Poll: So, Bin Laden, you give a shit?

[smallthemouse]

Trillions of dollars,
5000+ Soldiers,
A region in chaos,
and ten years later,
we got ONE person.

Whoop-de-doo.

Yep, thats ALL we did and all we wanted to do.

So here we are...a Forum where the death of a world-wide terrorism Icon is 'meh' but your favorite Game Server goes down for more than two days and it's time to panic and sue.

Where every mistake made by a certain country...which shall remain nameless (USA)...is pointed out, but the failings, human rights violations, and outright abominations which happen every day in other countries is swept under the rug and ignored. Where all of terrorism is blamed on a *pretty recent* invasion (of course, the Taliban and Al Qaeda never existed before the invasion of Iraq, right) and privileged, never lived in a country where human rights don't exist posters complain but do nothing to actually *help*.

Apparently, no one reads history, or they use the 'but winners write history so I will only accept the history which supports my preconceived notions' excuse, and fails to see certain things:

Terrorism is guerrilla warfare. It is hide-in-the-dark, use children to carry bombs, make cheap propaganda claims while torturing our own people because the media is our collective ***** guerrilla warfare.

It is also based on tribal culture and personal charisma. Warlords and guerrilla leaders count on reputation and charisma to lead and recruit. Osama Bin Laden has been very much a hero and icon for terrorists everywhere, and every day he survived he helped the terrorist's cause. Now that he's dead, a major figure of awe and admiration is gone (not to mention he wasn't bad at planning attacks, either) and that is a good thing.

This. Is everyone so self centered that you only care about something that directly affects you? For gods sake, the PSN deal had more outcry just because you have to change a credit card and go outside for a week.

 

[DanielDeFig]

His death will not have any effect on the lives of Al-Quaeda victims. But hopefully it will weaken the organization (possibly splinter it), and possibly move focus away from "terrorism" as some sort of enemy (While ignoring the deeper social problems, that makes it easy for organizations like Al-Quaeda to recruit citizens in just about any country and perform acts of terrorism).

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

More than that damn wedding.

Not by much though.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Do not kick a hornet's nest without exterminating it first.
Killing him has made the morale of US troops higher (which equals more stupid choices), and... well, I don't know about al-Qaeda. But he turned into more of an icon than anything after 9/11. What I expect now is more shit and some people yelling "eek, moar bombs, we couldn't POSSIBLY foresee this!?"

In other words: MOAR DERP.

 

[Verlander]

Was that moral boost worth the 14,000 to 34,00 (depending on report) civilian deaths? That is, death, end of life, nothing, nada. Was that boost worth the 7,000 + US soldiers who died?

I'm not saying it's all been for nothing, but it's a hollow victory at best. If you think a brief economic surge is going to make up for that, you're mistaken. He's dead, and it all still happened. End.

Yes

Haha, really? This short sighted attitude is why you guys got fucked in the first place. You've just pissed off Pakistan loads anyway, so get ready for them in 10-20 years

 

[OptimisticPessimist]

Well, on one hand, he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people so fuck that guy. On the other hand, congratulations, he's a martyr now! I dunno.

 

[MadeinHell]

I don't really.

The thing that tipped me off is how GOOD people reacted.
"YAY WE KILLED A MAN! WOOOOO!". I mean seriously? Are we civilized or not?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm just glad there's something on the news that ISN'T about the royal wedding.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Now that he's dead, a major figure of awe and admiration is gone (not to mention he wasn't bad at planning attacks, either) and that is a good thing.

Except that he went down fighting, and the whole idea they stand behind has martyrdom at his core. And that's what he is now, a martyr. And that means that his message is now carried stronger than ever. He's more of a hero than ever, and his waning influence is coming back. He now is even more of a figure of awe and admiration.

Many people seem to forget that the West isn't fighting an army. You could say that they're not even fighting men. They're fighting an ideal. An ideal that thrives on dying against the infidel. An ideal that worships those who did, who in death become the real figureheads.

I mean, gods the newspapers over here, they're so freakin' blind. One of the more thought-out ones (usually) had as it's header "Snake Decapitated!" It's as if after 10 years of these groups standing in the spotlights they still don't get how they work.

Osama may be dead but I fear his death will bring about acts of vengeance and rates of violence against Americans and American interests will grow. Perhaps this growth will be brief or prolonged, who's to say. Either way, I'm not jubilant; I'm wary.

Now here's someone who gets it.

Do not kick a hornet's nest without exterminating it first.
Killing him has made the morale of US troops higher (which equals more stupid choices)

Could you be more insulting?

Actually he has a point. It can lead to some serious over-confidence, especially considering how this "victory" can only work against them. I just hope the ones making the actual decisions realise just that, and act accordingly. Judging by the warnings the president and his administration issued, I'm glad that that seems to to be the case.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Not really, fine, he's dead, great, I hope he choked on his own blood.
I won't be shedding any tears for him but as far as I'm concerned he's just one more body on the pile of so many corpses (may many more follow him).

 

[Risingblade]

Was that moral boost worth the 14,000 to 34,00 (depending on report) civilian deaths? That is, death, end of life, nothing, nada. Was that boost worth the 7,000 + US soldiers who died?

I'm not saying it's all been for nothing, but it's a hollow victory at best. If you think a brief economic surge is going to make up for that, you're mistaken. He's dead, and it all still happened. End.

Yes

Haha, really? This short sighted attitude is why you guys got fucked in the first place. You've just pissed off Pakistan loads anyway, so get ready for them in 10-20 years

Will this war with the country or a group of terrorist?

 

[SeriousIssues]

Families of people lost in the 9/11 attacks will probably feel that justice has been done, as will a majority of Americans. As a Brit, I probably don't care as much as anyone on either side of the conflict.

That last sentence summed up the royal wedding.
Not an insult or anything, just amusing, like how America couldn't deal with being upstaged.

I think nabbing Osama was a big triumph. High morale, a collection of hard drives containing extensive information, and showing that America can fuck shit up USA USA USA

 

[Verlander]

Was that moral boost worth the 14,000 to 34,00 (depending on report) civilian deaths? That is, death, end of life, nothing, nada. Was that boost worth the 7,000 + US soldiers who died?

I'm not saying it's all been for nothing, but it's a hollow victory at best. If you think a brief economic surge is going to make up for that, you're mistaken. He's dead, and it all still happened. End.

Yes

Haha, really? This short sighted attitude is why you guys got fucked in the first place. You've just pissed off Pakistan loads anyway, so get ready for them in 10-20 years

Will this war with the country or a group of terrorist?

Well, America don't tend to act any differently regardless of whether it's a small terrorist group, or whether it's a country.

Put it like this, the last non-3rd world country you had a serious tiff with was Russia, and nothing happened because everyone was so scared of nuclear holocaust. Well, Pakistan has nukes too, as do North Korea, and unless your foreign policy attitude changes, and unless you get a president on either end of the political scale, who doesn't just think about the consequences he will have to face in his term, but rather looks to the future for your country and the world in general, then we will return to the state we were in 30 years ago, and this time somebody will be stupid enough to push the damn button.

You guys are going to have to deal with it, you aren't the big boys anymore, this "war on terror" has proven that the American army can't seriously fight the way the rest of the world can (lets face it, you've never really had much experience fighting on mainland, especially not solo) and other, non political factors are going to start really messing with your country very soon (most notably the lack of oil).

I will say at this point, that I like going to America, I like most Americans I've met, hell, I used to live there. My point still stands though

 

[Kingsman]

Bleeding heart? Those are cold statistics, not some "think of the children" type whinge. End of the day, thousands of people are dead, and you don't give a shit? Says loads about you really... I think there are a load of people have have a pretty strong opinion on folk like that

This is a bias I have never been able to understand from the left. At any mention of the war, you instantly bring up statistics like this, completely unseparated from the kills the terrorists made in this war, and you claim that it doesn't justify our entry even if they DID kill 3,000+ citizens on U.S. soil. You completely ignore how groups like this have no incentive to stop at the 3,000 mark, nor have they had any incentive to stop at the 300,000 mark as they massacred their own citizens over the decades. At this point, you make a claim along the lines of "NOT OUR PROBLEM, SHOULDN'T GET INVOLVED." There is exactly one way- and ONLY one way- that you can back up that claim.

You compare the soldiers and civilians caught in collateral damage and money spent, and compare it in a ratio of how many people terrorist governments have killed and WOULD kill, and still say "not worth it."

Let me give you a hint of what that ratio is like: ratio of U.S. soldiers casualties in war vs. ratio of citizens killed by terrorists over the decades? about 35:300.
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html

To be fair, mark's site is rather out of date, but unless the allies have suddenly started killing everyone they meet (they haven't) you're not going to see the ratio tip against the U.S. any way you swing it. Sure doesn't stop you from trying, though.

Nor does it include the money we spent, but then you're making comparisons of lives to monetary value, essentially asking if preventing people's deaths is cost-effective.

Which begs the question WHY you would keep trumping up our deaths, and the idea that "it's not our war" when acts like 9/11 happened and COULD happen in the future. Right now, the only way I can see you saying that our deaths still aren't worth it is if you somehow hold American/coalition lives over Middle Eastern ones- specifically, 9 Middle Easterners dying for every 1 American is still not worth the cost and the ratio should be higher.

TL;DR-
When you say stuff like this war is not worth it, are you being stupid, a bigot, or are you just miserly?

Says loads about YOU, mate.

 

[Verlander]

Bleeding heart? Those are cold statistics, not some "think of the children" type whinge. End of the day, thousands of people are dead, and you don't give a shit? Says loads about you really... I think there are a load of people have have a pretty strong opinion on folk like that

This is a bias I have never been able to understand from the left. At any mention of the war, you instantly bring up statistics like this, completely unseparated from the kills the terrorists made in this war, and you claim that it doesn't justify our entry even if they DID kill 3,000+ citizens on U.S. soil. You completely ignore how groups like this have no incentive to stop at the 3,000 mark, nor have they had any incentive to stop at the 300,000 mark as they massacred their own citizens over the decades. At this point, you make a claim along the lines of "NOT OUR PROBLEM, SHOULDN'T GET INVOLVED." There is exactly one way- and ONLY one way- that you can back up that claim.

You compare the soldiers and civilians caught in collateral damage and money spent, and compare it in a ratio of how many people terrorist governments have killed and WOULD kill, and still say "not worth it."

Let me give you a hint of what that ratio is like: ratio of U.S. soldiers casualties in war vs. ratio of citizens killed by terrorists over the decades? about 35:300.
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html

To be fair, mark's site is rather out of date, but unless the allies have suddenly started killing everyone they meet (they haven't) you're not going to see the ratio tip against the U.S. any way you swing it. Sure doesn't stop you from trying, though.

Nor does it include the money we spent, but then you're making comparisons of lives to monetary value, essentially asking if preventing people's deaths is cost-effective.

Which begs the question WHY you would keep trumping up our deaths, and the idea that "it's not our war" when acts like 9/11 happened and COULD happen in the future. Right now, the only way I can see you saying that our deaths still aren't worth it is if you somehow hold American/coalition lives over Middle Eastern ones- specifically, 9 Middle Easterners dying for every 1 American is still not worth the cost and the ratio should be higher.

TL;DR-
When you say stuff like this war is not worth it, are you being stupid, a bigot, or are you just miserly?

Says loads about YOU, mate.

"The Left"? Ah, you're one of those...

Let's go through this little post of yours then...


I never said anything about not going over there, or not retaliating, or it not being our responsibility. You assumed, along with your assumption of my political stance, that I am all of those things, which has set the tone for this whole conversation to be about you jumping to incorrect conclusions.

Those statistics that you've "quoted" don't actually feature in the links you posted. However, if we are to assume you are correct, there's one thing you didn't reference: a time frame. You see, since the beginning of the human race, stupid things like minor illness have probably killed more than terrorism and this war combined. That is, however, over a longer time frame. Terrorism hasn't killed as many innocent people in this time frame as the war has. End of. Also, when you say terrorism, do you mean the terrorism that America has experienced, or terrorism in general? What about the IRA, the Red Army Faction? Do they, with their opposed ideologies, count towards the same total?

And about those links... I used to go to school for a brief while in America, and I know that the American geography class is non existent, so I kinda want to interject here by pointing out that Iraq and Afghanistan are different places. They were also different wars, so I'm not sure how you may have got confused. Saddam was a genocidal maniac, and needed to be brought down. He wasn't, and I must stress this, a terrorist. So Iraq statistics don't really apply in any way to our conversation. Also, and I'm sure you have a great reason for doing this, those websites are "left" websites. Liberal to the end. I'm a bit surprised, as your opening sentence showed a fair amount of contempt for the "left". Maybe you're trying to show me that even "my" political side agrees with you? I'm wondering, because those websites don't, although I do find the second one rather distasteful, which might be considered a slight victory of some sort.

As for money, I never said anything about the money you spent! I understand you're desperately trying to get an opinion across, but putting words into my mouth won't help that! Same with that entire last paragraph... I didn't actually say half the things that you are accusing me of saying. I was prepared for this kind of jumping to conclusion though, luckily you set the tone early on.

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say with this section:

"Right now, the only way I can see you saying that our deaths still aren't worth it is if you somehow hold American/coalition lives over Middle Eastern ones- specifically, 9 Middle Easterners dying for every 1 American is still not worth the cost and the ratio should be higher."

I'm anti celebrating, because the whole thing was a massacre, and a massive failure by the Americans. I think that killing thousands of people, just for revenge (and you killed far more innocent and militant Afghans than they ever killed Americans) is a really shit job, done only the way the US army could. That section I quoted seems like you are anti casualties, yet you insist on arguing with me, so either you've got the wrong end of the stick, or I'm reading that bit wrong, and you think that the massacre in the Middle East was worth it (like you originally said), in which case you value American life over others, which would make you the bigot, sir.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.