I agree that accidents happen, but if those figures about the wars against terrorist are correct, then they're not accidents. It's the US Army, the most fuckingest advanced army in the Universe for Christ's sake!

Back to topic: I agree that this event is not much more than an "ahham, okay" event.

What's hypocritical about it? I feel confident in saying it would be fair to apply the same attitude to anyone.

Dont mistake this for taking sides with the nutjob or agreeing with his policies of violence -- but Bush's justification for killing hundreds of thousands is the same as Bin Laden's for his attacks.
Both of them have been struck down and oppressed by a foreign aggressor. They were both striking back at their aggressor in an attempt to ward them off from future aggression.

[quote name='Osama Bin Laden']Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
...
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
...
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
...
Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.
Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision."
It is as if they were telling you, the people of America: "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes."
And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry. "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."
As has been said: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
And know that: "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.[/quote]If you're going to claim that good intentions make it ok, it's obvious that Bin Laden didn't think he was committing evil, he really did believe he had good intentions. He had witnessed acts of terror first hand and vowed to strike back at the terrorists.
His intentions, just like Bush's, are worthless. All that matters is the consequences.
If you want to be cold and objective and measure Saddams genocide, it is absolutely minuscule compared to the civilian death toll in Iraq, which continues to rise daily since the civil war was incited there.

If you agree ok to celebrate the deaths of people who "orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands" -- then if you happened to grow up in Gaza, Beirut, Fallujah, etc, those opinions of yours would have you celebrating both the execution of Saddam and also any attacks against the US... That's why it's hypocrisy.

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

[quote name='Osama Bin Laden']I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

[/quote]

You know what. I know shit about that guy beyond what the cnn and fox news reported. I might even have crossed eyes with him right here at the airport (99.99% chances I didn't).

One thing is for sure: He, all the civilians involved and the american soldiers who fought valiantly didn't deserve to die for those words you quoted.

You see. Even a cockroach can realize the truth (it has 3 brains!).

EDIT: You widen the quote while I replied. My post was intended for what I quoted.[/font]

Best quote evar:

Original Post by Katie from Yahoo!
Breaking News: Hide-and-Seek World Champion loses his title[/quote]

So... now what?

[color="#1C2837"]If you're going to claim that good intentions make it ok, it's obvious that Bin Laden didn't think he was committing evil, he really did believe he had good intentions.[/quote]

Sorry, I never wanted to give the impression that good intentions make it OK. I understand that most people who do evil deeds honestly believe they are doing the right thing, whether it be God's will, or fighting for freedom against those they perceive as oppressors. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and all that. And I put my argument badly.

The major point was rather: he was a person who caused and incited murder against the innocent. And he was the sort of person who, if you left him alone and gave him the opportunity, would do it again and again. And I think his death means one less highly influential person doing those things, which I think we can all agree, regardless of whether you actually feel it is cause for 'celebration', is for the net benefit of everyone.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]If you agree ok to celebrate the deaths of people who "orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands"[/quote]

That's not quite the context in which I said that though... that definitely wasn't my 'criteria' for celebrating a death to be 'OK'.

While Osama might have believed he was acting for the benefit of weaker people who he felt had fallen victim to the USAs/The Wests aggressive foreign policy what happened on 9/11 can't be compared to civilians being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. With the exception of odd events civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed through collateral damage.

This doesn't make their death right or justified but they are worlds away from OBL flying planes in to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He/AQ actively targeted civilians with a few exceptions.

So can we drop the pointless airline security measures and the civil liberty violations now?

I doubt that, freedom is easy to give up but very difficult to gain.

Just look at what the US had to go through to gain freedom in the first place, slowly giving pieces of it up was a huge betrayal of everything the country stood for and all the people who gave their lives for it in the past, regaining that freedom will take a lot of hard work, I personally believe that it will get worse before it will get better both in the US and here in Europe (I just hope people wake up before we've lost the ability to affect political decisions peacefully).

While Osama might have believed he was acting for the benefit of weaker people who he felt had fallen victim to the USAs/The Wests aggressive foreign policy what happened on 9/11 can't be compared to civilians being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. With the exception of odd events civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed through collateral damage.

This doesn't make their death right or justified but they are worlds away from OBL flying planes in to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He/AQ actively targeted civilians with a few exceptions.

and this is why anyone who thinks that the goals justifies the means is likely to commit terribly evil actions. The US is guilty of this aswell, torture, murder, kidnapping and even deliberatly murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians(150-200.000 civilians were deliberatly killed by the US in 1945 to force the Japanese government to an unconditional surrender), its all been done, often for what was(and sometimes still is) considered good reasons.

The world however isn't black and white, sometimes resorting to an evil action can prevent your opponent from committing a greater evil, and is it really wrong for a government to look out for its own people first ? How many foreign civilians is it ok to kill to save one of your own ? How many people are you willing to kill to save the life of someone in your family ? to save a friend ? to save a citizen of your own country ? or to save a complete stranger from a country you've barely even heard of ?

he was a person who caused and incited murder against the innocent. And he was the sort of person who, if you left him alone and gave him the opportunity, would do it again and again. And I think his death means one less highly influential person doing those things, which I think we can all agree, regardless of whether you actually feel it is cause for 'celebration', is for the net benefit of everyone.

George W. Bush is accountable for the death of way more innocent people than Osama Bin Laden, having he (Bush) stated less understandable reasons for what he ordered. Should all people of the world unite in order to kill him (George W. Bush) and whoever defends him? (AND CELEBRATE?)

That's your reasoning? That's what at least I am trying to highlight here. That in the end, the only truth that matters is the truth of those who hold the biggest gun and portrais the scariest macho posture. Which is bullshit.

The major point was rather: he was a person who caused and incited murder against the innocent. And he was the sort of person who, if you left him alone and gave him the opportunity, would do it again and again. And I think his death means one less highly influential person doing those things, which I think we can all agree, regardless of whether you actually feel it is cause for 'celebration', is for the net benefit of everyone.

...but if you're on the other side of the fence -- if your family was slaughtered in Fallujah -- those same statements would apply to the commander in chief of the US military... so you're advocating the assassination of the POTUS...

With the exception of odd events civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed through collateral damage.

You don't reach a figure of 90% "collateral damage" from "odd events"!
Systematic and deliberate targeting of both civilians and civilian infrastructure causes figures that high. There's plenty of reports of snipers being ordered to fire on any civilian matching a vague description, or veterans returning to tell of how they were ordered to "clear the street" full of women and children with their M4 carbine, or how populated residential areas were shelled by tanks to draw out insurgents, or gunships firing on 'suspicious' crowds, etc...

BTW, the phrase "collateral damage" was coined during Vietnam by US propagandists to use in place of "civilian casualties" to downplay incidents when reported back home. It's pretty sad to see it being used as if it means "accidental deaths".

This doesn't make their death right or justified but they are worlds away from OBL flying planes in to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He/AQ actively targeted civilians with a few exceptions.[/quote]As above, there's plenty of cases of US troops deliberately firing on civilians. Prior to 9/11 OBL did mainly target US diplomatic or military targets, not civilians. Also, sadly, we'll never actually see OBL found guilty of 9/11 unless he's tried in absence, and he'll remain only accused of it.