• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The President Obama Thread: 'Killed Osama! Woot!' Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also think it says a lot that President Obama did not want to bomb the compound because of the potential of civilian casualties. (Also that a bombing would have erased any proof of his death.)

That's what I am saying. Casualties can be avoided, or brought to a minimum if intelligence is accurate and the operation is well-planned.
 
Story time...

Han Solo punches Vader in a bar and comes home to Palm Springs. In the dead of night, Vader walks in with a shotgun and shoots everyone in Han Solo's home and kills his wife, daughter, mother, and mother-in-law. Han Solo should never have stayed with civilians in their home.

Matt's argument: It is Han Solo who should be blamed. Had he not punched/attacked Vader, he would not have been to Solo's house.

Arrest Han Solo, police. He is clearly to blame. Put the bastard on deathrow.

See... how silly you sound?

I have never seen a moderator on any forum post something as stupid as this.
 
let me correct myself....everyone the news have spoken too
That makes sense. They aren't really going to show you the people who are still dissatisfied. They want this to be a happy time.

And it should be. Justice has been served. But justice being served doesn't necessarily bring about closure. There are plenty of people who have been in similar situations who will tell you that. I know that this wouldn't bring any closure to me. That's all I really have to say.
 
That's what I am saying. Casualties can be avoided, or brought to a minimum if intelligence is accurate and the operation is well-planned.

you cant compare an situation where troops are being shot at from occupied houses to a surgical spec ops strike with months of planning
 
So in order to apprehend a terrorist leader like Osama Bin Laden, the soldiers need to go to a residential areas and sometimes collateral damages are unavoidable.

So the collateral damage from wikileaks releasing classified information is bad yet the collateral damage from soldiers carrying out operation in residential areas is okay? Hypocrisy as it's finest.
 
yet its just as easy to judge a situation from your safe computer chair. They have been using civilians as shields...shooting back and be done with it is how civilians shields have been killed
Yes soldiers killing civilians is bad...but that is not the purpose of the soldiers.It is the purpose of Al Qaeda to kill civilians and that is the difference
I might not see an incredible difference between what the United States has done in defense of our country versus what Afghanistan (or whomever) has done in defense of theirs, or what terrorist cells have done in defense of their ideology, what I do know is that the American soldier is fighting to protect me and my own. That may seem a little selfish, but it is a dog eat dog world after all. I don't paint the term "hypocrisy" all over it because I understand, or I think I understand, how self-interest naturally influences all of this. Philosophy is a very academic way of approaching the world, and as Roach says absolutes work real well when you are safe at your computer screen. I'm not a violent person, but I've always loved the "violence" speech from Shutter Island. I will certainly curtail my violence to give my life stability, but I understand there is a purpose and outlet for that violence as well. I also find this notion that "combatants" and "civilians" are distinct things, that it's somehow more okay to shoot a soldier because he signed a piece of paper. Killing may be wrong in a philosophical sense, and you certainly would not like to live in a place where killing theatens to outpace population growth, but there is a utility to war that cannot be ignored.
 
the first rule of war is nothing goes as planned
Rule for life really. I feel sorry for people with black and white morals. My morals have changed quite a bit from year to year, a trend I expect to continue. You can be a good person without some myopic fixation on what the word 'good' means.
 
because people have this misguided notion that our troops just roll into a neighborhood and shoot the place up and thats not the case. Civilian deaths are wrong no matter who does it. But the fact remains is the US Troops try to minimize it (kind of hard to do when they fire at us from a house full of civilians).
OBL and Al Quaeda targets civilians on purpose. 9/11 was not a case of collateral damage...they did what they planned
 
I'm just going to come right out and say it. Your supporting this moron is just because he's black and nothing else.

Actually I'm an Old School Racist that believes that one drop of Black Blood is Black.

You keep up the stupid ass theories and I'll keep up the stupid ass responses.


Deal?


:cap: :cap: :cap:
 
I am what I am. I deal in absolutes - black and white. No greys.

Then you don't deal with realism...in which case you should probably stop talking as you lack the ability to relate and to think realistically. Most everything is shades of grey. There are 2 or more sides to many stories and the reality is often times not as simple as "they're 100% right, they're 100% wrong."

This is a problem. Dealing in only absolutes is not dealing in reality.
 
Today's operation shows that there can surgical operations done with precision and civilian casualties can be avoided. It's about planning and going forward headstrong. Today, no one other than terrorists died. That is the standard to attain to. There should be no cost to kill terrorists. If we kill civilians to protect them from terrorists, and the terrorists live on, the mission has failed. Kill terrorists, not the innocent.

The operation to kill Osama Bin Laden was done inside a secretive mansion, so the civilian casualty was kept at a minimum (except that woman who was used as a human shield). But there are more operations where the soldiers venture to a city or an area where every civilian might turn out to be a suicide bomber, and the soldiers cannot tell a terrorist from a bystander. The world isn't black and white, and you should adjust your world view accordingly.
 
Everyone needs to stop with the racial stuff. I'm not quite sure why it has been thrown into this particular conversation and debate, but it needs to stop. It is not constructive in the least.
 
Actually I'm an Old School Racist that believes that one drop of Black Blood is Black.

You keep up the stupid ass theories and I'll keep up the stupid ass responses.


Deal?


:cap: :cap: :cap:

wait am i supposed to hate you now:huh::huh::huh:
 
Then you don't deal with realism...in which case you should probably stop talking as you lack the ability to relate and to think realistically. Most everything is shades of grey. There are 2 or more sides to many stories and the reality is often times not as simple as "they're 100% right, they're 100% wrong."

This is a problem. Dealing in only absolutes is not dealing in reality.

Killing innocent people is 100% wrong. If you disagree, then you disagree.
 
Actually I'm an Old School Racist that believes that one drop of Black Blood is Black.

You keep up the stupid ass theories and I'll keep up the stupid ass responses.


Deal?


:cap: :cap: :cap:

Interesting...that means there is no such thing as "pure blood".
Which is true. There really isn't.
 
Then you don't deal with realism...in which case you should probably stop talking as you lack the ability to relate and to think realistically. Most everything is shades of grey. There are 2 or more sides to many stories and the reality is often times not as simple as "they're 100% right, they're 100% wrong."

This is a problem. Dealing in only absolutes is not dealing in reality.

the world stops being black in white when your walking down a street in iraq in an american soldiers uniform
 
because people have this misguided notion that our troops just roll into a neighborhood and shoot the place up and thats not the case. Civilian deaths are wrong no matter who does it. But the fact remains is the US Troops try to minimize it (kind of hard to do when they fire at us from a house full of civilians).
OBL and Al Quaeda targets civilians on purpose. 9/11 was not a case of collateral damage...they did what they planned

They aren't misguided, they're grounded in facts. I've seen footage of US helicopter pilots blowing away Iraqi TV camera men and pictures of US soldiers posing with the dead bodies of innocent kids they've murdered so they could cut their ears and noses off for trophies. Straight up cold blooded murder.
 
Killing innocent people is 100% wrong. If you disagree, then you disagree.

Killing innocent people INTENTIONALLY is wrong (like what Bin Laden did), but killing innocent people accidentally while trying to minimize collateral damage is unfortunate and a tragedy. They should not be compared as one and the same.
 
Killing innocent people INTENTIONALLY is wrong (like what Bin Laden did), but killing innocent people accidentally while trying to minimize collateral damage is unfortunate and a tragedy. They should not be compared as one and the same.

Fair enough.
 
Killing innocent people INTENTIONALLY is wrong (like what Bin Laden did), but killing innocent people accidentally while trying to minimize collateral damage is unfortunate and a tragedy. They should not be compared as one and the same.

exactly
 
I applaud Obama and the CIA and whoever was involved for for their meticulous planning, and avoiding innocent deaths. They could have easily just bombed the **** out of the city and then go in and hunt down Osama. But they did the right thing and saved many lives :up:
 
It's truly remarkable what Americans can accomplish when the Playstation Network is down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"