions. It's a great racket.


----------



## eclipse

And back on topic (sort of), Amatullah0, to continue our discussion from yesterday about the house/compound - I read a quote today from one of the Pakistani intelligence big shots and he said basically what you and I were commenting on - the house wasn't out of place for it's location. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, and it was the type of house that would reasonably be built/purchased by someone with a decent amount of money.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> You need a checking account to pay bills? We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore. I haven't had one in about 10 years. I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account. Do you actually have a check book? like with paper checks?


What bills do you pay at the cash register?

I didn't think of paying bills at the company office, but the offices are all very far away from us. We used to actually MAIL IN our checks to pay the bills. This was just last year or maybe the year before that when we switched to auto pay/online bill pay. We pay our rent with a paper check.

We only have a checking account. Paper checks and all! We don't have a saving's account, because our religion doesn't allow us to pay or receive interest (we also have 0 credit card debt, so that definitely has it's benefits).

I honestly don't know as much as I probably should about the financial world (and banks are so sneaky, they really don't want you to know anything) If anyone knows of any other options for fee and interest free banking, PM me, please! I haven't been able to figure anything out.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing?


First of all, the over-draw fee has not been eliminated. What has been added is the ability to opt out of automatic overdraft services on your debit card. This means when you open a bank account, you get asked this question: when you don't have enough money, shall we pay your transactions on this card or deny them? Before, they simply assumed you wanted your card transactions approved even if it was going to put you in the hole the amount of the charge plus a fee or possibly several fees depending on how many transactions overdraw you--or what order the transactions post in. It is a good thing because there is no cap on the number of fees a bank can charge you in the day, and many banks design their posting order to maximize the number of overdraft fees they can charge you. What this means is that perfect people who never make a mistake have nothing to fear, but an elderly woman who lives off of social security and makes a mistake of even five dollars can wind up paying a $35 overdraft fee because of that. If two $2 transactions overdraw her, she will pay two fees. If she cannot pay until her next social security check comes in, she may even pay a fee every 5-7 days while she waits for that check to come in. Many mistakenly believe debit cards will automatically decline when funds aren't available. That is not the case. It is now, though, unless you specifically opt in to that feature.

Quote:


> Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better?


That's the reason banks give for it, but fees--overdraft fees specifically--bring in a significant amount of profit for banks. Roughly 30% of profit comes from fees, and banks will lose some of that fee profit because of these changes.

Quote:


> Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book?


What does that have to do with a debit card thief being able to spend not only the balance of a customer's account, but also to take that account deeply into debt? What does that have to do with clients who receive fees due to posting order, check holds, etc? Do you know what a chargeback is? It's when someone writes a check to you, you deposit it into your account, and the check doesn't pay, so the bank takes that money back. If this causes your transactions to be returned with the applicable return charge or to overdraw your account, tough. You can pay us back for the transactions, plus a fee for each transaction, plus the chargeback fee. Chargebacks may happen due to stop payments, invalid checks, insufficient funds, and other reasons. Many times when I encounter a chargeback, it was a check from the client's employer. Did you know that at some banks, when items are about to be returned unpaid, a hold is placed on those funds? These holds may make the available balance show negative, cause other transactions to decline for insufficient funds that SHOULD be available, and even cause OD fees & more returned items with return charges from the bank AND the companies who didn't get paid. And guess what.. it's not bank error, so you're paying. If you think that only people who can't balance their checkbook receive overdraft fees, you're wrong.

Quote:


> And who uses check books anymore anyway?


Do you want an honest answer? Old people, for the most part. But many people still use checks to pay their bills, especially rent.

Quote:


> That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something.


Seeing that you seem to think Reg E means "no overdraw fee," yes, you probably are missing something. See the above explanation of why it isn't just people who can't manage money who wind up with overdraft fees.

Quote:


> I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks.


Free checking is not worth allowing people to overdraft their account with a card most people believe will automatically decline when funds are insufficient, because the banks don't bother to tell them upfront that it won't. Now banks have to do that and give them the option to turn that feature off; before, banks could even refuse to turn the feature off. Anyone, even you, can make a financial mistake, either through mathematical error, human error, or an unexpected banking situation such as a hold or chargeback. Luckily, there are still financial institutions that offer free checking, and many have made their OD-policies more customer-friendly. If the check my employer gives me charges back, I'd sure like to have my debit card STOP approving transactions rather than keep letting me spend money that I don't know isn't there anymore because I haven't received the chargeback notification letter yet and the banks don't typically call.

Savings accounts, by federal law, are limited to 6 electronic transactions in a month. This includes debit card purchases. Many banks do not allow debit cards to be funded primarily by savings because of this; they generally allow debit cards to access the account only at an ATM. If you are using your savings accounts to pay bills, you are fine if you have more than one savings account to juggle or less than six bills to pay a month. Starting with and after the 7th electronic transaction, your bank is required to start charging you a fee for each additional one.

Company policy requires me to state that these views are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. [The explanations regarding Reg E change are fact, not opinion, though.]

Amatullah - Some banks have started charging fees, or changed the amounts of their current fees. Others are still operating with no fees at all. The change to your account is simply that, upon account opening, you must decide to opt in or out of overdraft services for everyday ATM & debit card transactions. Basically, when you're trying to withdraw $300 that isn't available for whatever reason, do you want to be given that money and charged the fee or do you want to be told "No way, Jose?" Also... free checking is a lie. Even banks that don't have a maintenance fee charge you fees for other "services" they provide, from using their online banking and automated system to using another bank's ATM machine.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> You need a checking account to pay bills? We have to pay ours either at the supermarket cash register or at the company office if we are late...I didn't even think people HAD checking accounts anymore. I haven't had one in about 10 years. I out everything on my debit card linked to my savings account. Do you actually have a check book? like with paper checks?
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, some banks will process point of sale debit transactions even if you don't have the money in your account (and they know you don't) and then charge you overdraft/bounced check fees. And of course they process all the transactions in order from largest to smallest, so "bouncing" one transaction will then bounce a bunch more, regardless of the order you actually made the transactions. It's a great racket.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's right. And the change that Obama's administration has made prevents them from doing that, at least for your debit card purchases, without your permission. If you don't want them to pay card transactions into the negative... they can't.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amatullah0*
> 
> What bills do you pay at the cash register?


I can only answer for me, but in Mexico, you can pay pretty much any bill at the register - phone, cable, electric, water, etc. I think many of the banks and other credit organizations (like ones that finance electronics or furniture type purchases) also allow you to pay at the checkstand. Some stores charge a nominal fee - I think the OXXO (like 7/11) charges something like 7 pesos (65 cents or so, depending on the exchange rate) to pay there, but the grocery store lets you do it for free. I don't think it's possible to do this anymore in the US, but I remember my mom paying some bills at Safeway because she didn't have a checking account.


----------



## moonfirefaery

eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.


----------



## eclipse

And I meant to say that hakeber is in Colombia - I would imagine it works in a similar way there.


----------



## eclipse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.


Interesting to know! When I first moved here, I thought it was a weird way to do things, but I actually really like it. Mexican postal service is notoriously bad (most companies just hire private couriers), so mailing a check would end up with me lightless, waterless, phoneless, etc. And security on Mexican websites is dubious, at best, so while I could pay some bills online with my credit card, it wouldn't really be safe. It's nice to be able to be going shopping anyway and take care of the water bill while I'm there.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eclipse*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> eclipse, there are some places in the US where you can pay bills at the register. Wal-Mart has began offering the service for certain companies.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to know! When I first moved here, I thought it was a weird way to do things, but I actually really like it. Mexican postal service is notoriously bad (most companies just hire private couriers), so mailing a check would end up with me lightless, waterless, phoneless, etc. And security on Mexican websites is dubious, at best, so while *I could pay some bills online with my credit card*, it wouldn't really be safe. It's nice to be able to be going shopping anyway and take care of the water bill while I'm there.
Click to expand...

You should make online purchases using a prepaid debit card; then your loss is limited to only whatever you have placed on the card. And for most banks, changing your card number is simpler than your account number, and debit card fraud is a simpler matter than check fraud. You're at risk for both, so you're making the right choice but I'm just pointing this out for other people's benefit.


----------



## MamaofLiam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MsBirdie*
> 
> As an orphan from Lebanon that spent years malnourished in an orphanage in the 1980s during the invasion of Lebanon, my idea of terrorism is very different from another person's idea for that "war." *I can say truthfully that I can see both sides of the issue, and, in the end, no one was right and the innocent are always the ones that suffer.*
> 
> *The world is shades of gray, and there are very few wars that have evil and good sides. * Violence is horrible at anytime and I wish that everyone could just live with tolerance, but I guess that is just wishfull thinking.


I completely agree with you Ms Birdie. I really think that at the end of the day, there are very few, if any "good" vs "evil" scenarios. To tell you the truth I don't even know if I believe there is such a thing as good and evil. I don't believe that someone wakes up one day and decides "hey I'm going to be a terrorist," there is so much more to it than that. And to write someone off as a terrorist, without trying to understand where and how they got there (to the point of being a terrorist) is a cop out IMO. So what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot to be learned by trying to understand the reasoning and/or motivations behind acts of a "terrorist" as opposed to just saying they are "evil" and lets wipe them off the face of the earth. Because like other pp's have said, terrorist org's are like hydras and when one head is lopped off another will grow in it's place.

Hakebar - thank you for all those links. I've been really interested in reading media with some outside perspective, i.e., outside mainstream US media, on this whole Osama situation. Each time you have written in this thread you have given me a lot to think about. ANd your last posts are no different.









The quote button isn't working, but here is your quote on how you define terrorism:

*For what it is worth I define terrorism in my Peace and conflict classes as an act or acts which serve to terrorize (incite fear and submission) a group of people in their civilian lives with the goal of sending a message (these range from, **shut up and toe the line** to **give us back our homeland**).*

According to this definition I don't see how we don't see ourselves as the terrorists. I honestly feel so ashamed of the things our country has done. Especially over these past 10 years. I don't understand why more people in our country don't see how wrong we've been in so many cases. I'm wondering if maybe the geography of the US is a contributing factor? Do you think our geographic isolation has helped lead to our egocentric views? Granted we have the internet and all that, but we only have 2 nations on our borders with a lot of space in between. I don't know, just a thought...


----------



## MamaofLiam

eclipse and hakebar - where you live do you have the option of paying your bills online through a bank? maybe you already said this and i missed it, but i don't think i saw it. to me it seems really strange to pay bills at a register like the grocery store, but i imagine i'd get used to it. just like using checks seems strange to you ;P. what do you do if you are out of town for awhile? i pay all my bills online through bill pay with my bank. i like it a lot b/c i just setup when i want them to be paid (weeks in advance sometimes) and then i don't have to think about it anymore. i used to use checks, but online bill pay is sooo much easier.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Company policy requires me to state that these views are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. [The explanations regarding Reg E change are fact, not opinion, though.]
> 
> I'm assuming you work in/for a bank then?
> 
> Amatullah - Some banks have started charging fees, or changed the amounts of their current fees. Others are still operating with no fees at all. The change to your account is simply that, upon account opening, you must decide to opt in or out of overdraft services for everyday ATM & debit card transactions. Basically, when you're trying to withdraw $300 that isn't available for whatever reason, do you want to be given that money and charged the fee or do you want to be told "No way, Jose?" Also... *free checking is a lie*. Even banks that don't have a maintenance fee charge you fees for other "services" they provide, from using their online banking and automated system to using another bank's ATM machine.
> 
> I know that it's not entirely free. But I'm happy if I can completely avoid those fees, something you can't do if you have a monthly fee on your account.
> 
> Are there still banks that don't charge a maintenance fee? I was looking into it a few months ago, and let me tell you, it's really hard to figure this stuff out.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaofLiam*
> 
> I don't believe that someone wakes up one day and decides "hey I'm going to be a terrorist," there is so much more to it than that.
> 
> I'm sure there are people like that, but I'm also sure that they have mental illness, and probably choose to terrorize people solo. (i.e. serial killers). But yeah, a lot of people who I've spoken to on this subject don't seem to understand that most "terrorists" have completely valid reasons behind why they do what they do.
> 
> According to this definition I don't see how we don't see ourselves as the terrorists. I honestly feel so ashamed of the things our country has done. Especially over these past 10 years. I don't understand why more people in our country don't see how wrong we've been in so many cases. I'm wondering if maybe the geography of the US is a contributing factor? Do you think our geographic isolation has helped lead to our egocentric views? Granted we have the internet and all that, but we only have 2 nations on our borders with a lot of space in between. I don't know, just a thought...
> 
> That's a really interesting thought. I've never thought of that before. But, hey, when all of your enemies are very, very, far away, it's probably easy to feel safe enough to be the bully.


And as a side note, I am younger than moonfirefaery, and I use checks, as do most other people I know. They come in handy if you want to write someone a donation, buy girl scout cookies(or whatever else), or need to pay rent (our options for paying rent are check, money order, or online payment through an agency that charges a huge percentage of our rent)


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> All I have is plenty, and if a plane crashes into a building killing my son, I hope you don't end up with jury duty for the terrorist who incited the pilot to that violence. Guess we're even.


Yeah, you say that until the jury punishes the wrong man because public opinion had more of an effect on their judgement than facts and the real person responsible goes on the keep killing.

Eventually you will gain more experience, think back and realize what I'm trying to say here, which is no matter how much news you watch, or how many political blogs your read, or how many laypersons you talk to, you are never going to have enough information to know if someone is guilty or not unless you were directly involved and even then it's going to always be the case.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> Can I ask why no over-draw fee is a GOOD thing? Isn't it supposed to be a deterrant to stop you from going over your account balance so that you remember not to get into debt and handle your money better? Why would a I trade 120 dollars a year for that if I already know how to balance my check book? And who uses check books anymore anyway? That doesn't see like a good deal to me, to be honest, but maybe I am missing something. Domestic finance has never been my strong point. I'll take free checking and a calculator please and give me back the 120 bucks...that's a lot of money. That's my groceries for about two weeks.


It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.

As for who uses check books? A lot of post secondary students around here use them just because it's easier to cash your student loan with a void check than to have to make to the bank sometime between 9am and 4pm.


----------



## Thao

Well, probably we agree more than we think. Your statement bolded below is all I was trying to get at - there there is little qualitative difference between the people loudly celebrating OBL's death and the people who loudly celebrated 9/11. Earlier in the thread you made statements that led me to believe that you thought the two are very different, but maybe it was a misunderstanding.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* We were attacked primarily because certain people want us out of the Middle East as they feel they're better off without us there, but for al Qaeda to fight the war in the way it does, the hearts of its "soldiers" must be corrupted by fear, hatred, and vengeance. For people to cheer in the streets at the loss of innocent life, there must be fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts. Terrorists believe they are fighting for what's right, and there's no doubt in my mind that they hate the enemy: us. Is that hatred justified? Yes, probably. Does that make terrorism any less evil? NO. *I realize this leads to the logical conclusion that those of us cheering in the streets at the loss of bin Laden must have fear, hatred, and vengeance in their hearts... I do not deny that.*


----------



## Thao

For those of you looking for free banking services, try a credit union if you are eligible to join one. I bank with one and get free checking, free online billpay, free cash withdrawals from the credit union ATM... of course I have to pay for some services like international wires but it is very reasonable. I *heart* my credit union!


----------



## Thao

Regarding the definition of terrorism, I think I would define it fairly narrowly, because I don't think the concept of "terror" (a very strong word) should get watered down. I'd define it as a violent and unexpected action against civilians aimed to cause terror and a feeling of constant insecurity, in order to coerce a political change.

Financial coercion of other countries can be bad (I say "can" because certain financial embargos have accomplished good - South Africa being one), but I wouldn't call it terrorism. Financial destruction tends to be more gradual, you can see it coming and try to take steps to cope. Even if it is sudden, like a currency devaluation, it generally takes a while for someone to die from financial trouble. Of course it is bad, but "terror" is something different. Terror is the insecurity of knowing you could be violently attacked and killed at any moment, no matter how much you follow the rules or try to prepare.

By this definition, the US of course has committed, financed and exported terrorism at certain points in our history. My guess is most countries have at some time or another. We have also done some really great stuff; we are a huge mass of contradictions. And since that is pretty much the human condition, I assume (yes, I know I'm assuming here!) that other countries/groups that commit terrorist actions aren't really that different from us, they are a huge mass of contradictions too.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> First of all, the over-draw fee has not been eliminated. What has been added is the ability to opt out of automatic overdraft services on your debit card. This means when you open a bank account, you get asked this question: when you don't have enough money, shall we pay your transactions on this card or deny them? Before, they simply assumed you wanted your card transactions approved even if it was going to put you in the hole the amount of the charge plus a fee or possibly several fees depending on how many transactions overdraw you--or what order the transactions post in. It is a good thing because there is no cap on the number of fees a bank can charge you in the day, and many banks design their posting order to maximize the number of overdraft fees they can charge you. What this means is that perfect people who never make a mistake have nothing to fear, but an elderly woman who lives off of social security and makes a mistake of even five dollars can wind up paying a $35 overdraft fee because of that. If two $2 transactions overdraw her, she will pay two fees. If she cannot pay until her next social security check comes in, she may even pay a fee every 5-7 days while she waits for that check to come in. Many mistakenly believe debit cards will automatically decline when funds aren't available. That is not the case. It is now, though, unless you specifically opt in to that feature.
> 
> *Okay. That makes sense. I genuinely have not lived in a country for over ten years where one CAN overdraw their account without a credit line (which comes with a hefty interest rate), and I have not held a paper check in my hand is as long. Everything is done by automatic deposit and withdrawl and I get notifications of my balance and withdrawls for every transaction on my cellphone. I just assumed the US had moved along those lines too. I know exactly what my balance is at all times. If I need more money at the end of the month I have to borrow from a friend, which sometimes means eating nothing but creative combinations of eggs and potatoes for a week or two, or borrow on a line of credit from the local kisko (interest free). The cards here will automatically decline your transaction. Sometimes they even decline your transaction when you DO have money because the computers are down and they can't verify your balance. *
> 
> That's the reason banks give for it, but fees--overdraft fees specifically--bring in a significant amount of profit for banks. Roughly 30% of profit comes from fees, and banks will lose some of that fee profit because of these changes.
> 
> *I always thought of it like a library fee when I lived in the states. It seemed fair to me. But you make a good case for it being a total wank job. *
> 
> What does that have to do with a debit card thief being able to spend not only the balance of a customer's account, but also to take that account deeply into debt? What does that have to do with clients who receive fees due to posting order, check holds, etc? Do you know what a chargeback is? It's when someone writes a check to you, you deposit it into your account, and the check doesn't pay, so the bank takes that money back. If this causes your transactions to be returned with the applicable return charge or to overdraw your account, tough. You can pay us back for the transactions, plus a fee for each transaction, plus the chargeback fee. Chargebacks may happen due to stop payments, invalid checks, insufficient funds, and other reasons. Many times when I encounter a chargeback, it was a check from the client's employer. Did you know that at some banks, when items are about to be returned unpaid, a hold is placed on those funds? These holds may make the available balance show negative, cause other transactions to decline for insufficient funds that SHOULD be available, and even cause OD fees & more returned items with return charges from the bank AND the companies who didn't get paid. And guess what.. it's not bank error, so you're paying. If you think that only people who can't balance their checkbook receive overdraft fees, you're wrong.
> 
> *Debit card theft? Check holds? Charge back? those are different arguments, aren't they? My head stopped being able to wrap itself around that whole stopped check thing a long time ago. when money goes in I get a notice of my balance. If it doesn't go in on pay day, I don't go to work until they pay me.*
> 
> *God the US banking system is like some antiquated dinosaur...honestly...if someone steals my bank card (or holds me up and makes me drain my account ) I am insured...well the BANK is insured and they protect my money. How the heck is it less safe to have your money in a bank in the US than it to have an account in COLOMBIA!!!! OMG! That's funny, no? *
> 
> *I am trying but I do not follow the charge back thing. See, now you got to make me feel utterly stupid about something...I'll take your word that this development is a good thing, but I think I'll keep my money here in Colombia or in my pension fund on the Isle Wight, nevertheless.*
> 
> Do you want an honest answer? Old people, for the most part. But many people still use checks to pay their bills, especially rent.
> 
> *I did want any honest answer...these are such a throw back from the past for me. I seriously have not even seen a paper check (apart from in movies, which I always thought was one of those anachronistic flaws like people not having cellphones and it causing all sorts of confusion and delay and comedy) in over ten years. I thought they did away with them. More evidence for me that the banking industry is mostly in control in the States. What a SCAM! *
> 
> Seeing that you seem to think Reg E means "no overdraw fee," yes, you probably are missing something. See the above explanation of why it isn't just people who can't manage money who wind up with overdraft fees.
> 
> *I do not even know what "Reg E" stands for or means. You said no overdraw fee...or so I thought....now I don't know. *
> 
> Free checking is not worth allowing people to overdraft their account with a card most people believe will automatically decline when funds are insufficient, because the banks don't bother to tell them upfront that it won't. Now banks have to do that and give them the option to turn that feature off; before, banks could even refuse to turn the feature off. Anyone, even you, can make a financial mistake, either through mathematical error, human error, or an unexpected banking situation such as a hold or chargeback. Luckily, there are still financial institutions that offer free checking, and many have made their OD-policies more customer-friendly. *If the check my employer gives me charges back, I'd sure like to have my debit card STOP approving transactions rather than keep letting me spend money that I don't know isn't there anymore because I haven't received the chargeback notification letter yet and the banks don't typically call.*
> 
> *Yeah...that's how most of the world does it! I actually cannot think of a single country I have lived in that allows you to spend money you don't have without a credit line that you have to apply for through a lengthy drawn out process that requires a co-signer no matter how rich you are. I cannot even believe that is legal...the US is so messed up when it comes to money. God*! *(I mean I believe it, but I can't believe it!!! That's horrible!)*
> 
> *Savings accounts, by federal law, are limited to 6 electronic transactions in a month*. This includes debit card purchases. Many banks do not allow debit cards to be funded primarily by savings because of this; they generally allow debit cards to access the account only at an ATM. If you are using your savings accounts to pay bills, you are fine if you have more than one savings account to juggle or less than six bills to pay a month. Starting with and after the 7th electronic transaction, your bank is required to start charging you a fee for each additional one.
> 
> *That is messed up man!*
> 
> Company policy requires me to state that these views are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. [The explanations regarding Reg E change are fact, not opinion, though.]
> 
> *Duly noted.*
> 
> *Amatullah - I pay all my bills (Cable, electric, water, phone) at the supermarket, a bill place, or the pharmacy...most major stores have the equipment to process bills. If I want to pay a person for something (like school activities, donations, or rent) we go to their bank branch and make a deposit in their account, or give them cash. You CAN do these things on line, but I keep losing my password and I can't seem to get it set up, so I gave up. *
> 
> *MD the banks here stay open until 8pm most week days and until 5pm on saturday. In other places I have lived in the world they have at least one day a week opened quite late, and always a Saturday morning at least. People also typically are excused from work for red tape issues without much hassle. Employers KNOW it's part of the deal so if I have to go to the post office I get an afternoon off to do so, or at least a full hour for lunch. *


The US banking industry is so messed up people think this REG E is awesome, when in the rest of the world it would be fundamentally illegal to give people access to money they do not have without informing them they didn't have it and then charge them for your mistake. I'm just saying. Baby steps, I know.

(Disclaimer: I get that it's intentional and not a mistake and all, but I just cannot wrap my head around this.)

Back to the Osama thread.


----------



## mar123

Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
> 
> I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.


1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living. From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could. I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned. It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things. He was just a puppeteer.

2 - i am glad he was killed for one reason only - if he had been arrested i believe there would have been a rash of kidnappings and (probably taped/live/online) executions of more innocent people to try to force his release. There would have been no way for him to have a fair trial - he already confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, no jury in the world is going to be "balanced" about it and why should they be. His death is at least final enough that any backlash will be done in revenge rather than a hopeful attempt to "save" him. Revenge stems from bitterness and anger which is generally shorter-lived than hope.

The constant story-changing (including the fact that the place where it all happened is totally different to the one i saw on the earliest report i saw - the place they're showing now looks fairly nice, the one they showed initially looked like it MAYBE had a tap on the premises) does not surprise me. I know i cannot and will not know the truth anyway.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Amatullah - I work for the 11th largest bank in the nation. Yes, some banks still offer free checking. Look at their fee schedule before you sign up, though, because even if the account has no monthly fee, there are other fees to look out for.

hakeber - A lot of banks do the notifcations here, but they still find ways to manipulate your balance to where you wind up with fees. Debit card theft is a minor concern for overdraft fees, because most banks will refund them after the investigation. But yes, some will hold checks (paper checks you deposit), especially large ones, sometimes without even bothering to tell you it's on hold. Then you go spend your money, and get an overdraft fee because your check wasn't "available" yet.

And chargebacks... oh God.

Picture this: 25 year-old Molly deposits her paycheck on Monday. We put it on hold. Her MOnday gas transaction causes an overdraft fee. She calls the bank and we explain, maybe even give her a courtesy waiver. She continues to spend with her debit card. Days go by. Molly has no idea that on Friday, the bank received notice that the check wasn't going to pay due to insufficient funds in her employer's account. The bank takes the paycheck out of her account. All of her pending transactions cause overdraft fees. The bank sends her a letter, but she won't get it until the next week. And Molly is young, so she doesn't check her balance all the time. She continues using her card over the weekend.

On Monday, she checks her balance to see where she's at. She is appalled to see that she is $600 negative and that her paycheck is missing. More fees will come, and if she doesn't pay back ASAP, she faces a new fee every five days. Does the bank waive those fees for poor Molly? No. If Molly hadn't checked her balance, she may not have known until she got that letter--as late as ten days after the chargeback occurred. All this time she could be racking up more fees. Her fault for not checking her balance, yes, but if she's keeping her ledger meticulously, she doesn't think she needs to.

Reg E changes mean that her card would decline on Monday...giving her a message right away that something is up. She'd find out about the hold without getting an overdraft fee. Then when the chargeback occurred on Friday, her card would start declining again, and she'd probably find out that day about the chargeback. Then she can stop spending. All of her pending transactions for the week will probably still cause overdraft fees, but at least she won't keep blindly racking up debt all weekend while the bank takes its sweet time notifying her that her paycheck was no good.

Oh and get this... Molly has 60 days to pay back that $600 + the fees that come ever 5-10 days while she tries. If she doesn't, the bank will report her to ChexSystems. Now she can't have a bank account for 7 years. Even if you pay the debt, banks may refuse to work with you. All because your paycheck was no good, you didn't find out for a week, and all the transactions you made in good faith after depositting it caused you fee after fee. Or even because you made a mathematical error. or if someone spent your money, but the bank couldn't find enough evidence to prove it wasn't you so they expect you to pay it back. Etc. :/ Now that rule isn't due to Reg E; that's just what banks do. ChexSystems is also for people who do check fraud.

Reg E is just the law that governs debit card transactions. That shadow line of credit IS illegal now for debit card purchases, unless you opt-in to it, due to the change in policy. That's the beauty of the new Reg E policy: now your card will decline if you want it to when money isn't "there". However... this doesn't apply to checks, reoccurring transactions, and withdrawals using your routing and account #. Most of us still have the shadow line. Most consumers use those other methods for bills, so the shadow line for those who opt-out mostly just pays their bills. People aren't so pissy about paying an overdraft fee to have their lights kept on. What they are pissy about is when their coffee purchase is approved, and then they get a $35 OD fee that could have been saved if the card had declined like they figured it would if money wasn't there. Now banks cannot just simply give you the shadow line of credit, without notifying you, without letting you turn it off. Now, they HAVE to tell you about it, ask you if you want it, and let you turn it off if you don't--for debit card purchases.

Anyways... this is all of track and I'm sorry since I'm the one who brought it up. But Obama's administration pushed this change through, and it's a good change. I see less OD fees now, and I never have to explain to a poor college student "No, your card doesn't just decline when you don't have money; it will let you keep spending and spending, and I can't waive all these fees for you." Now it's "Well, sir, you opted in to this service, you spent more money than you had, and you're being charged a fee that you agreed to pay. I can't waive it."


----------



## moonfirefaery

And yes, I do believe he was planning more attacks, whether any would come to fruition, I don't know but I do believe they were in the works.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
> 
> I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.


I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well. I am dubious.

FWIW, I do not lead a depressing life. I believe I lead a much happier life by not swallow every ounce of the BS the US media sells us. I think I get a much more balanced view of the world when I do not write any group off as crazy, but carefully weigh all sides of an issue.

Any decent trial should have a prosecution and a defense. In the US, and to a large extent the UK as well, there has been a trial by press and the prosecution's side has had a MUCH louder voice and a disproportionate amount of time to speak. The defense has had to resort to alternative press and smaller press outlets, meaning their voice is hardly heard and often when it is is written off as lunacy. I am lucky to live abroad and have access to so many different points of view and it definitely shapes my trust issues with the US government.

This article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267553 Chomsky has a lot to say on the matter of the media influence over the percpetions of Americans, and I have to say from my own observatiosn I whole heartedly agree with his take on matters. The US has a free press, but the mainstream media does not exercise that right as we expect them to.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11.


I just came to post this

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Bin-Laden-eyed-US-rails-from-his-secret-compound-1366879.php

back later with my opinions, and to read the last few posts that I haven't read yet.


----------



## eclipse

The rail thing doesn't sound like a real plan. More like a "wouldn't it be cool if we could. . .?"


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Question: CNN is now reporting that evidence from the things taken from Bin ladens compound show that he was planning an attack on the rail system on the anniversary of 9/11. Ques. 1- Do you believe this or do you think this is an attempt by the US government to gain understanding and sympathy from the general public in reponse to the outcry from some after learning Bin Laden was unarmed. 2. If you do believe it is true, does it change your perception of what happened (if you were questioning whether or not he should have been killed)
> 
> I am NOT a conspiracy theorist nor do I generally think the government frequently lies to its people; I simply cannot live such a depressing way of life. However, when I heard that information last night, I thought it was WAY too convenient time wise for this to be announced. And the constant changing of stories regarding what happened has also colored my view of this new information. Just curious about others' opinions.


1. yes, I'm not sure that I believe that there was, actually a plot, but even if there was, it sounds way too much like it's being brought to our attention to make us feel better about the US gov. I agree that it sounds WAY TOO convenient. There's way too much that just doesn't add up. Including the part about not being on higher security alert due to this. I mean, we were on "higher alert" for YEARS after 9/11, you know? Even though the system has been changed(so I understand) it doesn't make sense that 1. they would come across a credible threat, 2. TELL the american people about it, and 3. Not go crazy on security (like last time).

2. no, it doesn't change my opinion, though I'm not sure I have one. I don't believe killing OBL(if he was even killed.... I'm not sure I believe that yet, and it seems totally plausible that it was someone else's body that they dumped in the freaking ocean) was "justice served," and I don't think it was the US's place to do it without getting the Pakistani government's approval or at least acknowledgement. I don't think that taking down a figurehead can take down an organization like al-qaeda, especially when it seems obvious that he was probably going to die soon anyways, and must have someone to take over for him.

I'm also starting to get a little p*ssed off on behalf of Pakistan for some of the reasons mentioned upthread on sovereignty. I would actually like to see pakistan take action on this, but I have serious doubts of that happening







The rest of the world really needs to "grow some balls."

I don't trust the gov for most of my information, especially if they seem to have something to gain by telling it to me (votes, anyone?). I am also one of those people who think that there is more than a small chance that 9/11 was done to benefit the US. In whatever way.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoBecGo*
> 
> 1 - i'm sure he was planning many attacks, and may well have had notes or ideas where he was living. *From that POV it's possible that he was musing on how to "mark" 9/11 if he could.* I don't think this necessarily means he was definitely going to attack the rail system or for that matter that him being killed would prevent such an attack, if it's already been planned. It's not like he PERSONALLY went out to do these things. He was just a puppeteer.
> 
> Interesting thought, though I have my doubts.
> 
> 2 - i am glad he was killed for one reason only - *if he had been arrested i believe there would have been a rash of kidnappings and (probably taped/live/online) executions of more innocent people to try to force his release.* There would have been no way for him to have a fair trial - he already confessed to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, no jury in the world is going to be "balanced" about it and why should they be. His death is at least final enough that any backlash will be done in revenge rather than a hopeful attempt to "save" him. Revenge stems from bitterness and anger which is generally shorter-lived than hope.
> 
> I agree with you (and another interesting thought).
> 
> The constant story-changing (including the fact that the place where it all happened is totally different to the one i saw on the earliest report i saw - the place they're showing now looks fairly nice, the one they showed initially looked like it MAYBE had a tap on the premises) does not surprise me. I know i cannot and will not know the truth anyway.
> 
> And, that's interesting(reminds me of 9/11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Any links?(I haven't really been "following" this story.)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> I am sure there were plans of all sorts. However, I find the release of this information to be conveniently timed and the details to be fishy as well. I am dubious.
> 
> FWIW, I do not lead a depressing life. I believe I lead a much happier life by not swallow every ounce of the BS the US media sells us. I think I get a much more balanced view of the world when I do not write any group off as crazy, but carefully weigh all sides of an issue.
> 
> Any decent trial should have a prosecution and a defense. In the US, and to a large extent the UK as well, there has been a trial by press and the prosecution's side has had a MUCH louder voice and an disproportionate amount of time to speak. The defense has had to resort to alternative press and smaller press outlets, meaning their voice is hardly heard and often when it is is written off as lunacy. I am lucky to live abroad and have access to so many different points of view and it definitely shapes my trust issues with the US government.
> 
> This article http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267553 Chmosky has a lot to say on the matter of the media influence over the percpetions of Americans, and I have to say from my own observatiosn I whole heartedly agree with his take on matters. The US has a free press, but the mainstream media does not exercise that right as we expect them to.












As a side note, I still find it really frustrating to be a Muslim in the US, in this age. Many of the Muslim organizations that I receive emails from have sent out their "official statement" on the assassination of OBL. The political correctness and genericness really bothers me(along with the fact that they felt the need to HAVE an official statement), because it only reinforces the idea that has been driven into my head that since I am a Muslim in the US, and since a lot of America thinks that Muslims are terrorists, I should be extra patriotic, because I have to prove that I am NOT a terrorist. I (along with most of my friends) have had more than our share of comments, so this really isn't coming from thin air.

It's like this one gas station we have near our house, it is absolutely COVERED in american flags. There are at least 6 pumps, and flags on each pump, and on the store building too, along with stickers on the windows. Most of the arab/pakistani owned businesses have american flags, to make customers think they support the USA. (It's funny, because when we go somewhere new, and we see an american flag sticker, we are about 85% certain that the business will be muslim owned(and if it's not, it's a non-muslim arab, indopaki, or mexican, or an overzealous whiter-than-white-bread american patriot) Many of the (foreign) business owners DO love living in the USA(otherwise they wouldn't be here), and probably don't have any objection to being unconditional american patriots(some do, but most don't). But they ALL installed the flags/stickers, after 9/11, because they felt like they had to prove something. It really sucks.

An email I received today:

The Michigan Muslim Democratic Caucus is heartened and relieved by the end of the era of Osama Bin Laden. Ten years after 9/11, this is a seminal development that we hope will now allow our nation to heal and to appreciate that the Muslim community in America speaks for and represents itself and allow us to move forward as a collective society to address the many important challenges we face here in America such as social injustice, dwindling economic opportunity, inadequate education, and the need for effective access to healthcare.


----------



## mar123

Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.

I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later.

What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to *automatically* disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right.

I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????


----------



## moonfirefaery

mar123 - You bring up very good points. I did not like the media portrayal of Katrina or Bush's response. I also second what you've said about the media in other countries and America. I believe al Qaeda is sincere in their recent statement. And yes, Bush is an idiot. How could an idiot mastermind 911? That you point that out gives me second thoughts about that possibility. But not enough to make me certain that he had no part in it at all. Still..yes when you think of this obtuse man masterminding anything...it seems quite farfetched.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


----------



## Chamomile Girl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. *Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here*.


This is the sticking point for me...because legally, yes it does. Unless the law does not apply to the US? The end result cannot be just if the means to get there were unjust.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.
> 
> I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later. Interesting, though I don't doubt it. Would you mind sharing?
> 
> What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to *automatically* disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right. I don't automatically believe anything that any government or media tells me. I always take it with a heaping pile of salt.
> 
> I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> mar123 - You bring up very good points. I did not like the media portrayal of Katrina or Bush's response. I also second what you've said about the media in other countries and America. I believe al Qaeda is sincere in their recent statement. And yes, Bush is an idiot. How could an idiot mastermind 911? That you point that out gives me second thoughts about that possibility. But not enough to make me certain that he had no part in it at all. Still..yes when you think of this obtuse man masterminding anything...it seems quite farfetched.


I will say this: Bush is certainly an idiot, and I doubt he could have masterminded 9/11 OR keep it a secret. I doubt he was privy to much information about it(whether because it wasn't made available to him, or because he couldn't understand WHAT he was being told. But that doesn't mean that someone else didn't mastermind it on his behalf(or america's behalf, or whoever else stood to actually benefit from it.)

Wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if it turned out that al-qaeda and the US gov were allies? in a terrifying kind of way.......... not so hilarious, really....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. *We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape.* They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.

It's interesting, because it's hard to imagine that the US gov knew where he was, but PK didn't know, AND that the US managed to go in and "take him down" so easily, after supposing that he was running around in the mountains all this time.

I'm in PK right now, a little ways outside of Islamabad. A neighboring city has a military base in it. We've gone into the most protected neighborhood in that city, an area where people who work for(but not in) the military and they checked under our front bumper with a mirror, and asked the driver for ID. That's it. Nobody else has to show ID. Nobody else has to even show their face. They don't check anything here unless they feel like it, or have reason to believe you're hiding something. There are police checkpoints in other areas too, all over the place, but the police don't usually check anything. There are also usually no women at the checkpoints, not that I've ever seen anyways, and it wouldn't have been difficult for him to wear afghani burka(a lot of women wear it here-it's not unusual) if he had to go through a checkpoint. Plus, bribes here work wonders--just pay off the policeman, and you're good to go. The gov didn't have to know anything, even if other people did know.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> It's bad for people who just don't care about going over and think they should be able to access overdraft when ever they want. It's good for the single mom who rarely makes enough to cover everything and won't get charged even more money for having no choice but to go into overdraft no matter how well she balances the check book because a $10,000 a year job is never going to be enough where she's living.
> 
> Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, and for depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.
> 
> The deterrent thing is a load of crap. For people who are living right down to the last dollar in their accounts every month, charging them $45.00 (current fee at my bank) for bouncing a $10.00 cheque is just going to make it harder to stay on top of things, and more likely to bounce another one in the following weeks.
> 
> As for who uses check books? A lot of post secondary students around here use them just because it's easier to cash your student loan with a void check than to have to make to the bank sometime between 9am and 4pm.
> 
> I still have a cheque book. I don't use it for much - mostly school things (field trips, gymnastics/Ultimate fees, etc.) for ds1. But, I probably average out about a cheque or so a month, over the whole year. Most people I know still use cheques for some things, especially if they have kids in school, because the schools all take cheques. I pay my rent on debit here, but I paid it by cheque everywhere else I've lived, and there are tenants here who still pay by cheque, not debit.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Al Quada has stated that OBL is dead. Yes, they might be saying this to galvanize their own members, but they would be as effective if they announced we had tried and failed, etc.
> 
> I do not swallow everything the media says; far from it. I lived through Hurricane Katrina. What I saw on the national news, particularly CNN, in the year following, dumbfounded me. 90% of what they reported wasn't accurate. They spun stories to reflect a belief, whether it was true or not. It is still happening almost 6 years later.
> 
> What bothers me is the way some people give credence to other countries' media as reliable sources of info- the tendency to *automatically* disbelieve anything from the US govt or media (when it counters a belief system), but if another country reports something different, they must be right. It's what I call the "Blame America first crowd." Nothing we do is right, everything others do is right.
> 
> *I also find the conspiracy theories around 9/11 ironic. First, Bush is an idiot. Then he masterminded 9/11. Seriously????*


Well to be clear, I didn't say you did swallow anything, I didn't intend to imply that. I merely said it makes me happy not to.

I don't automatically write off everything the US media says but I find the balance of many sources effective in developing a point of view that is balanced and even. I do think other nations who have much freer press helpful. We see ourselves as a beacon of freedom of speech, but since the main vehicles for expression in our nation are controlled by megacorporations or linked to the Government, it is hard to find those news sources who are truly free to say exactly what you want, and many of them are written off in the mainstream as dissident whak-a-doodle news. One can never glean the truth from one or two sites, and international perspective, as I live abroad, is really what matters most to me. (eta: As what people think of Americans and our government is directly related to how I am treated.)

I have never read that Bush Masterminded ANYTHING. Never. Can you share your source? This is what I have heard Fox News pundits claim as proof again the "conspiracy theories" but I have never heard of anyone who believes the attacks were known about and approved by the US government, and CIA as George Bush's master plan. Far from it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amatullah0*
> 
> I can understand the bolded, and I agree with it to a point. Even if they didn't know about the whereabouts of OBL, they would have probably found some way to "screw it up" but I'm not really sure that the US didn't screw it up anyways, or that they even had a right to do what they did.
> 
> *EXACTLY! In fact Pakistan in the inital stages was willing to comply with a search and siezure so long as the US could provide evidence to them...they never did. Instead they threatened to invade them like they did their neighbors. If they had proof the Un would have forced Pakistan-s hand long ago. But they didn't get proof of indictment on 9/11 charges...so they didn't.*
> 
> It's interesting, because it's hard to imagine that the US gov knew where he was, but PK didn't know, AND that the US managed to go in and "take him down" so easily, after supposing that he was running around in the mountains all this time.
> 
> I'm in PK right now, a little ways outside of Islamabad. A neighboring city has a military base in it. We've gone into the most protected neighborhood in that city, an area where people who work for(but not in) the military and they checked under our front bumper with a mirror, and asked the driver for ID. That's it. Nobody else has to show ID. Nobody else has to even show their face. They don't check anything here unless they feel like it, or have reason to believe you're hiding something. There are police checkpoints in other areas too, all over the place, but the police don't usually check anything. There are also usually no women at the checkpoints, not that I've ever seen anyways, and it wouldn't have been difficult for him to wear afghani burka(a lot of women wear it here-it's not unusual) if he had to go through a checkpoint. Plus, bribes here work wonders--just pay off the policeman, and you're good to go. The gov didn't have to know anything, even if other people did know.


Interesting. Sounds like Pakistan has a lot in common with Colombia.


----------



## moonfirefaery

They built a model of his compound and they did two practice simulations... These are highly trained men. I do not doubt their capability to do a mission like this with ease. That's what we train them to do.

Whether the US had the right to do it is I think an important factor in deciding if the violation of their sovereignty was legal or justified. I am watching with interest to see the world's response as it unfolds.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Or, the person who has no choice but to count on money that may or may not appear (child support falls into this in a lot of cases). My sister's been hit with $45.00 fees, because she deposited a cheque that turned out to be NSF, and then she wrote, in a turn, another cheque that bounced. It happened to me once, and I got hit on both sides, because at that time, the bank was charging for bouncing cheques, andfor depositing cheques that are NSF. I deposited a Christmas cheque for $50.00, and it bounced, and thena cheque that I wrote bounced, and I ended up paying $50.00 out of pocket.


Yeah, I really never understood why someone gets hit with a fee for depositing a check that bounced. They are being punished for someone else not having enough money...


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Yeah, I really never understood why someone gets hit with a fee for depositing a check that bounced. They are being punished for someone else not having enough money...


Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.


It is - but, to use my case as an example: My dad wrote me a bad cheque for Christmas (sadly, this is because he was broke, but didn't want to not get me anything!). I deposited it. I thought I had the $50, and was on a tight budget at that time, and that $50 covered part of another cheque I wrote at the same time. I got dinged $25 for dad's cheque bouncing. I got dinged another $25 for bouncing my cheque. And, my dad's bank charged him whatever their fee is. But, my bank justifies charging me for his cheque, because of their lack of payment for the "service", as you said...and they can't charge my dad, because he banks at a different bank.

On the plus side, I recently looked over my bank's fees. While they've jacked the NSF charge for writing a bad cheque up to $45.00 (WTF?), they've also eliminated the charge for depositing a bad cheque. I still think $45 is highway robbery, but I haven't bounced a cheque in about 15 years, and it was the only one I ever bounced, so it really hasn't affected me. I wish they at least had a sliding sclale, topping out at $45, so that you can't be charged more in fees than the actual amount of the cheque you bounced, yk?

Anyway - this is way OT, so I'll bow out now. I don't really have much to add to the discussion about Bin Laden, even though I'm enjoying reading it.


----------



## Liquesce

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Pakistan was housing a terrorist...and probably had knowledge of it. If they didn't have knowledge, then they're incredibly incompetent seeing how close he was to several military installations. If they did have knowledge, they harbored a murderer and lied to the world about it. I recognize their sovereignty, but I don't think it reaches so far as to make it wrong for us to remove a murderer of thousands from their country, if they themselves are too incompetent to realize he's there or too dishonest and accepting of his violence to admit he's there. We didn't alert them and ask for permission because we realize this is either the result of dishonesty and incompetence, thus there was a chance they'd tip him off and let him escape. They are harboring a terrorist who killed thousands of citizens not just of America but of the entire world and destroyed buildings that the world had a stake in. Their sovereignty doesn't trump everything else at stake here.


Does their sovereignty trump the right to send a drone to kill about twenty-five people in Pakistan a week before going in after Bin Laden? Does it trump the right to have gone in and killed ten more today? Or the hundreds upon hundreds that have been killed in the same manner over the past number of years? We haven't asked permission for that, either. America's relationship to Pakistani sovereignty doesn't begin and end with Bin Laden, by any stretch. For American militaristic behavior this was not a case of special circumstances.


----------



## GoBecGo

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Amatullah0*
> 
> any links?
> 
> Sadly not. What happened was that i got up, turned on the news, watched a news report about it all, went about my day (i'm in the UK so no parties for that here, though a lot of folk were still going nuts about the Royal Wedding which, yawn, i didn't see).
> 
> Anyway a day later i was talking to my father and he was going on about the luxury Bin Laden was living in with his wives and i was like "what? It was like 6 tiny pre-fab shacks with a chainlink fence round it!" and he was like "No, Becca, it's a modern villa!" and i turned on the news again and bob was my uncle, there was a completely different-looking place.
> 
> I can't find any footage of what i saw that first time. Oh well. Could have possibly been that the news people had the wrong location, or something.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Banks explain it as a charge for providing a "service" that didn't result in any money making it into their bank; it's basically a charge for the "work" of processing the check...but that should be charged to whoever wrote it.


Well that`s funny, I`m sure I don`t get charged $50 every time I cash a good check, and they take processing too.


----------



## moonfirefaery

That's because the banks get money from that check and then they earn interest on it.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> That's because the banks get money from that check and then they earn interest on it.


OK, how does a bank earn interest on, say, my paycheck?


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amatullah0*
> 
> OK, how does a bank earn interest on, say, my paycheck?


They use the money that's supposedly "in" people's accounts. That's one of the reasons why a rush on the bank is such a scary thing. They simply don't have the money to cash out everyone's accounts, if people should all show up wanting it.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> They use the money that's supposedly "in" people's accounts. That's one of the reasons why a rush on the bank is such a scary thing. They simply don't have the money to cash out everyone's accounts, if people should all show up wanting it.


Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.


----------



## moonfirefaery

We have it all invested in various ways. Also, we can loan your money out to other people, and then of course earn interest off of those loans. We just have to keep track of how much we owe you and make sure you get it when you ask for it. I don't understand the complexities of it but we earn more interest on it than we deposit into your accounts. Most free checking accounts do not come with interest, unless you carry a high balance. And, even for the most affluent clients, the rates have been rather low for 2-3 years now.


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.


Ok, that's what I was thinking, I just couldn't figure out how to connect the two. The scenario I was thinking was "I deposit my paycheck, then use it almost immediately, how the heck does the bank make money off of THAT?" So I guess the answer is, they don't?


----------



## moonfirefaery

If you spend it ASAP I doubt they have much of a chance to make money off of it, but like I said, I don't understand the complexities of it. I just know kind of the basic idea behind it. That part of banking isn't really what I do. I'm going to ask about it at work now though.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Yeah but because they are using my money they don't get interest on my money, I do. They get interest when I borrow money from them.


They get interest/a return on the investments they make with your money.


----------



## MusicianDad

Every time I see this thread I have to remind myself we are now talking about banking...


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'm sorry! Let's go back to bin Laden. What did you think about the videos? They were like "Look at this haggard, vain man" I was like? What? Vain? If I was the world's most wanted terrorist I'd want to see the news updates about that situation too! I'm glad they didn't release the audio... but they were saying he was living in luxury. Now they are saying he lived in squalor? I thought they were burning their trash and now I see it's all over the floor?


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'm sorry! Let's go back to bin Laden. What did you think about the videos? They were like "Look at this haggard, vain man" I was like? What? Vain? If I was the world's most wanted terrorist I'd want to see the news updates about that situation too! I'm glad they didn't release the audio... but they were saying he was living in luxury. Now they are saying he lived in squalor? I thought they were burning their trash and now I see it's all over the floor?


link?


----------



## moonfirefaery

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3568820/Osama-home-videos-released.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8nLJeUnZ3lGLeeIfoHzoLBHDSZQ?docId=CNG.0ade78defc2875bf3eb3e6867300e47f.ad1


----------



## Amatullah0

You're talking about real video, right? I saw an animation today of SEALS in a doorway(bedroom?) and bin laden standing behind and to the side of his wife.

My SIL said that al-qaeda is saying that bin laden is NOT dead, and that there will be revenge. Anyone else hear that? All I've got to go off of is internet news, and Pakistani TV news in Urdu(that I don't understand.... my Urdu skills are limited to simpler conversation)


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'm sorry! Let's go back to bin Laden. What did you think about the videos? They were like "Look at this haggard, vain man" I was like? What? Vain? If I was the world's most wanted terrorist I'd want to see the news updates about that situation too! I'm glad they didn't release the audio... but they were saying he was living in luxury. Now they are saying he lived in squalor? I thought they were burning their trash and now I see it's all over the floor?


I've watched the first 5 sec so far(really sucky connection!) and my reaction is pretty much like this:



































































































and, "Why would someone even record something like that







?"

The skeptic in me says it's fake, but







I don't know that it matters anyways. I'm 99% sure the purpose of releasing the videos would be to influence opinions.

The article(the Sun) made me laugh, due to language use. I will probably have to go back and read it again, because the ridiculously potent(and sometimes inappropriate, IMO) language that they used in the article made me focus more on the language usage than the information presented(if any? I'll have to go read it again) Ah, gotta love emotional pieces..... But I'm thinking that the whole thing is about invoking certain emotions









The other article at least serious though.

(and moonfirefaery, I'm not trying to insult you for posting the links, I really appreciate it, my connection is so bad here, it would have been hard for me to search through articles until I found one I was looking for)

ETA: sorry for posting so many times in a row  my connection is really bad here, so I try to post before the connection dies for who knows how long

ETA: just noticed the pics to the right of the second article. regarding the second pic "a pakistani man reacts" I have only







to say. Well, and maybe "Thanks for making all pakistanis look like bin laden supporters. It's really gonna help with the discrimination that american indo-paks already face."


----------



## eclipse

They're telling us on US news that AQ has acknowledge his death and plans to avenge, or something.

Yeah, I'm not getting the spin they're trying to put on these videos. Of course he's watching news reports - they contain information that could be helpful, Sure, it could be about vanity in part, but even the least vain person would be watching the news. Does the US not have intelligence agents scouring the news in enemy countries (and probably friendly ones) for information that could be strategically valuable?

And it definitely wasn't lap of luxury standard of living.


----------



## moonfirefaery

They acknowledged his death and named him a martyr, naturally, and then they used very colorful language describing the calibre of their aspirations for our demise.

Idk what to think. To me it's just a dude watching TV. I don't see any relevance at all. No special insight into his mind or his life.


----------



## monkey's mom

Yeah, the CNN commentary was ri.dic.u.lous.

"Now look here...he's using the stallite guide! And he's wrapped in a blanket! With...what we BELIEVE to be a knit cap! Look, look....here he is stroking his beard!! A beard, which is WHITE!"

LOL. Get a grip.


----------



## hakeber

Bin Laden and I have the same computer desk.

I wonder how much he paid for it.

That's all I have to say about that.

I frequently use the Sun as a bank of resources for indentifying bias with my middle schoolers. My FIL tarted reading this when he was ill and we sort of knew then that things weren't looking good for him. It's a really yellow news source.

However, if the goal is to demystify this holy warrior image into one of a tired old feeble man (which many people knew already), I daresay this will blow up in their faces ( which I think is more likely the desired result, unless our public marketing staff turly is as stupid as people think...) So now we've assassinated a tired old man...that's great.

I wonder if Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton dye their hair. How vain would that be?









I will say one thing about the second article...

"President Barack Obama has chosen not to release photos of Bin Laden's corpse, saying the United States should not brandish trophies or risk *inciting the Muslim world*."

If this isn't a war on religion or on a race, why did he say this? Why not inciting Al-Qaeda supporters? Why use pictures like the one Amatullah mentioned above with racially charged headings? I think The white house keeps saying it's not about race or religion, but the media keeps selling us a different story.


----------



## MusicianDad

When I first opened my browser, one of the article titles on Bin Laden was "The Hideaway: Secret Top Floor, Freeze Full of Goat Meat" my first thought...

"He had an attic and food? Good for him!"


----------



## moonfirefaery

Those were my thoughts exactly, monkey!


----------



## beckybird

Is Bin Laden really dead? How can we know for sure?

I believe he died years ago. I do not believe this new fairy tale about his great murder.

I cannot believe a single word from our government or media (one in the same)......if my husband lied that much, I would have divorced him long ago!


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> I cannot believe a single word from our government or media (one in the same)......if my husband lied that much, I would have divorced him long ago!


I think that's a really good comparison, though I'm not sure gov and media are "one in the same" they do come deadly close to the same


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Is Bin Laden really dead? How can we know for sure?


well this time there were 3 countries who took part in his autopsy. england was one of them.

however i can relate to you. i agree that the media and govt are not synonymous but yeah i can totally believe osama either died years ago or is still alive. i do feel we are lied to more than we are aware of. and extremely misinformed and underinformed too.


----------



## beckybird

My favorite media lie.......

It was reported that World Trade Building 7 had collapsed....only it hadn't, yet. Here is a clip from the live news feed on that terrible day: 




Building 7 did indeed fall, 20 FULL minutes after it was reported. That is strange--a building collapsed at freefall speed, on the same day the twin towers collapsed. Only, no plane hit Building 7.

These are just facts. You can decide to look a little deeper into the story, or just continue to believe the official story.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I don't put much stock in to the idea that the government helped the trade towers fall; however, I have always found it curious that building 7 fell, when no plane hit it. That is unprecedented, to my knowledge. There was said to be a CIA office in that building with lots of old, important files, cases that had been developing for years.


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> well this time there were 3 countries who took part in his autopsy. *england was one of them. *


And the UK historically have been so open and honest about these sort of things, we should at least take their word for it.

(hee hee)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Is Bin Laden really dead? How can we know for sure?
> 
> I believe he died years ago. I do not believe this new fairy tale about his great murder.
> 
> I cannot believe a single word from our government or media *(one in the same)......*if my husband lied that much, I would have divorced him long ago!


In many ways you are right. They are part and parcel of the same circle jerk of power, economy and destruction.

The media is advertising reliant (albeit in many cases the products being advertised are indeed OWNED by the media corporations themselves), so if the product companies don't like what's being broadcast, they will pull advertising, and the the media corp goes bye bye. So these conglomerates (and make no mistake 95% of the media we are exposed to comes from one of these top conglomerates: Disney, NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Warner, Comcast, CBS, SONY, NBCuniversal, etc) refuse to broadcast news that will incriminate their advertisers...or themselves. The companies of course are dependant on the government who is in charge of regulation and control and as we have seen in the last few years funding them when they mess things up...so the media doesn't want to piss them off too much either...except when they get in the way of their bottom lines...and then the media is a tool used to oust them. But for the most part as long as the governmental puppets follow the choreography of the wealthy corporations, and most importantly the banks who control their wealth and finance their moral corruption and social decay, the media and they are BFFs.

They have no reason to tell us the truth. That would imply they want us to make decisions for ourselves, and as Walter Lippmann pointed out all those years ago; that's their job. The public's job is to be passive and let them entertain us.

Is Bin Laden dead? Did the Obama Administration handle it and win the war on terror? Are you feeling confused by all the changing stories? awwww. Don't you worry your pretty little head about that...look over there...something shiny...fetch! Good girl.

Before we know it Brittney Lohan Hilton will be up to something cray-cray to entertain us all again.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I don't put much stock in to the idea that the government helped the trade towers fall; however, I have always found it curious that building 7 fell, when no plane hit it. That is unprecedented, to my knowledge. There was said to be a CIA office in that building with lots of old, important files, cases that had been developing for years.


I believe what happened was the debris from the north tower's collapse damaged WTC 7 and set a number of fires which burned long enough to damage the load bearing skeleton of the building causing it to collapse. It was a combination of being too close to the other two towers and having a crap fire suppression system.


----------



## hakeber

hmmmm, I have never heard about the CIA building in WTC7. That would be an odd location, but not impossible.

I do know that WTC 7 was not the only building to suffer substantial damage enough for collapse apart from the twin towers. My cousin worked in a building at ground zero and his office block was blown out during the collapse of towers and I belive the entire if not one half of his building fell to pieces and was not hit by a plane. Several buildings adjacent to the towers were demolished as a result of the collapsing towers. Usually those sort of constructions are IMPLODED when demolished and proper precautions are taken to protect neighboring buildings. The towers were extremely close to neighboring buildings. These were not wide spread down town areas like in some cities. They were narrow canyons of buildings, and when the towers collapsed they took out quite a lot of real estate with them.

It's still weird about the report coming 20 minutes before. That's just sloppy.


----------



## monkey's mom

This thread has prompted me to poke around on this issue, and I found this interesting site re. building 7 and the 1500 engineers and architects who claim the official version of events to be implausible.There is an ad they've done and when one pauses the clip at the 9 second mark, the perfect row of vertical blow outs down one side of the building look very, very strange to me--there is no way a fire blew out windows in such a synchronized way. It is very strange. http://rememberbuilding7.org/ (Also, I think CNN reported that the building had collapsed, too, but the anchor looked behind him and saw it standing and got kind of confused.) Bizarre-o.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hakeber*
> 
> It's still weird about the report coming 20 minutes before. That's just sloppy.


Not really considering the fire department evacuated the area around the building two hours before it collapsed because they could tell at least part of it was going to go. My guess is there was miscommunication that made it sound to those reporting it like the building had already collapsed when it just simple on the verge of collapsing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> This thread has prompted me to poke around on this issue, and I found this interesting site re. building 7 and the 1500 engineers and architects who claim the official version of events to be implausible.There is an ad they've done and when one pauses the clip at the 9 second mark, the perfect row of vertical blow outs down one side of the building look very, very strange to me--there is no way a fire blew out windows in such a synchronized way. It is very strange. http://rememberbuilding7.org/ (Also, I think CNN reported that the building had collapsed, too, but the anchor looked behind him and saw it standing and got kind of confused.) Bizarre-o.


It does look pretty normal to me. If one side starts going down even milliseconds before the other side, it can put stress on the building in a vertical line, my guess is those windows is where that stress was focused.


----------



## Liquesce

Popular Mechanics printed a decent, easy-to-understand 9/11 conspiracy theories rebuttal a number of years ago, dealing mostly with the various claims about engineering, physical damage, probabilities, etc. IIRC the claims about building 7 were included. It should be easily found on the web.


----------



## monkey's mom

I read the Popular Mechanics piece. It didn't really explain how a structure fire would melt steel. Or how all three collapses were completely straight down. If "one side starts going down" first it's going to topple. A 100% synchronized, straight line blow out is not how fully involved buildings collapse. It's just not. My husband is a fire fighter, my best friends are fire fighters--they know the temps at which things burn (to regulate how much heat their gear can withstand) and I can't imagine what would have been in that building (with the execption of the highly combustible stuff they say they found in the molten steel) that would have melted it from top to bottom all at once.

I'm not saying our government did it, or anything like that (I don't rule it out), but the claims about those buildings do not add up.


----------



## beckybird

I read the Popular Mechanics article. Just the other night, I watched 9/11 Science and Conspiracy on the Science Channel. I like to research both sides to the 9/11 story--the official side, and the "conspiracy" side.

I am writing about this subject on the other Bin Laden thread, so you can peek over there if you like.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> I read the Popular Mechanics piece. It didn't really explain how a structure fire would melt steel. Or how all three collapses were completely straight down. If "one side starts going down" first it's going to topple. A 100% synchronized, straight line blow out is not how fully involved buildings collapse. It's just not. My husband is a fire fighter, my best friends are fire fighters--they know the temps at which things burn (to regulate how much heat their gear can withstand) and I can't imagine what would have been in that building (with the execption of the highly combustible stuff they say they found in the molten steel) that would have melted it from top to bottom all at once.
> 
> I'm not saying our government did it, or anything like that (I don't rule it out), but the claims about those buildings do not add up.


A lot of that depends on variables. How long has the building been burning (in this case at least 2 hours), how hot the fire is, what the chain of events are, what the building is made of, etc. If something stresses the window frames in that are, then a synchronized break of all the windows is possible. There is no 100% accurate formula for how a building is going to go down. Even the slightest change in what would seem to be the most inane variable can change how things happen. It's science!


----------



## monkey's mom

But in this case, it seems to defy science. The official reports state that rugs, curtains, papers, and office furniture created enough heat to melt metal. That's simply not possible. Beyond that, after several HOURS, those items are consumed and long gone.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'd participate but I'd just be echoing monkey mama... Carry on! lol


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> But in this case, it seems to defy science. The official reports state that rugs, curtains, papers, and office furniture created enough heat to melt metal. That's simply not possible. Beyond that, after several HOURS, those items are consumed and long gone.


There is more in a building than that. Things are also a little more complicated than "this burns, this doesn't, this needs so much heat to melt and this one doesn't".

My personal opinion is that if they are hiding anything, they are hiding a crap job of building the structure. The fire suppression system seems to point in that direction, the pumps used to provide the needed water pressure had to be turned on manually. From what I can gather, they determined that a support column on the 13th floor buckled from the head and stressed the rest of the building, weakening it and causing the floors to start collapsing and the building fell starting on the east side and ending on the west.


----------



## monkey's mom

But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?

And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?

How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. Or it's a miracle. LOL


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?
> 
> And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?
> 
> How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. *Or it's a miracle*. LOL


Now wait a minute there, Monkey's Mom...I thought we all agreed that god was on OUR side!


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> But that's just it, if all three buildings did not support the kind of fireproofing and steel that would withstand heat testing, they never should have passed building code. Either the building material (in all three buildings) was extraordinarily sub par or there were items in the building that were outrageously outside the norm of flammable. Those buildings did not burn and collapse in any way close to what we absolutely know about office fires, high rise fires, or the way fires have behaved over the course of......ever?
> 
> And it is as simple as measuring the temperature of how items burn. At least for the firefighters I know who are involved in heat-resistant gear technology at the national level. They know how hot and for how long curtains burn. And rugs and office furniture. They have to. That's how they create protective gear. And in the past few years, variables like couches made out of composites, rather than wood, impact temps. They burn hotter, they off gas (resulting in attic explosions or fire balls drifting onto neighboring houses) and gear needs to be upgraded. How could these particular buildings exhibit behavior so far outside what we know about how things burn, for how long, and at what temperatures? How could metal melt at temperatures so profoundly below what we know steel to *normally* do?
> 
> How is it that these 3 buildings all reacted the exact same, profoundly erratic way? It just doesn't make sense. Or it's a miracle. LOL


It's not a miracle, it's that often times something as simple as air flow can raise or lower temperature. Yes fire fighters know how stuff burns. But an firefighter would admit that it takes more than just what to determine how long, or hot a fire burns.


----------



## monkey's mom

A 1300 degree variation? That's a monumental stretch. Air is not going to bring a normal fire of an office building up 1000+ degrees to the point where steel would melt. There is only so much potential energy in each item. To overcome that difference in degrees, yes, it would take a miracle.

And molten pools that went on for weeks and weeks? That's simply not possible with the potential energy that the building and its contents would contain based on every thing we know about those items burn.

Beyond that where was the fire in videos? Lots of smoke indicates that there is NO air. It's oxygen deprived. And all three buildings showed (from the videos I've seen) lots and lots of smoke and very little flame.

I'm open to other evidence, but seriously, the suggestion that these buildings went from normal fire to lava pits based on extra air is outrageous.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> A 1300 degree variation? That's a monumental stretch. Air is not going to bring a normal fire of an office building up 1000+ degrees to the point where steel would melt. There is only so much potential energy in each item. To overcome that difference in degrees, yes, it would take a miracle.
> 
> And molten pools that went on for weeks and weeks? That's simply not possible with the potential energy that the building and its contents would contain based on every thing we know about those items burn.
> 
> Beyond that where was the fire in videos? Lots of smoke indicates that there is NO air. It's oxygen deprived. And all three buildings showed (from the videos I've seen) lots and lots of smoke and very little flame.
> 
> I'm open to other evidence, but seriously, the suggestion that these buildings went from normal fire to lava pits based on extra air is outrageous.


You know steel is made out of iron right? Iron oxidizing is 1) exothermic, it produces heat and 2) sped up by heat. It doesn't need anything special to go from hot to red hot. Like I said, not everything in the building was office supplies and furniture. Is that what caused "molten steel"? I have no clue, I haven't seen any reports outside of conspiracy theories that even confirm there was molten anything.

There are plenty of witness accounts, photographs and videos that show fire. And oxygen deprived? Well, yeah, it was too busy reacting with the hot iron in the steel to make it even hotter. Although, having been camping I can promise you that an open flame with plenty of oxygen can produce impressive amounts of smoke. Even still, search for 9/11 fires and see what comes up.

It sounds to me that you are so against trusting the government that you would rather trust the first person who gives you an alternative to that.


----------



## monkey's mom

No, it's really not that. And I'm not trying to be combative.









I'm just really confused by the suggestion that a candle, given the right conditions, could behave like a blow torch. And acting like that is a given.

Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.

It is not MY opinion that steel needs a certain temperature for prolonged periods to weaken or melt. It's just not. And according to the official reports the steel samples showed that the steel was about 500 degrees (in Towers 1 and/or 2, Tower 7 was not included). You can watch videos of the building and see there are no flames. You can also watch news casts of workers discussing the molten pit. ::shrug::

I just don't understand how a scientific anomoly--something that has never happened before or since--which leaves me (and many other engineers, firefighters, and professionals) wondering, "What the hell happened here??" means I somehow just hate the government and have latched onto some nonsense to justify that. It's pretty insulting, I gotta tell you.


----------



## beckybird

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> It sounds to me that you are so against trusting the government that you would rather trust the first person who gives you an alternative to that.


I'm not sure why trusting the government has any relevance to a murder investigation. There are many scientists and engineers who support this "alternative" explanation to what happened that day. Alternative theories should not be ruled as impossible, because they are completely within the realm of possibility.

It is not impossible to coordinate an attack, where planes crash into buildings that were previously wired. No, we do not like the thought of our own government having a hand in this, but it is still a possibility. You don't have to believe it happened that way, but nobody can say it was impossible. If this exact event happened in Egypt, we would have no problem acknowledging the inside job theory. Maybe this just happened too close to home, and it is too uncomfortable to believe.

Uncomfortable to believe does not = Impossible.

I've been researching this subject for nearly 3 years, and I learn something new with each search. Prompted by this thread, I found this article:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Former chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, Dr.Quintiere, PhD., one of the World's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, is calling for a new investigation as well. It might change your mind about the official collapse-due-to-fire explanation. After all, since NIST did the 9/11 investigation, we are supposed to trust their word, right? But we should not believe the former NIST chief when he says "let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers."

This article is very persuasive. I encourage any skeptics to pick it apart! Read the article if you dare


----------



## happysmileylady

Why does it matter what temp steel melts at? The beams didn't melt. They were damaged and their structural integrity was compromised due to the fire and forces of the crash. The concrete was also damaged due to the fire and the forces of the crash. Steel doesn't have to melt in order for it to be incapable of supporting the weight of the structure above it. In fact, in some cases, it didn't have to be damaged at all. Buildings require a multitude of supports in place in order to remain standing. And, these buildings DID have 2 commercial jet liners crash into them. A good deal of the supports for the remaining floors above the crash sites were taken out, just in the crash alone. The remaining supports didn't need to be weakened or damaged much before they failed, they were already handling more weight then originally intended.

Molten lava pits? This is really the first I have heard of any molten pools of anything.

Something else to remember when talking about fires behaving as they never have before and steel behaving as never before and whatever else behaving in ways it never has before....A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings. Let me repeat that. A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings. Now, if you have documented cases of that every happening before, please share them. Have planes ever crashed into buildings before, yes. But, this particular type of plane crash and office fires had never happened before. OF COURSE things are going to behave in ways they hadn't in the past. OF COURSE these office fires are going to be different than other office fires. OF COURSE the buildings and their support structures are going to react in unexpected ways. These buildings were fairly unique, as their are only a few 100+ story buildings in existance. These crashes are unique. Of course the way the buildnigs react to these fires is going to be unique. Had they behaved like a typical office fire or like a typical plane crash, THAT would have been the weird thing.


----------



## monkey's mom

No plane hit Tower 7.

Even the FEMA report says this the first time a steel building was taken down by fire alone. And at the conclusion of their report they say they don't know how it happened, but that further studies should be done. Further studies were not done. The next official study was the NIST report that never even mentioned Tower 7.

We don't know why this happened. It never happened before. It's never happened again. It defies everything we know about science and physics. That's not odd to you? It is to me.


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> No plane hit Tower 7.
> 
> Even the FEMA report says this the first time a steel building was taken down by fire alone. And at the conclusion of their report they say they don't know how it happened, but that further studies should be done. Further studies were not done. The next official study was the NIST report that never even mentioned Tower 7.
> 
> We don't know why this happened. It never happened before. It's never happened again. It defies everything we know about science and physics. That's not odd to you? It is to me.


Building 7, building 7, building 7. This seems to be a go-to for conspriacy theorists.

Building 7, to me, isn't all that important. I mean, all that happened is it came down. There were no casualties. There's no purpose for anyone to bring it down. It didn't stick in anyone's mind, so it didn't succeed from a terrorism perspective. So what I question is not how it came down, but why. What purpose would any group, our own government, Al-Queada, Neo-Nazis, KKK, whoever, have in bringing it down? The obvious conspiracy theory answer is to cover something up but...it was already on fire. Just let the fire cover it up. Feed the fire even, that would be so much easier to do, at least covertly, than to bring it all down. Why go through all the effort of something so obviously visable as a demolition, taking the building down, just to cover up some documents, when it would be so much easier, more subtle, just as effective and less expensive to just continue to feed the fire and let it continue to burn it all down, while making it look like you are fighting it? To me, logically speaking, theres more reason NOT to bring down building 7, than to do it.

Also, a small detail of contention....it wasn't just fire alone. The building was damaged by falling debris when a 100+ story building catastrophically collapsed right next door to it. Once again, how many times had that happened before? How many 100+ story buildings have ever collapsed like that? How much of the debris from those collapses hit building 7 and damaged it? Did anything in the building get doused in jet fuel from the planes as they crashed or as the buildings with the planes inside them and all that jet fuel in the towers came down? (I genuinely don't know that or if that could happen, but I do think that if it did, that also changes how the fires and support structures behave.)


----------



## happysmileylady

actually, to be more clear (since edit isnt' working for me)

It's not that building 7 isn't important in figuring out what happened. I also don't mean that it's not important that it came down.

I mean that in my mind, it's not so important in terms of pointing towards a conspriacy by the government. I don't see any real reason for it to intentionally come down. To me, motive matters. The two largest buildings had already come down. The shock and awe and fear and death and terrorization and everything that was the goal of 9/11, regardless of WHO you believe had goals to acheive, all of those things had already been accomplished. The government didn't need building 7 to come down to accomplish whatever you believe they were trying to accomplish if you believe they had a hand in 9/11.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *happysmileylady*
> 
> Building 7, building 7, building 7. This seems to be a go-to for conspriacy theorists.
> 
> Building 7, to me, isn't all that important. I mean, all that happened is it came down. There were no casualties. There's no purpose for anyone to bring it down. It didn't stick in anyone's mind, so it didn't succeed from a terrorism perspective. So what I question is not how it came down, but why. What purpose would any group, our own government, Al-Queada, Neo-Nazis, KKK, whoever, have in bringing it down? The obvious conspiracy theory answer is to cover something up but...it was already on fire. Just let the fire cover it up. Feed the fire even, that would be so much easier to do, at least covertly, than to bring it all down. Why go through all the effort of something so obviously visable as a demolition, taking the building down, just to cover up some documents, when it would be so much easier, more subtle, just as effective and less expensive to just continue to feed the fire and let it continue to burn it all down, while making it look like you are fighting it? To me, logically speaking, theres more reason NOT to bring down building 7, than to do it.
> 
> Also, a small detail of contention....it wasn't just fire alone. The building was damaged by falling debris when a 100+ story building catastrophically collapsed right next door to it. Once again, how many times had that happened before? How many 100+ story buildings have ever collapsed like that? How much of the debris from those collapses hit building 7 and damaged it? Did anything in the building get doused in jet fuel from the planes as they crashed or as the buildings with the planes inside them and all that jet fuel in the towers came down? (I genuinely don't know that or if that could happen, but I do think that if it did, that also changes how the fires and support structures behave.)


Ummm...yeah...Building 7. That's pretty much what we were discussing.

If it doesn't matter to you, great.

It does matter to me. My loved ones go into burning buildings. The science of how thing burn is what their lives depend upon.

I'm not saying squat about government conspiracy or making speculations about why "they" would or would not take out this building, I'm just saying this is very, very strange. To have a steel building collapse and the explanation is that is was because of fire is strange. To have no other official inquiry into that is also very, very strange. To say that it's "just what happens" is to ignore the facts and science.


----------



## beckybird

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center
Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities


 
 These nice people are also calling for a new investigation. 
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080104_eight_u_s__state_dep.htm


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *happysmileylady*
> 
> Something else to remember when talking about fires behaving as they never have before and steel behaving as never before and whatever else behaving in ways it never has before....A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings. Let me repeat that. A large, modern commercial jet was intentionally flown into each of those 100+ story buildings. Now, if you have documented cases of that every happening before, please share them. Have planes ever crashed into buildings before, yes. But, this particular type of plane crash and office fires had never happened before. OF COURSE things are going to behave in ways they hadn't in the past. OF COURSE these office fires are going to be different than other office fires. OF COURSE the buildings and their support structures are going to react in unexpected ways. These buildings were fairly unique, as their are only a few 100+ story buildings in existance. These crashes are unique. Of course the way the buildnigs react to these fires is going to be unique. Had they behaved like a typical office fire or like a typical plane crash, THAT would have been the weird thing.


So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." Who DOES that?


----------



## happysmileylady

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." Who DOES that?


Well, except it wasn't as if all of the evidence was up and destroyed immediately. It WAS investigated, just not, apparently, to your liking. Was all investigated as throughly and extensively as it could have been, possibly not. Were there mistakes made in the investigation, totally possible. Does it make sense to do a total re-check of the work, absolutely. But, there are plenty of parts of the building that do still exist and evidenced by the fact that beams from Ground Zero just made a tour of my state (and no I can't provide the details of which building they were from or what parts of the buildings or any of that, I just saw a couple of blurbs on the news, I didn't drive out to see them.) So, no, it's not as if they said "that was weird, huh, well, lets just get this cleaned up and move on." It's not like the report they did was just some novel or something they totally made up. They DID do investigations, they DID look into how it happend, they DID test things and check things and calculate things etc etc. Just because some conspiracy theorists, experts or not, don't like HOW they did it or don't believe it was done properly doesn't mean it wasn't done at all. They didn't just rush in on 9/12 and scoop it all up into black bags and melt it all down.

Yay, edit working again!

To take it a step further--

Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings. Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?

Why would building 7 get so much less attention? No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day. In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.


----------



## monkey's mom

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm reading your posts wrong or if my questioning this is upseting you, but I really am just wondering about all this.

It "wasn't to my liking?" Black bags? Really? I mean, c'mon....

There are many other wild eyed conspiracy freaks (which I guess I'm now one of for asking some of these questions?) like the editor of Firefighter magazine who felt that shipping the steel off was highly unusual and a missed opportunity to gather information about why these buildings reacted so unusually. Asking for more information or pointing out massive missed opportunities is not the same as wearing a tin foil hat or whatever it is you seem to think I believe about that day or our government or what-have-you.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *happysmileylady*
> 
> Yay, edit working again!
> 
> To take it a step further--
> 
> Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings. Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?
> 
> Why would building 7 get so much less attention? No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day. In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.


Ugh...nothing's working right for me. LOL. Post lost....trying again...

I would think looking for explosives would have been a natural result of so many eye-witnesses (including first responders) who said they felt/saw/heard explosions. Surely they thought those explosions were the result of more attacks and that seems very likely. Did the ATF get involved? I don't think they did. Not to mention the striking similarity that all three buildings exhibited to controlled demolition. I dunno...to me you turn that stone. Shouldn't this have been the ultimate "all hands on deck...what the hell happened here?"

Re. building 7, it's not even that it got so much less attention, it's that in the official inquiry that NIST did over years....it got NO attention. The FEMA report even said it was unusual and the hypotheses about fuel and structural damage had low probability of happening and that it should be examined. These are the kinds of buildings we still use and build and go into and yet......they might be this prone to catastrophic failure from fire and maybe generators? That's chilling. How do we not examine that?


----------



## beckybird

This is what bothers me. Yes, planes hit the towers. Yes, there were fires. But, nobody wants to investigate the possibility of some type of explosives that might have brought down the buildings. Why not? What is the reason to ignore the possibility of controlled demolition? It looks like a demo, it sounded like a demo, but no, we can't even explore the possibility of a demo, because it makes people feel uncomfortable. Can't even explore the possibility. Why not explore it, to try and disprove it?

When did scientists limit themselves?

If somebody wrecks the car and dies, don't we examine the person for drugs/alcohol? We don't automatically say, "the wreck killed him." We want to know what may have caused him to wreck. Well, for 9/11, the planes hit the towers, but some of us don't believe they fell for that reason. We want to look deeper.

There are 2(+) schools of thought into the mystery. Some believe the scientists & engineers who support the official 9/11 story, and some of us believe the scientists & engineers who call for a new investigation. Both sides have experts, so it is a personal choice which side you believe. Very much like medicine, but that's another debate!

Is it impossible for an insect to speak in Latin? Yes.

Is it impossible for a fish to tie his shoes? Yes.

Is it impossible to blow up 3 buildings and blame it on terrorists? No.

Now, why are they not looking at explosives as one of the several possibilities? If somebody you loved died that day, wouldn't you want to investigate every single possibility? Even those that make you feel uncomfortable? Would you ignore the possibility of any government involvement? I don't put it past any (bad) person, if they happen to hold a gov't title or not. If a parent can commit crimes against his/her own child, then why can't bad people commit crimes against their own country?

I guess I want to get this point across-- 9/11 may NOT have been an inside job, but there is always the possibility that it was.

And I apologize, for I said I would use facts in this discussion. All I've done lately is express my opinions. I'll find some good facts, and post them later today.


----------



## monkey's mom

That's the thing...the presence of explosives does not = all fingers point to our gov't.

Did terrorists penetrate the building during that shut down and plant explosives? Were they able to use technology we weren't aware of to detonate the building? Did they employ the use of window washers to afix explosives to the outside of the building? I mean.....who knows. There are a million different possibilities, none of which directly mean that this was some evil plan hatched by our own governement.


----------



## beckybird

Ha, good point! Why can't we investigate the possibility that the terrorists planted explosives?


----------



## hakeber

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." *Who DOES that?*


Someone who doesn't care. No matter who created the castastrophe that was 9/11 the media, the World bank, the National Treasury and the members of the US government saw a fabulous opportunity (maybe they created it, maybe they encouraged it, maybe they laid the groundwork for it to happen and just stood back and watched or maybe being professional opportunists they merely took advantage of a tragic situation turning those proverbial lemons into lemonade...who can say?) to incite the people against a long time enemy and begin an incredibly debilitating and financially (for them not the US people) beneficial war.

If we had investigated further they would have had to abandon the whole Taliban-Al-Qaeda-WMD-Sadam-Iraq call to arms and actually start talking evidence and responsibility.

That doesn't keep people glued to the TV as well as incitations of hatred and revenge. I mean who wants to watch a bunch of scientists examine building structures and talk about physics and engineering and all that junk? It's so much easier to get people to care about such clever things as an "axis of evil" than it is to get them to care about the melting point of metals.

I personally think the media can get people interested in ANYTHING (Olliver North trials were a big hit...I mean hello snooze fest!) so the question I ask myself is why wouldn't they want us to be interested in that? What benefit do they gain from not investigating it? Because that is the other possible answer. Someone who doesn't want to know and/or doesn't want you to know. I know when I royally screw things up, I do my level best to glaze over it, blame outside circumstances or deflect, deflect, deflect. Change the subject ASAP. I can't imagine those with the majority share of power and control over public opinion are any different.

The TV stations, particularly the News Stations were a Gladiator stadium come to life. We will seek revenge and we will get justice!!!! It was like a page out of some great battle film.

I have a hard time believing there wasn't a particular and self-serving reason as to why the news stations were all tuned into images of BinLaden and the towers, the towers and BinLaden. Tiny children crying out for mommy and daddy and the towers and BinLaden. Women and children being carried out on gurneys and the towers and BinLaden. Brave Firefighters and EMS workers, and the towers and BinLaden. Every channel, every moment of every day for months and months. It looked very much like every war time propaganda campaign I have ever seen from Nazi Germany to Maoist China to the reducation campaigns of Vietnam. It was frightening and served one clear purpose. Not to seek justice, truth or clarity as we expect of the news, but to cloud judgement and move the masses toward supporting action against any enemy the State chose whatsoever.

Why bother having an investigation when the press have made the case so convincingly?


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> No, it's really not that. And I'm not trying to be combative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just really confused by the suggestion that a candle, given the right conditions, could behave like a blow torch. And acting like that is a given.
> 
> Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.
> 
> It is not MY opinion that steel needs a certain temperature for prolonged periods to weaken or melt. It's just not. And according to the official reports the steel samples showed that the steel was about 500 degrees (in Towers 1 and/or 2, Tower 7 was not included). You can watch videos of the building and see there are no flames. You can also watch news casts of workers discussing the molten pit. ::shrug::
> 
> I just don't understand how a scientific anomoly--something that has never happened before or since--which leaves me (and many other engineers, firefighters, and professionals) wondering, "What the hell happened here??" means I somehow just hate the government and have latched onto some nonsense to justify that. It's pretty insulting, I gotta tell you.


Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.

Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.

You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.

As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.
> 
> Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.
> 
> You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.
> 
> As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.


Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!

Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.

Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build buildings out of that? Other chemicals (not normally present in these situations) could certainly be introduced to generate enough heat to compromise metal or even melt it. But metal itself reacting to a typical fire? Not as far as I know.

Anyway....off to read the report. Thanks again!


----------



## monkey's mom

Oh. Well, it seems at the outset that this report is not based on any forensic evidence but on computer modelling. Hmmm....pushing on.

eta: "....the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before Congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin." p.37

Right. "All" of it was was disposed of. That's insane. Oh, Bush science....it's so good. LOL


----------



## monkey's mom

Well, I read about half of the 130 pages and it was not so enlightening.

I think I'm going to fall on the side of the scientists who take a lot of issue with the report.

The computer modeling seemed to rely on the highest possible variables, the primary hypothisis re. collapse that floor beams expanded in one direction only (without floor sagging and bowing out the building equally) doesn't seem rooted in reality, and the dismissal that explosives couldn't have been used b/c they would have been heard--and weren't--so were uniformally dismissed as a possibility (never considering the use of other common accelerants) were pretty glaring issues.

The fact that no metal was tested--as is routinely done in situations of *much* less importance and where buildings behave normally--is so incredibly mind boggling, as to almost be laughable.

Ohwell....it's all very interesting. But I shoulda cleaned out my fridge. LOL. Thanks again, Musician Dad.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!
> 
> Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.
> 
> Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build buildings out of that? Other chemicals (not normally present in these situations) could certainly be introduced to generate enough heat to compromise metal or even melt it. But metal itself reacting to a typical fire? Not as far as I know.
> 
> Anyway....off to read the report. Thanks again!


Under normal circumstances the heat produced is tiny, rapid oxidization is not a normal situation.


----------



## MusicianDad

The report has far more credibility than conspiracy theorists who seem to be pulling out what ever they can to try and make their claim.


----------



## monkey's mom

Rapid oxidation would simply be in a fire or explosion, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In those situations, obviously, there would be much more--even significant--heat. But it's not like fire on steel or iron just results in a chemical reaction that just feeds on itself and the steel reacts. Steel is very slow to react--that's why it is so good for structures. It takes significant abuse before it is compromised--high temperatures and prolonged ones, at that.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> The report has far more credibility than conspiracy theorists who seem to be pulling out what ever they can to try and make their claim.


Well, there are other scientists who are examing the science of the report. And claiming that its pretty faulty and can't be reproduced to see if it withstands the scientific method. That doesn't seem very credible.

I think this is pretty common for the kind of scientific reports that were coming out of the Bush camp.

So, you know, credible for you. Not so much for other folks. That's OK.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> Rapid oxidation would simply be in a fire or explosion, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In those situations, obviously, there would be much more--even significant--heat. But it's not like fire on steel or iron just results in a chemical reaction that just feeds on itself and the steel reacts. Steel is very slow to react--that's why it is so good for structures. It takes significant abuse before it is compromised--high temperatures and prolonged ones, at that.


Rapid oxidation is not just a fire or explosion. Actually not even close to an explosion. An explosion is a rapid release of pressure. A fire is rapid oxidation but not the only type of rapid oxidation. Steel is iron with carbon added. In the right circumstances, carbon acts as an accelerator for iron oxidation.

The point I'm trying to make is that you are looking at this with a very "this happens, and only that can happen because of it" with no consideration for other factors involved. Aside from the "it must have been thermite/explosion/something someone had to do to cause it" factors.


----------



## monkey's mom

I'm happy to consider other factors, but I'm not sure other than air flow, I've seen too many.

I'm absolutely NOT saying, it's only this or it's a gov't conspiracy. Not at all.

I'm simply saying with regard to the fires, that based on what we know about phsyics, there would have to be some other factors at play (besides increased oxygen levels) to generate the kind of heat or reaction that would result in the VERY rare occurance (and as stated by FEMA, perhaps THE ONLY) global collapse of a building. And I hope that I'm floating out the notion for discussion and other reasonable explanations. I hope that my questioning this is coming across in the spirit it is intended....which is mostly just disbelief.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> I'm happy to consider other factors, but I'm not sure other than air flow, I've seen too many.
> 
> I'm absolutely NOT saying, it's only this or it's a gov't conspiracy. Not at all.
> 
> I'm simply saying with regard to the fires, that based on what we know about phsyics, there would have to be some other factors at play (besides increased oxygen levels) to generate the kind of heat or reaction that would result in the VERY rare occurance (and as stated by FEMA, perhaps THE ONLY) global collapse of a building. And I hope that I'm floating out the notion for discussion and other reasonable explanations. I hope that my questioning this is coming across in the spirit it is intended....which is mostly just disbelief.


Well, I dunno maybe there was something creating a sulfur compound. We don't know exactly what was in the fire.


----------



## monkey's mom

Yeah, the not knowing is kind of the sticking point for me w/ regards to this. Our abilities to do forensic arson investigations are phenomenal. We could know exactly what was in that fire. And when it burned and how long and hot and what started it, etc., etc. As far as I can tell we didn't endeavor to find out any of that information--and truly until now I had assumed that extensive forensic testing had been done. It's incredible to me. It would be shocking to me if it had been just a regular building on a regular day under regular circumstances.

I'm pretty much stuck on gross incompetence or the kind of Bush arrogance that we saw so much of that said, "I have faith in what happened, don't need no details." And that probably scares me more than the "inside job" theory.


----------



## monkey's mom

80 killed in suicide bombing in Pakistan to avenge bin Laden's death and punish Pakistan for allowing US in.... hoo boy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan


----------



## beckybird

Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.

(I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)

This is puzzle piece *#2*, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)


The *most important Government Action* which led to the success of the

9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol

before 9/11. ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****

What's more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD's military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn't on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn't even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country's military headquarters was in flames.

Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.


----------



## beckybird

*Piece #3*

Testimony of Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation. Eyewitness to orders given by Dick Cheney on 9/11, NOT to shoot down the plane headed for the Pentagon. Why did Cheney give these orders?

This is his official testimony, taped on C-SPAN.... 




Here is an interview with Mineta. Please please please I beg all of you to watch this video! You can't just label us all "conspiracy theorists" when members of our own government are testifying in favor of these theories!


----------



## beckybird

Piece #4........

The Norman Mineta testimony, shown in the above post, was OMITTED from the final 9/11 Commission Report.

In ANY murder case, why on earth would you leave out witness evidence, even if you thought the witness were wrong? His word against Cheney''s I guess. Since Cheney was the Vice President, that automatically means he is of superior morals, and would not lie.

Even If they thought Mineta were wrong, that was no reason to omit his testimony.


----------



## monkey's mom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monkey's mom*
> 
> Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.


I did not recall correctly. Jet fuel can get up around 1800 degrees. Steel melts up around 2750 degrees.

Which just makes the whole thing all the more mystifying--a 2,000 degree difference between typical office fire and enormous steel damage resulting in collapse.

BeckyBird, thanks for the info. I'm interested to look at that further.

Mineta also said in another video that he was on the phone with the FAA tracking the Pentagon plane, was the conversation he overheard with Cheney (described in the testimony) happening at the sime time? I wasn't clear on that. And even if he was wrong about Cheney (or lying or whatever), was the FAA informing other folks? (Do we even know?)


----------



## Amatullah0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeckyBird*
> 
> Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.
> 
> (I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)
> 
> This is puzzle piece *#2*, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)
> 
> 
> The *most important Government Action* which led to the success of the
> 
> 9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol
> 
> before 9/11. ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****
> 
> What's more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD's military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn't on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn't even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country's military headquarters was in flames.
> 
> Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.


what was the change?


----------



## beckybird

Monkey'sMom, that is a good question, and I don't know the answer. That is something I would like to know as well. Time to start digging!

As for the change in procedure, this is what I found:

"the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD's military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn't on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn't even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country's military headquarters was in flames. Mr. Rumsfeld claimed at a previous commission hearing that protection against attack inside the homeland was not his responsibility. It was, he said, "a law-enforcement issue." Why, in that case, did he take onto himself the responsibility of approving NORAD's deployment of fighter planes?" New York Observer(06/21/04)

Again, I can't tell you what I think of Rumsfeld, so you should just research him and make your own opinion  I find it difficult to believe Rumsfeld, especially since this recent interview. He claims he had never heard of Building 7. What? I don't believe that for a minute! 




And, whether you love or hate Aspartame, you have Rumsfeld to thank. (Research the way it was approved for human consumption, and how they knew it was hazardous before approving it.)


----------



## happysmileylady

When talking about why things were done the way they were done that day and in the days following, I think we need to remember what had happened.

On the morning of 9/11/01, FOUR commercial jets were hijacked. FOUR. That alone had never happened before. From a security standpoint, that alone is a big priority, figuring out how that many planes were hijacked at basically the same time.

Two of those planes were intentionally flown into two of the biggest buildings in the US, buildings over 100 stories tall. Again, has never happened before. Rescue plans didn't cover that sort of thing. They were simply unable to rescue many people, before the towers came down, there were people that rescue workers already knew could not be saved.

One of those planes was intentionally flown into the pentagon. One of the most important buildings to the defense department.

Al-Queda claimed responsibility for it. Believe them or not, they claimed it.

Every single plane in the US was grounded. Every single one. Every single airport was refitted with new security measures. Have you ever been at the airport when one or two flights gets cancelled? Imagine that chaos times every single plane in the US. Every flight headed to the US was prevented from landing in the US, so flights were rerouted to Canada, Mexico, some turned around and headed back where they came from. People were stranded all over the worldSome planes were low on fuel. I have heard that some pilots, low on fuel, also claimed they had been hijacked, just to be able to get on the ground fast, due to their fuel situation. I can't substantiate that, that's just something I had heard.

Rumors were flying everywhere, despite or maybe because of this day and age of immediate news and live video and such. Some people thought the Sears Tower had been hit. People thought more planes had been hijacked. People thought the White House had been hit.

Power was out in many places in NY. Thousands of people were missing. Phone lines were overloaded and communications were difficult. Many businesses in the area were damaged and or destroyed.

And then, in November, another plane crashed in NYC. The first thought is of course that it was terrorism, and Al-Queda claimed it too, but it was later discovered to be pilot error. But I don't think it can be dismissed when talking about the whys and hows of the investigation, since clean up and investigation were still going on when it happened.

Now, with all that going on, with the massive recovery that has to take place from all that...I think it makes perfect sense for the collapse of a building known to be damaged as a result of the two larger buildings coming down, to be relegated to low priority. There was so much else that was just more important. There was SO SO SO much going on that day and in the months afterwards. If mistakes weren't made and if parts weren't skipped over...THAT would be the weird thing.


----------



## monkey's mom

I get all that. It was a chaotic and unprecedented event and time, for sure.

But for me, I can't get past the fact that the bare minimum of what we do in normal crime scene, building failure, hi-jacking events was not done. The bare minimum. Again, FOR ME (well, and hundreds of experts in these fields, some of whom participated in the gov't analysis), it is really quite shocking given how vital this information is to our national security. Our government said it was "outfoxed" and totally taken by surprise.....how could we not want to dot every i and cross every t to figure out how that happened and to prevent it from happening again?

At a minimum it points to a level of incompetence and lack of leadership that is extraordinary. If workers at the site--in the burning wreckage and chaos--were able to number and catalog the pieces of steel in the order they recovered them, how could our government not had the wherewithal to set them aside and do the kind of forensic work that would tell them almost exactly what happened? Versus, arrange to have them shipped halfway across the globe for recycling. Have we done the introspection to see what went wrong with all these blunders? I don't know. Did people lose their jobs? Again, I don't know the answer to that.

Building 7, by the way, was not badly damaged by debris. The official reports claim as much and the videos show some damage, but not significant. Other Trade Center buildings were hugely damaged by debris--like, ripped in half damaged. And completely gutted by fires. But they still stood. Truly, it was highly, highly unusual for that building 7 to have fallen.


----------



## monkey's mom

This is an interesting article from Worcester Poly Tech ("widely recognized as the home of the world's premier program for research and education in the field of fire and fire protection engineering.")

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html



Quote:


> *The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel*
> 
> There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
> 
> Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.


and

Quote:


> The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001-02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community.


So it seems that some forensic testing was initially done and the findings were highly irregular. This was early on, it seems, in the post-analysis process. But even these guys were saying, "Maybe it's acid rain." But it was *something* out of the ordinary. Was this really just dropped from here? What I'm finding seems to point to that. That at this point the steel from all the sites was recycled and not examined. Does anyone know?


----------



## monkey's mom

Very interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html

*NY Times: A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TOWERS; Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall*

By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 25, 2001

Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.

[snip]

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.

[snip]

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. ''I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling,'' Dr. Mowrer said.

[snip]

National organizations charged with addressing building and fire safety issues have sent letters urging the federal government to invest as much as $15 million a year to study the vulnerability of buildings to terrorist attacks and possible changes to fire and safety standards.

''There is an urgent and critical need to determine the lessons to be learned from these events,'' reads a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers, dated Nov. 15.

####

This is a very good article and well worth the read, imho. Lots of questions and concerns raised.


----------



## monkey's mom

This NIST Metallurgical Study

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

indicates that they did have recovered pieces of steel from Bldgs. 1 and 2 (236 pieces or 25-50% of the total steel used, according to them), but no steel from Bldg. 7.

All very interesting.


----------



## beckybird

Thank you for the articles, Monkey'sMom! I will bookmark the links to read later. I also have some information on the steel from Building 7, and I'll try to make a post either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

Ok, now off to finish the movie I started watching last Friday.....maybe I can finish it this time without falling asleep lol!


----------

