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.

As true as this may be, it really doesn't matter. People fight with the means that they have at their disposal. It's easy to claim the high ground when you have orders of magnitudes more money to spend on the military and advanced technology, but the reality is that there are many people in the world who perceive themselves as victims of US foreign policy (and many of them really are victims of US foreign economic policy), and they fight back with whatever means they have available.

Perhaps a playground example is in order. Let's say a clique of huge guys bully somebody who is all by himself, and this person tries to defend himself by kicking one of them in the nuts. After that, the huge guys claim that that's no fair, they would never intentionally kick somebody in the nuts, and use that as justification for further bullying. Yes, they're right, kicking somebody in the nuts is not nice. Then again, they are so much superior in their sheer force that they can afford not to use all the tools at their disposal. So requiring the little guy to refrain from kicking them in the nuts to defend himself simply isn't fair on some level.

This doesn't mean that I want to live in a world where people kick each other in the nuts. I'd much prefer a world where nobody does that. But the only way to get there is for both the huge and the small guys to agree to abide by the rules of some higher authority. In the playground case, that would be teachers, parents, or in the extreme, police et al. In the case of US vs. Terrorists, this would be some truly neutral (or should I say Lawful Neutral) international court of justice.

And the truth - as much as hearing this probably hurts the USians here - is that in all such situation, the big guy needs to be the one who backs down first. (How I wish right now that all those self-proclaimed Christians in the US would actually insist on US foreign policy following Christian values...)

So yeah, bin Laden got what he deserved (though it sickens me to see all those pictures of celebrations in the US - come on guys! You are just as bad as the flag burners in the middle east), but the whole "innocent civilians" angle does not give the US the the moral high ground here, even if it were completely true.

So... now what?

The big boss is dead. Credits roll, triumphant music plays and the US administration returns the civil liberties it took away after 9/11. It ends unwarranted wiretapping, off-shore abductions, violent interrogations and will ceases funding terrorists. A peaceful time of prosperity and economic growth ensues. Relations with the middle east improve.

Fuck that.

Obama uses this card to get re-elected, new, harder "anti-terrorist" laws are implemented, the middle east relations continue being deliberately undermined and the US continues selling arms to terrorists. You think the people who helped Osama and Saddam rise to power will suddenly have a change of hearts? Terror is too fucking damned useful for that to happen.

"The dark, ugly terrorists are coming to get us. Are you afraid, citizen? Are you afraid enough?"

There is no good, only degrees of evil. We have it in us to be the better men, the better generation, but sadly - we're spoiled. War is a momentum that cannot be stopped by more war - certainly not ineffectual, costly, war and to believe that killing a sinister man is something to 'celebrate' is, at best, a childish belief. You can look at this two ways: for the good of humanity and for the good of the state. Evil men deserve to die, yes. But did this really improve the world? As in so far the short term is considered: yes. In the long term? Well, no. This will only up the stakes and create an even stronger symbol of resistance. You don't stab an enemy and then turn your back; you kill it beyond any effectual resistance and lay the ground with salt. There is no such thing as 'half-war' or 'half-peace' - so, decide what you want; war or peace?

State security then? There, the truth is, that USA is not threatened by terrorism anymore than a bug is threatening to a wolf. Annoying, pestilent, and even damaging - but certainly not devastating. So, is it fair that for a killing of every american a thousand shall die? 9/11 was a tragedy and a wake up call, but to believe that more haven't died in daily terror attacks in Iraq alone is both naive and stupid. Just because it's not your country doesn't lessen those human casualties one bit.

It comes down to whether you believe in a better world or this world - they are not irreconcilable but they are very much separate. In a better world we wouldn't need the US Army to act as some sort of massive police force whenever it's considered appropriate - there are alternatives, superior alternatives, even today. Co-operation and removal of noneffective methods is way more important than throwing away civilian lives in useless invasions. It's a good thing he is dead, but I don't feel particularly cheerful over this - it's hardly going to change anything and at worst it's actually going to make things worse.
(the best news by far is the actual operation behind it - but the fact that the end result was his death and immediate burial feels a bit, well...)

Pictures like this do a great job of strengthening national stereotypes. Street-parties, waving flags and chanting "USA. USA. USA" because someone was assassinated. It's more weird than anything else.

I think it's fairly obvious that they are cheering for paul ryan supporting ending oil subsidies...

I think it's fairly obvious that they are cheering for paul ryan supporting ending oil subsidies...

LMAO. O RLY???

edit: I just got pwn'd by the scrolling billboard. I was sure you made up that..... Who would have though he'd back such a thing [whodathought]

[quote name='Fox89' timestamp='1304337525' post='4805370']
No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists.

Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
Or what of the 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a direct result of American sanctions during the 90's (to no effect)? Isn't that basically laying siege to and killing via attrition hundreds of thousands based on nothing but their nationality...?


Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts?
[/quote]

Your Gulf War number is basically made up. The Vietnam one is close to the total caused by all sides (N-S Vietnam, US), however. Plus the sanctions were UN, and could have been vetoed by any country on the security council.

LMAO. O RLY???

edit: I just got pwn'd by the scrolling billboard. I was sure you made up that..... Who would have though he'd back such a thing [whodathought]

[quote name='Smeagol' timestamp='1304344985' post='4805432']
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.

As true as this may be, it really doesn't matter. People fight with the means that they have at their disposal. It's easy to claim the high ground when you have orders of magnitudes more money to spend on the military and advanced technology, but the reality is that there are many people in the world who perceive themselves as victims of US foreign policy (and many of them really are victims of US foreign economic policy), and they fight back with whatever means they have available.
[/quote]

Sure they do. Which is why one has to look at what they are fighting for. Any way you slice it, Islamic terrorists are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of morality. No need to get into logical contortions with moral relativism here.

Perhaps a playground example is in order. Let's say a clique of huge guys bully somebody who is all by himself, and this person tries to defend himself by kicking one of them in the nuts. After that, the huge guys claim that that's no fair, they would never intentionally kick somebody in the nuts, and use that as justification for further bullying. Yes, they're right, kicking somebody in the nuts is not nice. Then again, they are so much superior in their sheer force that they can afford not to use all the tools at their disposal. So requiring the little guy to refrain from kicking them in the nuts to defend himself simply isn't fair on some level.
[/quote]

Inappropriate analogy. The US was not bullying Bin Laden or the Taliban. Bin Laden and those like him disagreed with the direction the world was heading and decided to get involved where they had no business, attempting to make matters worse for everyone involved.

This doesn't mean that I want to live in a world where people kick each other in the nuts. I'd much prefer a world where nobody does that. But the only way to get there is for both the huge and the small guys to agree to abide by the rules of some higher authority. In the playground case, that would be teachers, parents, or in the extreme, police et al. In the case of US vs. Terrorists, this would be some truly neutral (or should I say Lawful Neutral) international court of justice.
[/quote]

International courts are another debate altogether. They're a nice idea in practice but in implementation, they've failed. And despite their best intentions, the Europeans certainly have no business conducting such courts. Furthermore, international terrorism, globalization, and the proliferation of stateless elements has complicated international police work. Today's ineffective international organizations were well-suited for conducting dialog and defusing tensions during the Cold War but are utterly ineffectual today. No surprise then that nobody who matters on the world stage actually respects their opinion.

And the truth - as much as hearing this probably hurts the USians here - is that in all such situation, the big guy needs to be the one who backs down first. (How I wish right now that all those self-proclaimed Christians in the US would actually insist on US foreign policy following Christian values...)[/quote]

What do you mean "back down"? Although I think our adventures in the last 10 years have been ill-advised, ineffective, and a horrifically expensive quagmire, we have every right not to accept the spread of ideologies antithetical to our values. We have every right to wipe out existential threats.

So yeah, bin Laden got what he deserved (though it sickens me to see all those pictures of celebrations in the US - come on guys! You are just as bad as the flag burners in the middle east),[/quote]

Ah, siding with the fashionable, self-loathing contrarians, are we? Cheering the demise of the self-styled figurehead of Islamic terror is in no way morally comparable to cheering and advocating for the deaths of innocent civilians out of sheer frustration and spite, as middle eastern flag burners do. We're only human. Ten years, two wars, and thousands of dead later, let us have our celebration.

We have every right to wipe out existential threats.

So when are Wall Street bankers being put up against the wall?

we have every right not to accept the spread of ideologies antithetical to our values.[/quote]

Why are you quoting Bin Laden?