9/11: 20th Anniversary

[zorkuus]

I wonder if it's just contrarian edgelordism or what?

Seems to be just naivety.

[PhaelixWW]

Osama was found watching tv in a compound, there was literally no reason to shoot him

Why do you keep stating this like it's a fact? I mean, the first part is quite literally false, because electricity was out in the area when the raid happened.

[Shadowferal]

Seems to be just naivety.

Maybe it'd take seversl thousand people in his own country to get killed via terrorism to have him reconsider.

[PhaelixWW]

Who'd been in hiding for over a decade, this is just the same sort of rhetoric american cops use to justify executing civilians, he wasnt going to be wearing a bomb vest.

And the material they found in the compound proved that he was still directly involved in Al-Qaeda operations, and not "retired" like the world was led to believe.

If a team of some americas most elite forces cant arrest a unarmed man watching tv then they're pretty fucking useless.

Who said he was unarmed? And as stated already, the idea that he was watching TV is objectively false.

cant say it's a good look to execute him and throw his body in the sea.

And why do you keep saying he was just "thrown into the sea"? He was given a sea burial, following traditional Islamic procedures.

You're consistently misrepresenting or lying about the facts that are known about the situation, and then claiming as facts things that are unknown. You might get less pushback if you didn't do those things.

[PhaelixWW]

Fair enough, I have no idea what he was doing unarmed in his room before he was killed, he spent a lot of the time leading up to his death watching tv, so I kinda just assumed, regardless it's not a detail which detracts from the fact they killed an unarmed man.

And reports state that the had two weapons at hand, too: a rifle and a pistol. While he was not holding the weapons when he was shot, characterizing him as unarmed in the situation is somewhat disingenuous.

[PhaelixWW]

Literally everyone said he was unarmed, and as I said, I dont know what he was literally doing at the moment of his death, he just watched a lot of tv while in hiding, so I assumed, can you read?

Yeah, so you really just have no idea what you're talking about.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? Except that what you're doing is worse. You're making assumptions, and then trying to pass them off to others as fact. It's bad enough when you let your false assumptions dictate your position, but now you're arguing with others based on your shitty understanding. That's not a good look.

If you wanna get caught up in the details and ignore the actual shit I'm complaining about go for it.

If you want to stop saying shit that's wrong, then you won't get called on it.

Fact check your shit, otherwise people will do it for you. Or don't you understand the nature of the internet by now?

[PhaelixWW]

He wasnt equipped with or carrying weapons. It's not disingenuous. Saying he was armed would be disingenuous, he wasnt carrying a weapon.

Obviously there were guns around this guy was a renown terrorist, he wasnt fighting back though.

If you have a holstered sidearm, are you armed? It's not in your hands, but it's readily available to be grabbed and wielded. What if it's on the shelf next to you? What if you're reaching for it?

The reality is that he had weapons in immediate proximity, regardless of anything else. It's disingenuous to say that he was "just an unarmed man", just as much as it's disingenuous to say the he was "armed and resisting".

- - - Updated - - -

It's a minor detail that didnt stop others disagreeing with what I was saying in its entirety.

It really doesnt change anything, what he was doing immediately before he died doesnt really matter

Then there's really no need for you to get it wrong, is there? But if you can't be bothered to find out some basic things before stating them as fact, then why should anyone honestly listen to the rest of what you have to say?

[PhaelixWW]

So basically if anyone has a gun in their house they are armed?

And, look, a disingenuous response. Imagine that!

I guess in your mind, "anywhere in the house" is the same thing as "immediate proximity" which is what I said. He reportedly had multiple firearms on a shelf in his room, a few feet away.

If you're a terrorist and have a firearm less than 3 seconds away, then no, you shouldn't be considered the same as an "unarmed man". It's not the same thing as if you're actively holding said weapon and firing back, but you're still an imminent threat.

But he wasnt going for a weapon (afaik)

And how do you know?

People make mistakes?

This isn't a "mistake". This is willful ignorance. The information is out there. And it's not like you couched your statements as "I think" or used any kind of qualifiers, you stated them as fact.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy why should anyone listen to you when your entire argument is based on the fact I mucked up one insignificant detail? It's a piss poor attempt at dismissing the fact that america broke international law

Except that I'm not even arguing that they didn't. But I hate it when people are extremely disingenuous, and I also hate it when people lie.

Also, it's not just one detail, and they're not insignificant.

and has no issue with extrajudicial killing as long as they are the ones doing it.

But this statement, without any attempt at qualification, is just bullshit hyperbole.

[Shadowferal]

9 11 propaganda has really fucked with so many peoples brains that theyd through international law in the trash for the sake of revenge. It's gross.

Then complain to the U.N.. They did approve...

[Shadowferal]

I'm going off how the numerous articles described him, I'm not the one coming up with this claim he was unarmed.

What articles?
As of then, the only country that might agree with you was Pakistan.

[Shadowferal]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy...ry?id=13525344 Is ABCnews too Pakistani for you?

Pfft...sounds like it all went very well.

[Edge-]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy...ry?id=13525344

Is ABCnews too Pakistani for you?

The SEALs worried that Bin Laden might be wearing a suicide vest or have the room booby trapped.

Very reasonable concern given the dude in question.

Are we gonna stan for the rights of innocent victim of brutal military violence Osama Bin Laden some more?

[DarkAmbient]

Everyone has a right to a fair trial, and supporting that principle doesn't mean 'stanning' for the worst kind of people.

[Edge-]

If people are going to stand brutal american imperialism sure.

Ah yes, the American Imperialism of...finding a wanted global terrorist responsible for orchestrating the biggest terrorist attack in US (world?) history.

Such imperialism.

Concern yes, but they found him without weapons in his hands and still killed him.

They founded a violent, wanted terrorist who may have had an explosive device on himself, as it's hardly out of line with the tactics of his organization, and neutralized a credible potential threat. A threat that had been actively hiding for years.

I dont think the idea he were a bomb vest all the time incase he was found is particularly reasonable.

Why not? Why isn't it reasonable that he may have had his hiding place booby trapped and ready to blow up?

The last people we should be letting trample of peoples rights are the American military.

I agree. But this is not a normal military deployment or a routine affair. This is going after a violent, dangerous terrorist.

And still you stan.

[Lenonis]

What is happening in this thread? Are we really pretending that anyone who is a US ally would object to the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden?

If you want to hang onto a no-exception approach to extrajudicial actions then fine, but I think anyone with a hint of pragmatism would recognize taking out Bin Laden was valuable and not really objectionable.

[Edge-]

No the part where they went into Pakistan without permission to perform the extrajudicial killing of the man who planned the largest terrorist attack in history. Is the imperlialistic part.

Was that before or after Pakistan spent years hiding him?

I dont think many terrorists just sit around at home with bomb vests on.

Do you know many? I don't, so I couldn't say. But I'd err on the side of caution.

Booby trapping your house with kids around? Brilliant idea.

Because terrorists known to kill children in suicide bombing attacks are...above killing children?

I'd hope that breaking international law isnt par for the course for the US military.

...that's like, absolutely par for the course with the US military. Remember all those bombs we dropped in "not-Vietnam"? For better or worse, international law is largely irrelevant and we (and others) routinely ignore it.

You can go after him and capture him alive, that was well within the realm of possibility. They were told to kill him though.

They were ordered to kill or capture. In the moment, they assessed the situation and determine he was a credible threat.

I wanted him brought to justice, this wasnt that. Extrajudicial killings generally arent just.

Taking him alive would have been preferable for everyone, especially the US as they'd have been able to keep him in detention and interrogate him for the rest of his life. But that didn't happen.

I'm not gonna be sad over the end result though, it would have been the same had he gone to trial, just with likely the government not pursuing the death penalty due to the information he could provide.

[JohnBrown1917]

Then complain to the U.N.. They did approve...

I mean the UN being shit with this shit is nothing new.

- - - Updated - - -

What is happening in this thread? Are we really pretending that anyone who is a US ally would object to the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden?

If you want to hang onto a no-exception approach to extrajudicial actions then fine, but I think anyone with a hint of pragmatism would recognize taking out Bin Laden was valuable and not really objectionable.

And all the damage that was caused in his search hardly made it worth it.

[DarkAmbient]

What is happening in this thread? Are we really pretending that anyone who is a US ally would object to the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden?

If you want to hang onto a no-exception approach to extrajudicial actions then fine, but I think anyone with a hint of pragmatism would recognize taking out Bin Laden was valuable and not really objectionable.

The pragmatic case for killing Osama is clear, and I doubt the manner of his passing weighs heavily on most people's conscience. But moral authority is eroded when exceptions are made to the principle of trial by jury. The West loves to think of itself as the ultimate moral authority, but in that regard we are like the paedophile priest who preaches compassion for the innocent.

[PhaelixWW]

You literally came in here being disingenuous. Clinging to a single mistake the way you have isnt a good faith attempt at engagement.

Except not, because I'm not engaging in your supposed main point at all. I never claimed to be.

I'm just calling out your ridiculous falsehoods because they're ridiculous falsehoods, and you kept repeating them, baselessly.

[Frolk]

Not sure if this been posted already, but its truly disgusting, and im sure some teachers would even approve of this, seeing how many Americans hates america for some reason.


https://nypost.com/2021/09/12/studen...lags-for-9-11/