Osama bin Laden dead

[Cardiganwearer]

Fred, you may have a point, but I think that was not how it was viewed at the time.

It's dodgy scholarship to use a television programme as a cite but I'm lazy so I'm going to.
In the sereies Nuremburg: Nazis on Trial http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814234/ which used much documentary and transcript verbatim it was clear that the view at the time was that Germany had been run since 1933 by a criminal gang. The emphasis was on that fact being the reason for the trial.

The allies as victors in that war were aware that they needn't have done this and the nazis were not tried under german law.

I've just realised I've Godwined this thread, it's a first and I apologise!

[fredv3b]

the nazis were not tried under german law.

As far as I am aware the occupying powers were entitled to apply whatever system of law they saw fit.

[toomuch45]

you know what now that i think about this i think this was all planned

hes not dead and luckily i have info

- America originally funded and trained Osama and his people, and even provided them weapons. Both Osama and the US shared a common enemy - the Soviets - thus giving America a reason to support them.

- 911 was setup by the highest levels in the US government as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and the Middle East. This might sound rather extreme, but continue reading you'll understand why

- USA is the country that consumes the most natural gas out of all countries, and their capitalist government is heavily influenced by the rich and powerful. You can safely say that the big oil companies run American politics, and thus influence what the government and its military does. Hell, America is the only country which DENIES global warming or any of the environmental problems we are currently experiencing!! BY NOW THINGS SHOULD START TO BECOME OBVIOUS!!!!!

- We are nearing an oil crisis, as natural gas reserves are running out! Oil prices are going up because of this very reason, and a shrinking supply of product presents an enormous financial problem for the companies and their money-addicted CEOs. What is the solution? ...FIND ANOTHER SOURCE OF FOSSIL FUEL!!!

- The Middle East (especially Qatar and Iran) has the 2nd largest natural gas reserves, after Russia. Clearly taking over Russian resources would be suicidal, so what is the next best option? That's easy, the Middle East! While there are enormous risks (war being the biggest) in doing this, the billionaires who want to remain billionaires (total money addicts lol) are willing to gamble on this for the sake of a continued cash flow, and consequently the steps towards monopolizing the Middle Eastern gas industry begin.

- The first step is to create instability, hence 911 and the "war on terrorism." By creating such a dramatic diversion, the US creates fear in the Western World, and spawn a false enemy as a reason to enter the Middle East, with Afghanistan being the first target.

- The second step is to conquer nearby areas, especially military powers. Not surprisingly, Iraq is the perfect target for this. Iraq itself has a respectable natural gas reserve, an is known to have chemical weapons. However, Iraq is incapable of producing nuclear weapons, and presents absolutely no threat to America in anyway. Iraq already had an iffy history with the West, having defended its reserves from Kuwait, resulting in the Gulf War. By this time, US had the perfect time to lead a full on invasion, and did so, crippling the once stable nation and transforming it into one of the most chaotic places on Earth.

- America continues to maintain its presence in the Middle East, and has some help from its allies. All that's really left is the other big "I," the one that ends with "N." Iran has enormous reserves, and is also a potential threat to America, Israel and their allies. The Persian state is a realistically strong military power, and have a relationship with the Russians that allows them to potentially develop nuclear weapons. This creates fear and great risk, but only gives Iran's enemies more reason to prepare an attack. Coupled with the Irani president's already extreme persona and views, demonizing the country becomes only easier.


As you can see, all of this is about money. When you are earning enough to sleep with 10 different ladies every night, own 10 mansions, 100 luxury cars, and even a soccer team, you DON'T want that bliss to end. Wealth can be highly addictive, and these guys need money in the same way an impoverished coke-fiend needs his next hit! And when such corrupt people influence powerful governments and militaries, you can expect some really suspicious and rather questionable chain of events to occur. There is only one major problem to this:

WORLD WAR III


Yep, it could happen. Russia publicly swore to protect Iran from the States, and Putin said that if America touches Iran, it's war. Iran provides many countries, including Russia (AND CHINA) with fossil fuel, and I'm very sure that many countries that aren't closely allied to the States won't be too happy about their suppliers being taken over. If Iran was taken over, the new management could charge other countries more for gas, and allies much less. With conflicting interests, emotions are going to skyrocket out of control, and the possibility of war begins. The only problem is that at this point, a third world war would likely be the one to end it all.


The conclusion: World War III is about to happen, just wait till Iran enters war with Israel/USA. Once it happens, you know it's all over. There is NO guarantee that nukes won't come into play, and unlike back in the 1940s, now several nations possess a collective total of several thousand nuclear weapons, which is more than enough to destroy all life on earth many times over. There is pretty much nothing we can do about this, so any efforts to change our fate will be completely futile.

but i hope this doesnt happen

[Wintereis]

Wintereis,

Thanks for your reply. How far does something have to be from ideal justice before America does itself a diservice in calling it justice?

I appreciate there was a firefight but it did not involve bin Laden, he was unarmed. I accept that there could well have been good reason why his killing was a necessity. I also accept that there may well be good reason why that reason cannot be fully explained. However I am not prepared to take it on trust.

If bin Laden was assaignated, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may well be that his loss may impair Al-Quaeda's ability to act collectively or deter his successor from being so public.

I feel comfortable with his killing, I just feel very uncomfortable with calling it justice.

That's a good question, and since I am not a policy maker, not one I can readily answer. Though, here again Fred, you are mistaking the judicial system for justice. That is not surprising, because, as I pointed out earlier, in western society one is often erroniously conflated with the other. Kant for instance would state that-- though the lack of a trial certainly did detract from the overall good of removing a violent international criminal--the overall good done by his illimination far outways the negative. So then ,the question becomes: Since the greater good was served by breaking a law in this case, do laws sometimes inhibit achieving the greater good or penalize those who seek it? I would have to say yes to that.

Additionally, I have to say that it really cannot be up to the United States or really any country for that matter to determine how far it can leave the realm of justice without it being detrimentally unjust to itself and the world. I am afraid that such things have to be determined at an international level. In the democratic system which I live under, I have a limited amount of contol, the ability to vote individuals into or out of office, the ability to seek justice through trial, and the ability to vocally apose things I concider unjust. This has been and is still concidered a vast amount of control in comparison to many other nations around the world, but it is still extreamly limited. Beyoind those three primary elements, I have no other form of legal redress. Any other way of attempting to correct the injustice would require me to break laws.

In the above, I had in mind the particular scenarion serounding the Bush Six as well as G.W. Bush and Dick Chainey. My government is incapalbe of playing an unbiased role in determining the guilt or innocence of those individuals. My government leans heavily on those governments, Spain, which seek to determine guilt or innocence through their laws. I personally have no legal grounds to seek prosecution based on suspected human rights vilations nor would I have the money to do so even if I could. I did protest against said violations, and I did vote against those who I believe to have perpetrated them. But, inevitable, justice is not achieved due to the inability of a government to judge itself, the legal limitations of its populace, and the inability of the international community to . . . um . . . grow a set.

Though, I do believe there is a vast difference between the OBL scenario and GITMO.

[fredv3b]

That's a good question, and since I am not a policy maker, not one I can readily answer.

My question was about what is and what is not justice. I am not sure how being a policy maker would better enable you to answer it.

Though, here again Fred, you are mistaking the judicial system for justice.

Obviously the philosophical principle of justice is different from the judicial system. However I don't see how, in practice, justice can be seen to be done without a judicial system. Therefore to my mind President Obama is effectively saying, "trust me, justice was done". I am afraid neither I nor much of the world trusts him (or anyone in his office) that much.

[fredv3b]

toomuch,

You have a very vivid imagination, but far too much belief in the ability to keep a secret. In any case I am sure there a cheaper means to ensure the supply of oil.

[Wintereis]

Obviously the philosophical principle of justice is different from the judicial system. However I don't see how, in practice, justice can be seen to be done without a judicial system. Therefore to my mind President Obama is effectively saying, "trust me, justice was done". I am afraid neither I nor much of the world trusts him (or anyone in his office) that much.

Ah, but you have forgotten to read your books. You have it backwards. The principal of justice under a judicial system is the philosophical principal of justice, as tenuous, convoluted, and unrealistic as that may be. Indeed, there is no grounds for a judiciary system nor for law itself without originally having philosophical principal to sustain it. Philosophy is the axis upon which law and justice turn.

Obama is effectively saying, under the philosophical principal understood by the greater good through the protection of the innocent and the punishment of past crimes, the eradication of Osama Bin Laden is just.

You really need to pull your head out of the law book (the institutional manifestation of the philosophy) and look more toward its origins, silly boy. And i don't disagree with you, by the way. As far as I am concerned, the best system for establishing justice is through the court systems we know so well in the United states and Great Britain, which might as well be twins for their shared history. But, as I pointed out in my previous posts, that does not mean that the system is anywhere near an ideological perfection.

Actually, thinking about it, I don't see that we are really disagreeing on much. The only thing I can see is that you seem to think that for justice to exist it must be put through an institutional system. Where as my perception is that, while the institution can often times enable a more perfect justice, it is not universally so and it can, in certain situations, impede justice.

[fredv3b]

Don't call me boy.

[Wintereis]

Sorry, mon petit dame des camélias

[toomuch45]

toomuch,

You have a very vivid imagination, but far too much belief in the ability to keep a secret. In any case I am sure there a cheaper means to ensure the supply of oil.

yea i believe that too