c4countdown

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This is why you can't start new topics.

??? why?

In memory of Obama bin Laden. 5/2, never forget.

Charlie Reams wrote:In memory of Obama bin Laden.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/f ... bin-laden/

Charlie Reams wrote: In memory of Obama bin Laden. 5/2, never forget.

Now we WILL never see them in the same room together.

Michael Wallace wrote:I just wish they'd done it on Friday morning, would have made the whole day's news coverage hilarious.

Like.

Also, apparently some people are a bit suspicious about the whole thing. Many people thought he was dead anyway (apparently he was looking near to death in videos from years ago) and then suddenly he's killed and his body is just dumped in the sea rather than kept. Obama's looking good though with the presidential elections coming up!

I'm just saying what I've heard. This has no implications on what I think happened.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Obama's looking good though with the presidential elections coming up!

I'm just saying what I've heard. This has no implications on what I think happened.

18 months away? Oh yes, I remember. 2 years is spent campaigning for the presidential elections and the other 2 years is spent campaigning for the mid-term elections.

Given that it seems Bin Laden was unarmed (although he did "resist" arrest) was his shooting justified?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Given that it seems Bin Laden was unarmed (although he did "resist" arrest) was his shooting justified?

I don't really see how it changes anything. It's not like they broke into his little lair to do anything other than kill him.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This is why you can't start new topics.

??? why?

In memory of Obama bin Laden. 5/2, never forget.

Is 5/2 the date you said I couldn't make new topics or something? Anyway, if it is, what's it got to do with Osama Bin Laden??

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This is why you can't start new topics.

??? why?

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:In memory of Obama bin Laden. 5/2, never forget.

Is 5/2 the date you said I couldn't make new topics or something? Anyway, if it is, what's it got to do with Osama Bin Laden??

Nah Charlie was just using the American date thingy, like the other thing which didn't happen on the 9th of November 2001. Also, you've got your own topic, so you can just start a new thought there if you want to. Took me a while to notice he'd written 'Obama'.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:This is why you can't start new topics.

??? why?

Soph K wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:In memory of Obama bin Laden. 5/2, never forget.

Is 5/2 the date you said I couldn't make new topics or something? Anyway, if it is, what's it got to do with Osama Bin Laden??

Nah Charlie was just using the American date thingy, like the other thing which didn't happen on the 9th of November 2001. Also, you've got your own topic, so you can just start a new thought there if you want to. Took me a while to notice he'd written 'Obama'.

oh right. yeah i thought it said osama.

Adam Gillard wrote:Nah Charlie was just using the American date thingy, like the other thing which didn't happen on the 9th of November 2001. Also, you've got your own topic, so you can just start a new thought there if you want to. Took me a while to notice he'd written 'Obama'.

Charlie Reams wrote:This is why you can't start new topics.

Why, then, Charlie??????

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Given that it seems Bin Laden was unarmed (although he did "resist" arrest) was his shooting justified?

I don't really see how it changes anything. It's not like they broke into his little lair to do anything other than kill him.

It sounds like their using his resistance as an excuse. What if he hadn't resisted? Would they have shot him then? Is it actually justified in either case? Who are they to just turn up and execute him without any sort of trial?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Given that it seems Bin Laden was unarmed (although he did "resist" arrest) was his shooting justified?

I don't really see how it changes anything. It's not like they broke into his little lair to do anything other than kill him.

It sounds like their using his resistance as an excuse. What if he hadn't resisted? Would they have shot him then? Is it actually justified in either case? Who are they to just turn up and execute him without any sort of trial?

Aren't we at war with them or something?

Adam Gillard wrote:Took me a while to notice he'd written 'Obama'.

So you didn't catch the reference in my link either? It had to be Fox News:

James Bradley put the following great anagram on Facebook yesterday:
OSAMA BIN LADEN = LOB DA MAN IN SEA

Joseph Krol wrote:James Bradley put the following great anagram on Facebook yesterday:
OSAMA BIN LADEN = LOB DA MAN IN SEA

I usually find anagrams really boring but this is kind of cool.

Joseph Krol wrote:James Bradley put the following great anagram on Facebook yesterday:
OSAMA BIN LADEN = LOB DA MAN IN SEA

Lol.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:I don't really see how it changes anything. It's not like they broke into his little lair to do anything other than kill him.

It sounds like their using his resistance as an excuse. What if he hadn't resisted? Would they have shot him then? Is it actually justified in either case? Who are they to just turn up and execute him without any sort of trial?

Aren't we at war with them or something?

Does that make it OK then? But who are we at war with? There is a war in Afghanistan, but this wasn't there. Obviously there's the "war on terror", but that's not a proper war - it's just rhetoric like a war on cancer or AIDS.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Aren't we at war with them or something?

Even in a war you can't just kill whoever you like. If bin Laden was trying to surrender (which the US argues that he wasn't) then that's not cool.

Gavin Chipper wrote:. Obviously there's the "war on terror", but that's not a proper war - it's just rhetoric like a war on cancer or AIDS.

Both sides armed, espionage, propaganda, bombing , shooting, killing.......don't kid yourself. Its a real war. And bin Laden wasn't exactly sticking to the terms of the Geneva Convention when he targeted 4 aeroplanes and 4 buildings full of civilians.

Liam Tiernan wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:. Obviously there's the "war on terror", but that's not a proper war - it's just rhetoric like a war on cancer or AIDS.

Both sides armed, espionage, propaganda, bombing , shooting, killing.......don't kid yourself. Its a real war.

Yes, there are some similarities, but also a lot of differences. For a start, there's no well-defined opposition. Even if Islamic extremism were somehow eliminated by military means (impossible), there would be more terrorists along shortly. Secondly, and similarly, there's no winning condition. The war can never be over. We can't win and we can't really lose either. Oh and no war has actually been declared, which is required under the Geneva Convention. So, pretty different IMO.

And bin Laden wasn't exactly sticking to the terms of the Geneva Convention when he targeted 4 aeroplanes and 4 buildings full of civilians.

Well, that's the thing about the Geneva Convention. You have to stick to it even if your opponents don't, or you're no better than they are.

Charlie Reams wrote:You have to stick to it even if your opponents don't, or you're no better than they are.

I've always felt that to be the single most powerful argument against the death penalty for murder.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You have to stick to it even if your opponents don't, or you're no better than they are.

I've always felt that to be the single most powerful argument against the death penalty for murder.

At the risk of totally derailing this topic, isn't that equivalent to saying you shouldn't imprison people for kidnapping?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You have to stick to it even if your opponents don't, or you're no better than they are.

I've always felt that to be the single most powerful argument against the death penalty for murder.

At the risk of totally derailing this topic, isn't that equivalent to saying you shouldn't imprison people for kidnapping?

Although I'm against the death penalty, I say that to people sometimes as well.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:You have to stick to it even if your opponents don't, or you're no better than they are.

I've always felt that to be the single most powerful argument against the death penalty for murder.

At the risk of totally derailing this topic, isn't that equivalent to saying you shouldn't imprison people for kidnapping?

Haha, fair point. I originally just wrote "argument against the death penalty" and then, in an ill-considered attempt to make my post more relevant, I edited it to add "for murder". In trying to draw a closer parallel with your view I think I ended up obfuscating my own.

It's as if a death sentence had been passed by Presidential decree, which the US Seals proceeded to carry out. Not a power I knew today's Presidents still wielded.

Shades of the Wild West, perhaps - wanted, dead or alive.

I'm not sure what the rules of engagement were under that system, whether the person who brought in the bounty could ever be criticised for having killed when it wasn't strictly necessary to have done so.

We'll probably never know for sure, but it doesn't appear to me that it was strictly necessary to shoot the man dead here. Hillary Clinton certainly looked shocked in that picture taken of her watching it all happen via helmet-cam.

Having done so and dumped the corpse (albeit apparently in a Sharia-compliant way) may avoid a lot of 'messing about' with trials, lawyers, fees, reprisals, TV, security, what have you - and no doubt as a show of strength it was impressive - but I'm certainly left feeling uneasy about what has been done.

Who else will be killed in this way? What offence(s) carry this particular penalty?

One of my children is bullied at school. If they successfully fight back - breaking the rules about fighting - I'm probably secretly, or perhaps openly, proud of them. Is this how I should feel here, proud that the bully has received a severe taste of his own medicine?

I heard a line from a soldier on active service once - he said "I don't work for the Ministry of Attack; I work for the Ministry of Defence. We don't start things. We defend our island."

Some have been saying that this was an act of defence, preventing the man from planning any more massacres.

Murder can be expedient; perhaps it was here; but in my book, that doesn't make it right.

Richard Adams wrote:It's as if a death sentence had been passed by Presidential decree, which the US Seals proceeded to carry out. Not a power I knew today's Presidents still wielded.

Shades of the Wild West, perhaps - wanted, dead or alive.

I'm not sure what the rules of engagement were under that system, whether the person who brought in the bounty could ever be criticised for having killed when it wasn't strictly necessary to have done so.

We'll probably never know for sure, but it doesn't appear to me that it was strictly necessary to shoot the man dead here. Hillary Clinton certainly looked shocked in that picture taken of her watching it all happen via helmet-cam.

Having done so and dumped the corpse (albeit apparently in a Sharia-compliant way) may avoid a lot of 'messing about' with trials, lawyers, fees, reprisals, TV, security, what have you - and no doubt as a show of strength it was impressive - but I'm certainly left feeling uneasy about what has been done.

Who else will be killed in this way? What offence(s) carry this particular penalty?

One of my children is bullied at school. If they successfully fight back - breaking the rules about fighting - I'm probably secretly, or perhaps openly, proud of them. Is this how I should feel here, proud that the bully has received a severe taste of his own medicine?

I heard a line from a soldier on active service once - he said "I don't work for the Ministry of Attack; I work for the Ministry of Defence. We don't start things. We defend our island."

Some have been saying that this was an act of defence, preventing the man from planning any more massacres.

Murder can be expedient; perhaps it was here; but in my book, that doesn't make it right.

Some of the rabbits in Watership Down were pretty aggressive though.

Richard Adams wrote: Shades of the Wild West, perhaps - wanted, dead or alive.

Bush used this exact phrase so I'd say this is pretty much exactly what happened. Bush also spun a pretty good line in expanding his own powers, so that probably answers your first point.

One of my children is bullied at school. If they successfully fight back - breaking the rules about fighting - I'm probably secretly, or perhaps openly, proud of them. Is this how I should feel here, proud that the bully has received a severe taste of his own medicine?

One could argue about which party was the bully in this scenario.

I'm also worried that only after he was dead did they do DNA tests to prove his identity, and moreover disposed of the body to preclude any independent checks.
This seems to leave the door wide open for terrorists to claim the victim to have been a body double, and that the REAL Bin Laden lives

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Richard Adams wrote:It's as if a death sentence had been passed by Presidential decree, which the US Seals proceeded to carry out. Not a power I knew today's Presidents still wielded.

Shades of the Wild West, perhaps - wanted, dead or alive.

I'm not sure what the rules of engagement were under that system, whether the person who brought in the bounty could ever be criticised for having killed when it wasn't strictly necessary to have done so.

We'll probably never know for sure, but it doesn't appear to me that it was strictly necessary to shoot the man dead here. Hillary Clinton certainly looked shocked in that picture taken of her watching it all happen via helmet-cam.

Having done so and dumped the corpse (albeit apparently in a Sharia-compliant way) may avoid a lot of 'messing about' with trials, lawyers, fees, reprisals, TV, security, what have you - and no doubt as a show of strength it was impressive - but I'm certainly left feeling uneasy about what has been done.

Who else will be killed in this way? What offence(s) carry this particular penalty?

One of my children is bullied at school. If they successfully fight back - breaking the rules about fighting - I'm probably secretly, or perhaps openly, proud of them. Is this how I should feel here, proud that the bully has received a severe taste of his own medicine?

I heard a line from a soldier on active service once - he said "I don't work for the Ministry of Attack; I work for the Ministry of Defence. We don't start things. We defend our island."

Some have been saying that this was an act of defence, preventing the man from planning any more massacres.

Murder can be expedient; perhaps it was here; but in my book, that doesn't make it right.

Some of the rabbits in Watership Down were pretty aggressive though.

It's my 91st birthday today

Some girl on my Facebook just put a shitty message about men and said at the end ALL MEN CAN JOG ON.
Like anyone from C4C, anything in capitals is an excuse to make an anagram.
I found NOON CLAM JANGLE. And she posted the status a few minutes ago, at about noon.
No prizes for guessing what she's up to right now or for guessing whether or not I posted the suggestion as a comment. (Of course I did.)