[color="#1C2837"]George W. Bush is accountable for the death of way more innocent people than Osama Bin Laden[/quote]

The difference being Bush didn't target them. He didn't incite hatred and encourage others to target them. At least not as far as I'm aware. And if he did than there is no excuse for that and I would paint him with the same brush as Bin Laden.

Therein lies the difference between war, and terrorism. Now, whether that war was justified in the first place is a complete debate on its own, and personally I still don't know where I stand on that one.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]As above, there's plenty of cases of US troops deliberately firing on civilians[/quote]

Then whoever made the decision to do that is of the same ilk as Bin Laden. There's no excuse for anyone to deliberately target non-combatants. Ever.

I agree that accidents happen, but if those figures about the wars against terrorist are correct

The figures about the war on terrorism are not quite accurate. Many militants get claimed as "civilian" casualties because they are not part of a uniformed army and all you have to do to turn a militant death into a civilian death is take away the gun.

Not to say no civilians were/are killed; the figures are just misleading.

Being a figurehead for radical muslims everywhere, it will have a huge impact. He was a major source of inspiration for the entire movement if not terrorism in general. Obviously the most extreme will stay extreme, but there are many who were easily swayed by having such a figurehead that might rethink their allegiances now. That is a good thing any way you slice it.

I'm really curious to know if the opinions on celebrating would be the same had the people in this thread seen their friends and family get burned alive and crushed for going to work in the morning or pulled severed limbs out of the rubble. It's easier to think rationally when it's some guy in a cave and not the man who endorsed the murder of your family and friends.

The truth is that OBL/AQ actively targeted innocent civilians. Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did not go out with the intention of killing innocent civilians but sometimes thses things are unavoidable, either due to mistakes/miscommunication or down to the fact that bombs cannot differentiate between Taliban and civilians or other NATO forces for that matter.

The difference being Bush didn't target them. He didn't incite hatred and encourage others to target them. At least not as far as I'm aware. And if he did than there is no excuse for that and I would paint him with the same brush as Bin Laden.
Therein lies the difference between war, and terrorism. Now, whether that war was justified in the first place is a complete debate on its own, and personally I still don't know where I stand on that one.

Bush's "shock and awe" campaign during the start of the 2nd gulf war was designed specifically to inflict mass terror on the civilian population and involved the deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure (edit: which is a war crime, despite being tactically advantageous).

I'm really curious to know if the opinions on celebrating would be the same had the people in this thread seen their friends and family get burned alive and crushed for going to work in the morning or pulled severed limbs out of the rubble. It's easier to think rationally when it's some guy in a cave and not the man who endorsed the murder of your family and friends.

Yeah, if I was pulling them out of the WTC I'd probably celebrate Bin Ladens death, and if I was pulling them out of Al Jazeera's Kabul office (a civilian journalistic outlet which was deliberately struck by a US missile) I'd probably celebrate attacks on the US too. That doesn't make it right - in fact it demonstrates why it's wrong.
Having not been a victim of terror, from either side, I don't have any revenge desires to entertain.

Western forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did not go out with the intention of killing innocent civilians but sometimes thses things are unavoidable

In Fallujah, a city of over 400,000 people, over 70% of civilian buildings were destroyed (returning residents were compensated 20% of their land value). The ground forces used a policy of indiscriminate violence in order to pacify the town, executing unarmed civilians on sight (the defense for this is that civilians were warned to leave days in advance, so they must be enemy combatants). In addition, napalm-substitutes and chemical weapons were used on the population, and there is now a 12-fold increase in childhood cancers in the area.
To say this kind of thing is "unavoidable" is to be offensively ignorant of the reality of what's going on over there.
And as way2lazy2care points out above, the survivors of this massacre aren't going to be too rational when contemplating the US's good intentions.

[quote name='Fox89' timestamp='1304344811' post='4805430']
The difference being Bush didn't target them. He didn't incite hatred and encourage others to target them. At least not as far as I'm aware. And if he did than there is no excuse for that and I would paint him with the same brush as Bin Laden.
Therein lies the difference between war, and terrorism. Now, whether that war was justified in the first place is a complete debate on its own, and personally I still don't know where I stand on that one.

Bush's "shock and awe" campaign during the start of the 2nd gulf war was designed specifically to inflict mass terror on the civilian population and involved the deliberate bombing of civilian infrastructure.
[/quote]

I think it was more aimed at frightening the Iraqi Military and bombing infrastructure is a necessary part of conventional(ish) warfare, without power and water the enemies ability and will to fight is greatly reduced as is the will of the local populace to support them.

The problem wasn't the invasion and war phase but the reconstruction phase. The coalition waited too long before they started to rebuild things like bridges and power plants, which ended up pushing people into the insurgent groups. Disbanding the Iraqi military didn't help either, all those young men suddenly being made jobless with nothing to return to but the training to make them useful to the insurgents. We took too long in Iraq to start sorting the place and made too many mistakes, so by the time we were in a position to start reconstruction we had to contend with insurgents as well

Intentions doesn't fucking matter!
If OML was killed a million times I'd celebrate, but no, not he died a million times but million other lives were taken away. Intentions doesn't fucking matter! Tsunamis/volcanoes killed millions of people. I don't care (...) about the intentions of the nature, actions need to be done to prevent catastrophes like those. But the actions of USA is like relocating the Japanese and placing say Chinese in those dangerous places and let them die.

[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1304342133' post='4805406']
I agree that accidents happen, but if those figures about the wars against terrorist are correct

The figures about the war on terrorism are not quite accurate. Many militants get claimed as "civilian" casualties because they are not part of a uniformed army and all you have to do to turn a militant death into a civilian death is take away the gun.

Not to say no civilians were/are killed; the figures are just misleading.

Being a figurehead for radical muslims everywhere, it will have a huge impact. He was a major source of inspiration for the entire movement if not terrorism in general. Obviously the most extreme will stay extreme, but there are many who were easily swayed by having such a figurehead that might rethink their allegiances now. That is a good thing any way you slice it.

I'm really curious to know if the opinions on celebrating would be the same had the people in this thread seen their friends and family get burned alive and crushed for going to work in the morning or pulled severed limbs out of the rubble. It's easier to think rationally when it's some guy in a cave and not the man who endorsed the murder of your family and friends.
[/quote]

I don't know. It wouldn't make me any happier I guess. Celebration: Drinking beer, singing and fucking, well yeah, go mankind! I love to be a human being! Let's kiss and sing kumbaya everyone!

Celebration: Drinking beer, singing and fucking, well yeah, go mankind! I love to be a human being! Let's kiss and sing kumbaya everyone!

Now you're talking about a kind of celebration I like. But I guess this topic isn't really that stimulating for intercourse (At least not for democrats/liberals*).

* Yes I'm taking sides.

I don't know. It wouldn't make me any happier I guess. Celebration: Drinking beer, singing and fucking, well yeah, go mankind! I love to be a human being! Let's kiss and sing kumbaya everyone!

It's a bittersweet and small victory, but a victory nonetheless. I'd rank this at far more significant than say your national team winning the world cup or winning the superbowl as far as world significance. Do you not celebrate those as well?

I'd rank this at far more significant than say your national team winning the world cup or winning the superbowl as far as world significance. Do you not celebrate those as well?

You just threw the perfect analogy: Argentina has the best soccer players in the world. Still, we can't make it through the semi-finals.

What's wrong with us?