We need to outlaw women voters while we are at it!

Raver kid weighs in:

bah youtube imbed fail.
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/raver_kid_reacts_to_bin_ladens_death/

I find your mockery to be in poor taste. Shame on you sir.

you can blame the NFL for that.

The NFL was founded on August 20, 1920

On August 26, 1920, when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

anyone verified the sub-titles are actually following the speech in that vid?

<driveby>

Forgive me if it's been said; this is one hell of a long thread.

I'm happy Osama bin Laden is dead. I'm not really a big fan of personal vengeance, which is expensive and doesn't make me feel better; I'm not dancing on the man's watery grave (there's a weird image), I'm celebrating the neutralization of a powerful icon of fear. I'm willing to bet no one here ever met Osama. We don't revile the man, we revile what he has come to symbolize: fear, insecurity, vulnerability. We cry in relief when that symbol loses its power over our minds, even temporarily, even when the true threat isn't gone. We're celebrating because we've been grieving for so long, that when the downward pressure on our social morale lessens even a little, it feels like a cause for celebration.

Or some of us are dancing on a man's grave. But I'll bet a lot of people fit the description in the above paragraph and just haven't thought it through, but it's such a precious moment for them that they'll rationalize (with partial success) what they would normally consider a deplorable position, and knowing the fragility of that construct, will defend it with claws out.

</driveby>

Candy coating; Lipstick on a pig.

Not to mention such symbolism is subjective. For those who placed less emphasis on his campaign of fear and terror(and rightfully so, since his realistic objective was to induce those thoughts rather than to wipe us out), the reduction of said symbolism/iconic value via his death is even less.

Fair enough; but for those among Americans who bought the original ploy, the destruction of same has to have some value, yeah?

Sure, if they bought it.

I guess I just have an issue with the concept of celebration itself over someone's death. In some circumstances I can understand it, but by proxy. Hitler's death symbolized the end of the conflict on the European front, and it wasn't his death so much as the fact that the war ended and was won in an acceptable way. Osama's death doesn't really end much in the grand scheme of things because he ended up being a mere figurehead of a multi-headed snake. That's not to say we haven't made progress in the war on terror, but it wasn't Osama's death that brought that nor was it an ultimate goal in stopping them.

For me it ends with a slightly somber nod rather than any thought of excitement. He got a fate that he deserved, no question. And as I said earlier in the thread, I would have much preferred he had gotten a fair trial - something he would have NEVER offered his enemies in a million years - and that which would have much furthered our distance from any ideology remotely close to his. No tears are shed by any means, and I am glad that he won't be able to hurt anyone else. For me though, the emotion over that fact is not as simplistic as instantaneously leaping to ecstatic joy - it is mixed, as the result of his death will be impactually.

I like it when bad people die. It should happen more often. Fuck trials.

As much as I'd like to be able to say that we captured Osama and gave him a fair trial, do you realistically think that he'd receive a fair trial anywhere in the world?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

There's no such thing as truly fair trial anywhere in the world anyway. Bias always exists. Why would strong biases against Osama change one's idea about a court of law being "more fair" than a medieval doctrine of "just kill him"?

Your argument brings to mind all manner of cases where strong bias is going to be evident. Not just the infamousness of the act, but also the act itself.

Just in case you hadn't heard the latest on this, it turns out GITMO wasn't as pivitol as Cheney would (quite loudly) like you to think



But it's fun watching Santorum make an ass of himself. Again. and Again. and Again. There are many things I'll say about McCain...that he doesn't know anything about torture wouldn't be one of them.

_________________

Then why hasn't Obama closed it?

I wish I knew the answer to that. I truly do. It's one of the things I'm not terribly happy with Obama about.

But when it comes to where the intelligence came from for bagging Bin Laden? I'm going to take Panetta's word on it over some desk chair pundits on an old EQ forum and their speculation.

_________________

It's not like Obama has the ability to single-handedly close Gitmo. It's especially not going to happen when both houses of Congress, and members of both major parties, are actively working against you on it.

The initial intelligence probably did come from detainees, but that would have been quite a long time ago.

The prison can't realistically be closed anytime soon. Too many sticking points, and there's really no good place to put them otherwise. The only thing I'd fault anyone for is failing to act quickly on repatriation. Though on the other hand their fear of the news backlash should someone then be executed is a pretty valid one.

We thought we knew where he was last August. We were sure of it in February. We moved on him at the end of April, and killed him May 1st.

This article credits phone intercepts from 2009 as the "key breakthrough".