Recommended Posts

From media reports by soldiers involved in the raid.

There should be transparency in the justice system. Once you start assassinating people where do you draw the line? Clearly some police officers think that it's okay to assassinate Christopher Dorner given the way they've been shooting up random vehicles. I mean, he killed a few police officers - why bother with a trial? What about someone fleeing a robbery? There have already been countless cases of police / armed guards in the US shooting and killing unarmed robbers fleeing a crime scene. How much longer until the court system is scrapped altogether and police act as judge, jury and executioner like in Judge Dredd?

The reason you put people like Bin Laden on trial is to show that they are human, to show that they cannot escape justice, to show they weren't smart enough to evade capture and to show that society is above killing them. Society shouldn't sink to the level of criminals; society should rise above it and demonstrate moral superiority, even though it will make many people uncomfortable. That's exactly what Norway did with Anders Breivik. Reason needs to come before emotion, otherwise we're nothing but animals.

Bim Laden was responsible for well over 3000 deaths, he was far from human.

Bim Laden was responsible for well over 3000 deaths, he was far from human.

Which should mean it would be a pretty easy trial, right?

Edit: Or is this one of those parts of the Constitution that you don't believe applies anymore while you complain that no one else follows the Constitution? It's so easy to pick and choose the parts you like and then throw a fit when others do the same.

Bim Laden was responsible for well over 3000 deaths, he was far from human.

And Truman was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet he was regarded as a great leader. Bin Laden was also considered by many?though certainly not by me?to be a great leader for standing up to the oppressive US foreign policy and it's not difficult to see why when the US retaliation left over 100,000 dead in Iraq and when numerous other countries were destabilised (Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Mali, etc). How do you think people in Pakistan and Yemen feel when they see innocent people killed by drone strike? Do you think they turn around and say "good on you America, at least you're trying"? When they see the US support Israel as it engages in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine do you think that endears people to the US foreign policy? And it's not just the US; the UK is in the same position for its interference in Iran, Israel / Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

My point is, in order to win against dangerous and destructive people like Bin Laden you can't do so playing by their rules. You have to take the moral and cultural high-ground, even if it's unpopular. Take the IRA, for instance - they tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister but the response wasn't to engage in all out warfare or murder the leaders of the IRA / Sinn Fein; instead it led to peace talks being conducted behind the scenes, which eventually resulted in lasting peace. Violence only begets violence. Bin Laden should have been humanised, should have been made to look weak - the US could have used his trial to show how seriously it takes justice.

And if the SEAL in question killed Bin Laden against orders and without just cause - as has been alleged - then he should have been brought up on charges, even if it would have proved unpopular. Executing someone against orders - even someone as guilty as Bin Laden - shouldn't be tolerated. The moral high-ground is often not in keeping with popular opinion but that doesn't make it any less right.

And Truman was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet he was regarded as a great leader. Bin Laden was also considered by many?though certainly not by me?to be a great leader for standing up to the oppressive US foreign policy and it's not difficult to see why when the US retaliation left over 100,000 dead in Iraq and when numerous other countries were destabilised (Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Mali, etc). How do you think people in Pakistan and Yemen feel when they see innocent people killed by drone strike? Do you think they turn around and say "good on you America, at least you're trying"? When they see the US support Israel as it engages in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine do you think that endears people to the US foreign policy? And it's not just the US; the UK is in the same position for its interference in Iran, Israel / Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

My point is, in order to win against dangerous and destructive people like Bin Laden you can't do so playing by their rules. You have to take the moral and cultural high-ground, even if it's unpopular. Take the IRA, for instance - they tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister but the response wasn't to engage in all out warfare or murder the leaders of the IRA / Sinn Fein; instead it led to peace talks being conducted behind the scenes, which eventually resulted in lasting peace. Violence only begets violence. Bin Laden should have been humanised, should have been made to look weak - the US could have used his trial to show how seriously it takes justice.

And if the SEAL in question killed Bin Laden against orders and without just cause - as has been alleged - then he should have been brought up on charges, even if it would have proved unpopular. Executing someone against orders - even someone as guilty as Bin Laden - shouldn't be tolerated. The moral high-ground is often not in keeping with popular opinion but that doesn't make it any less right.

Although sad and unfortunate, Truman wasn't given much choice. It was either that or let the Japanese keep on killing innocent people. Bin Laden was not at war with the United States. He just didn't like the idea of us being in his country and he went on a witch hunt and went too far. He asked for it and he got it.

So what are you telling me, that this man is garbage? Seriously?

Don't know where you get that idea from. Certainly not from me. Reading comprehension drill helps maybe?

And I do respect military personnel, the same as every other people. They are not more special/privileged than others.

Saying they are "guarding our freedom and safety" when they are in other countries is kind of a stretch but I'll let you have it.

And Truman was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet he was regarded as a great leader. Bin Laden was also considered by many?though certainly not by me?to be a great leader for standing up to the oppressive US foreign policy and it's not difficult to see why when the US retaliation left over 100,000 dead in Iraq and when numerous other countries were destabilised (Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Mali, etc). How do you think people in Pakistan and Yemen feel when they see innocent people killed by drone strike? Do you think they turn around and say "good on you America, at least you're trying"? When they see the US support Israel as it engages in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine do you think that endears people to the US foreign policy? And it's not just the US; the UK is in the same position for its interference in Iran, Israel / Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

My point is, in order to win against dangerous and destructive people like Bin Laden you can't do so playing by their rules. You have to take the moral and cultural high-ground, even if it's unpopular. Take the IRA, for instance - they tried to assassinate the British Prime Minister but the response wasn't to engage in all out warfare or murder the leaders of the IRA / Sinn Fein; instead it led to peace talks being conducted behind the scenes, which eventually resulted in lasting peace. Violence only begets violence. Bin Laden should have been humanised, should have been made to look weak - the US could have used his trial to show how seriously it takes justice.

And if the SEAL in question killed Bin Laden against orders and without just cause - as has been alleged - then he should have been brought up on charges, even if it would have proved unpopular. Executing someone against orders - even someone as guilty as Bin Laden - shouldn't be tolerated. The moral high-ground is often not in keeping with popular opinion but that doesn't make it any less right.

It is a well known fact the Nuke bombing of Japan saved probably 1 million or more lives An invasion of Japan would have meant first, bombardment from warships and then the invasion. There would have been untold civilian causalities all over Japan and not just two cities. Now back to the OP please.

Although sad and unfortunate, Truman wasn't given much choice. It was either that or let the Japanese keep on killing innocent people. Bin Laden was not at war with the United States. He just didn't like the idea of us being in his country and he went on a witch hunt and went too far. He asked for it and he got it.

And supporters of Bin Laden would say he wasn't given much choice either, as there was no way he could engage the US in a traditional military confrontation. The point is Truman decided to kill innocent civilians in order to protect the lives of US soldiers - it was a cowardly, yet effective, way to end the war. In many ways it's very similar to the current US policy of drone strikes. The US foreign policy has cost dramatically more innocent lives than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban combined, yet it is Bin Laden who is painted as the evil monster because the chain of command of the US military absolves any one person from the actions of the whole.

I don't think that killing Bin Laden is worthy of respect; bringing him in alive certainly would have been.

It is a well known fact the Nuke bombing of Japan saved probably 1 million or more lives

A hypothetical is not a fact.

It is a well known fact the Nuke bombing of Japan saved probably 1 million or more lives An invasion of Japan would have meant first, bombardment from warships and then the invasion. There would have been untold civilian causalities all over Japan and not just two cities. Now back to the OP please.

That's not a fact. The Japanese were already in talks for surrender and that bomb was just a show of power to Russia.

"I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...." - Allen Dulles, CIA Officer.

Something like 3 weeks before Nagasaki & Hiroshima were bombed.

"I personally knew about this as a result of an informal meeting with General Leslie Groves [director of the Manhattan Project]. He said

to me, ?You realize, of course, that the whole purpose of this is to subdue the Russians.?

So it was clear that the Cold War had already started during the hot war [World War II]. " - Joseph Rotblat, Manhattan Project scientist.

I generally agree that the nukes were more of a "look what we've got, World!" move than to force surrender. I mean, the US had already been firebombing Japan, and some of those bombing raids were more devastating than the nukes were... they could have continued with those if they had wanted to just cause destruction.

Perhaps its unlikely. But if you were him would you take the chance? I'd say not.

I'm not sure what kind of protection would make you feel safe from terrorists and also not make you feel like you lived in your own prison. But really, the odds of him dying in a terrorist attack are about the same as the odds that you or I will.

Edit: Or is this one of those parts of the Constitution that you don't believe applies anymore while you complain that no one else follows the Constitution? It's so easy to pick and choose the parts you like and then throw a fit when others do the same.

Exactly what part of the Constitution are you referring to here?

And supporters of Bin Laden would say he wasn't given much choice either, as there was no way he could engage the US in a traditional military confrontation. The point is Truman decided to kill innocent civilians in order to protect the lives of US soldiers - it was a cowardly, yet effective, way to end the war. In many ways it's very similar to the current US policy of drone strikes. The US foreign policy has cost dramatically more innocent lives than Al-Qaeda and the Taliban combined, yet it is Bin Laden who is painted as the evil monster because the chain of command of the US military absolves any one person from the actions of the whole.

I don't think that killing Bin Laden is worthy of respect; bringing him in alive certainly would have been.

A hypothetical is not a fact.

You obviously are not old enough to actually take in what went on during WWII. Look up The Bataan Death March.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bataan+Death+March.&hl=en&client=firefox-nightly&hs=4Q3&sa=X&tbo=u&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&channel=rcs&tbm=isch&source=univ&ei=0akaUaCkOZSp0AH0pYCQBw&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=952

If I were Truman I would have Nuked Tokyo. The Japanese were nothing more than savages back then.

^A fictional Movie.

The story, although fictional, is based on the true events that took place during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

http://lokoyizone.hubpages.com/hub/Crimson-Tide-The-Real-Story-Behind-The-Movie

I'm not sure what kind of protection would make you feel safe from terrorists and also not make you feel like you lived in your own prison. But really, the odds of him dying in a terrorist attack are about the same as the odds that you or I will.

The average US citizen has a higher probability of being killed by running their car into a deer, than being killed during a terrorist attack.

I shall now patiently await our 'War on Deer' government initiative...

The average US citizen has a higher probability of being killed by running their car into a deer, than being killed during a terrorist attack.

I shall now patiently await our 'War on Deer' government initiative...

Tell that to the people of 9/11

Which should mean it would be a pretty easy trial, right?

Edit: Or is this one of those parts of the Constitution that you don't believe applies anymore while you complain that no one else follows the Constitution? It's so easy to pick and choose the parts you like and then throw a fit when others do the same.

I have no idea of what you are getting at. I follow all parts of The US Constitution.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • AI is the beginning, wait until real robots replace more jobs, specifically jobs that require physical work.
    • AI is indeed eliminating jobs, and Oracle just proved it by Hamid Ganji There’s no question that AI has become the hottest trend in workplaces, and every company is trying to adopt AI-driven solutions across its operations. While some industry leaders repeatedly say AI won’t lead to massive layoffs, recent data suggest that AI is actually one of the main reasons some companies are reducing their workforce. According to Oracle’s annual regulatory filing, the company has laid off about 21,000 employees, or 13% of its workforce, amid increasing AI adoption. “The adoption and deployment of AI technologies across our operations have resulted, and may continue to result, in reductions to our workforce,” Oracle said in the filing. The software giant now has approximately 141,000 full-time employees, a notable decrease from 162,000 during the same period last year. Restructuring expenses, including severance payments, cost Oracle $1.84 billion in fiscal 2026. Additionally, around 49,000 Oracle employees were based in the U.S., while approximately 92,000 were employed internationally. Like many other companies, Oracle has fully embraced AI and concentrated much of its efforts on the technology. The company is also a key participant in the United States’ $500 billion Stargate Project, which aims to build multiple AI data centers across the country. When it comes to AI adoption and its impact on the workforce, opinions remain divided. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, whose company has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the AI boom, recently said in an interview that attributing job cuts to AI is a “lazy” narrative. “The narrative that connects AI to job loss, for many of the CEOs that are doing it – it is just too lazy. AI has just arrived, how is it possible they're already losing jobs?” Huang said. However, statistics and recent reports tell a different story. According to Layoffs.fyi, 196 tech companies have laid off about 119,800 employees so far this year. Reducing staff and replacing roles with AI agents could become one of the most significant trends in the job market in the years ahead.
    • Zoom Workplace 7.1.0.41345 by Razvan Serea Zoom Workplace for Windows is a reliable video conferencing tool that makes it easy to connect and collaborate. With features like messaging, file sharing, and app integrations, it’s designed to streamline teamwork. You’ll get high-quality audio and video, strong security with end-to-end encryption, and an intuitive interface—all of which help remote teams and businesses stay productive and connected. Zoom Workplace key features: High-Definition Video & Audio: Provides clear, reliable communication for virtual meetings. End-to-End Encryption: Ensures secure communication with strong data protection. Multi-Factor Authentication: Adds an extra layer of security for user accounts. Integration with Productivity Apps: Supports seamless integration with Microsoft Office, Google Workspace, and more. File Sharing: Easily share files during meetings for efficient collaboration. Real-Time Messaging: Enables team chat for ongoing communication. Collaborative Whiteboarding: Allows teams to brainstorm and collaborate visually. Webinar Support: Host large webinars with interactive features. Administrative Controls: Manage user permissions, meeting settings, and security features. Cloud Storage: Automatically stores meetings and files in the cloud for easy access. Cross-Platform Support: Available on Windows, macOS, and mobile devices. Meeting features: Virtual Backgrounds: Customize your background for meetings to maintain privacy or enhance professionalism. Touch Up My Appearance: Automatically smoothens skin tone for a more polished video appearance. Breakout Rooms: Divide meetings into smaller sessions for group discussions or workshops. Live Transcription: Automatically generate real-time captions during meetings for accessibility. Zoom Apps: Integrate third-party applications directly into Zoom for enhanced functionality. Meeting Reactions: Participants can use emojis for quick, non-verbal feedback during meetings. Polling: Conduct live polls during meetings to gather instant feedback from participants. Attention Tracking: Monitors participant attention during meetings to ensure engagement. Closed Captioning: Enable manual or automatic captions for a more inclusive experience. Webinar Replay: Record and share webinars with analytics for audience engagement. Download: Zoom 64-bit | 145.0 MB (Free, paid upgrade available) Links: Zoom Website | Zoom ARM64 | Zoom Installers | Release Notes Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • UK funds £60M AI labs to challenge US tech dominance with open-source models by Paul Hill The UK government has awarded £60 million to Oxford University and University College London to help keep the country in the AI race by focusing on open-source, low-hardware alternatives. This is in stark contrast to the expensive, closed-source, and high-hardware-requirement models being created in the United States and elsewhere. The money will be shared among two new academic research labs over six years to help them redesign the fundamental mathematics and architectures of AI to help the UK reduce its reliance on a handful of US tech firms. Commenting on the development, AI Minister Kanishka Narayan said: Initially, the government planned to fund just one lab with a £40 million investment, but with this update, two labs will now get access to a larger pool of funds. The labs are expected to invest in the top AI researchers at every career stage, with £2 million per lab being set aside for hiring at least ten doctoral students. The government hopes that this will grow the UK’s talent in the field of AI. The labs are also expected to work closely with the leaders in British AI research, such as the Alan Turing Institute and UKRI’s AI research hubs. This will allow the various teams to collaborate and create new solutions faster than they could alone. This development is pretty interesting for a number of reasons, chiefly that it could create a long-term challenge for US tech firms if these labs successfully scale these open-source architectures that bypass the proprietary ecosystems. It could also give British businesses and public sector organizations access to AI features without paying high licensing fees to foreign providers or needing to invest in specialized server infrastructure.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      464
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      97
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      89
    5. 5
      neufuse
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!