OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[Samuel]

Since you seem so glad to use dictionaries when they suit you, but not when they don't, here's the definition of imperialism from The Dictionary of Human Geography: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

Previously

Imperialism is not a motivator, but rather a mindset that leaves you incapable of recognizing why this might be offensive.

Political, economic or social control constitute a "minset"?

Holy shit, I already used that definition!

I think you are a lesser version of Darkstar.

See what I just did?

Yes, I think it was a good article. It gets its point across. Too bad little guys like you love to nitpick it to death rather than deal with the full theory.

The "full theory" being Americans are hypocrites and support terrorism against our enemies but are angry when people do it to us?

It is a good thing no one on this thread has attacked that item.

And I am like Darkstar because... what exactly? Darkstar was known for being dishonest. In this case forum posters immediately pointed out that Chomsky was blatantly wrong about the perception of native Americans in the US. Care to respond to that- you seem to have been silent about this.

Now, you might say this is tangential... except this was a major part of the imperial mindset he was ranting about.

The reason I rate him lower than Moore is because this is something about the United States that is incredibly obvious to anyone who actually lives in the United States.

According to you, blatant falsehoods are a nitpick.

Semantic whoring? Really? I thought you better than this. Very well. Explain then what the opposition was to make capture impossible.

Let me get this straight. Pointing out how something is deceptively phrased is semantics whoring. The problem with the phrase is that it makes it sound like the only opposition was from Bin Laden's wife. It is implying there were absoluting no other sources of opposition.

There isn't much more I can say about this as the US hasn't released the report about the incident and I'm not willing to make any claims with incomplete information.

....are you that ignorant or do you really mean for that sentence to be taken seriously?

If you think something is wrong say why.

If you really want to go ahead with this definition, then I will include references to the mighty Canuck Empire from now on, in the hopes that you will recognize how over-broad that definition is. You yourself abandon it by pretending that the Japanese Empire was single-ethnicity or singly-national. No, it wasn't, and neither is Japan today.

I didn't know that about Japan. Care to provide the different groups? I know about the Ainu, but that is it.

On the topic of being overbroad, I wasn't aware we got to ignore the definition of a word because we don't like it. Your rebutal seems to be it sounds silly. Since when do personal feelings count as a fact statement?

This is dishonest in the extreme, since it implies that I said that as a serious, useful definition.

No, you said it was an old definition that isn't useful. I showed the definition was wrong. If Thanas finds that wrong, than you still have the good old Athenian Empire.

You know, when you admit that you didn't know who Chomsky was and yet posted as though you were familiar with him... that's not impressive. It's, frankly, pathetic.

...what are you talking about? I made it clear the reason I was juding Chomsky was because of the article posted.

You also ignore that I was talking about peoples as a whole, not as just "leaders". Unless you think there really were guys named Apache and Comanche in the distant past.

While those would make awesome names, no I didn't think that. I missed that you were refering to the groups alone. That is different than the names of leaders. I concede that is rather off, although its offensiveness is the perview of the tribes. If they complain we should change the name.

Although Chomsky complained that we were calling our weapons Comache and... Tomohawk.

[Thanas]

And I am like Darkstar because... what exactly? Darkstar was known for being dishonest. In this case forum posters immediately pointed out that Chomsky was blatantly wrong about the perception of native Americans in the US. Care to respond to that- you seem to have been silent about this.

Now, you might say this is tangential... except this was a major part of the imperial mindset he was ranting about.

The reason I rate him lower than Moore is because this is something about the United States that is incredibly obvious to anyone who actually lives in the United States.

According to you, blatant falsehoods are a nitpick.

So your response to Chomsky saying "stereotype" is...to respond with "nah-uh, your alleged stereotype is wrong, see my stereotype for that"? Heck, Disney's version of Pocahontas of all people is a stupid portrayal of its own. And really, I love how you once again latch on to a minor detail and try to use it to discredit the whole thesis. Do you disagree that the vast majority of ameericans thinks of NA as stereotypes? Pray tell, what is the knowledge of the average american about the actual cultures?

Let me get this straight. Pointing out how something is deceptively phrased is semantics whoring. The problem with the phrase is that it makes it sound like the only opposition was from Bin Laden's wife. It is implying there were absoluting no other sources of opposition.

I am sure you never heard of the rhetoric tool called hyperbole.

....are you that ignorant or do you really mean for that sentence to be taken seriously?

If you think something is wrong say why.

You claimed the Roman Empire existed within the Roman Republic. I await support for that claim, as it is quite false. In case you did not know this before, but the illusion of democracy is no democracy. Also, it is funny how you claim "no emperor" when "emperor" is nothing but the english version of the title Imperator, which guess what, was one of the most important titles of Caesar and Augustus.

You know, when you admit that you didn't know who Chomsky was and yet posted as though you were familiar with him... that's not impressive. It's, frankly, pathetic.

...what are you talking about? I made it clear the reason I was juding Chomsky was because of the article posted.

So you have a habit of making sweeping, unfounded generalizations on the basis of one article?

[Thanas]

Do you honestly believe that they would not have found offense to burying Bin Laden on American soil? Perhaps they would have said "Oh, there were dogs on that base, dogs are filthy!" or something like "The US is insulting Islam by burying him in a Christian area!" or perhaps I will quote one of these burial guidelines of which I am so ignorant.

Some people will always bitch. That said, even critics of Al-Quida have been very forward in their interpretation:

Islamic scholars criticize bin Laden's sea burial

(AP) – May 2, 2011

CAIRO (AP) — Muslim clerics said Monday that Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was a violation of Islamic tradition that may further provoke militant calls for revenge attacks against American targets.

Although there appears to be some room for debate over the burial — as with many issues within the faith — a wide range of senior Islamic scholars interpreted it as a humiliating disregard for the standard Muslim practice of placing the body in a grave with the head pointed toward the holy city of Mecca.

Sea burials can be allowed, they said, but only in special cases where the death occurred aboard a ship.

Bin Laden's burial at sea "runs contrary to the principles of Islamic laws, religious values and humanitarian customs," said Sheik Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand Imam of Cairo's al-Azhar mosque, Sunni Islam's highest seat of learning.

A radical cleric in Lebanon, Omar Bakri Mohammed, said, "The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial, and I don't think this is in the interest of the U.S. administration."

A U.S. official said the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. There was also speculation about worry that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters.

President Barack Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial, and the Pentagon later said the body was placed into the waters of the northern Arabian Sea after adhering to traditional Islamic procedures — including washing the corpse — aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson.

But the Lebanese cleric Mohammed called it a "strategic mistake" that was bound to stoke rage.

In Washington, CIA director Leon Panetta warned that "terrorists almost certainly will attempt to avenge" the killing of the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Bin Laden is dead," Panetta wrote in a memo to CIA staff. "Al-Qaida is not."

According to Islamic teachings, the highest honor to be bestowed on the dead is giving the deceased a swift burial, preferably before sunset. Those who die while traveling at sea can have their bodies committed to the bottom of the ocean if they are far off the coast, according to Islamic tradition.

"They can say they buried him at sea, but they cannot say they did it according to Islam," Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai's grand mufti, said about bin Laden's burial. "If the family does not want him, it's really simple in Islam: You dig up a grave anywhere, even on a remote island, you say the prayers and that's it."

"Sea burials are permissible for Muslims in extraordinary circumstances," he added. "This is not one of them."

But Mohammed Qudah, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Jordan, said burying the Saudi-born bin Laden at sea was not forbidden if there was nobody to receive the body and provide a Muslim burial.

"The land and the sea belong to God, who is able to protect and raise the dead at the end of times for Judgment Day," he said. "It's neither true nor correct to claim that there was nobody in the Muslim world ready to receive bin Laden's body."

Clerics in Iraq, where an offshoot of al-Qaida is blamed for the death of thousands of people since 2003, also criticized the U.S. action. One said it only benefited fish.

"If a man dies on a ship that is a long distance from land, then the dead man should be buried at the sea," said Shiite cleric Ibrahim al-Jabari. "But if he dies on land, then he should be buried in the ground, not to be thrown into the sea. Otherwise, this would be only inviting fish to a banquet."

The Islamic tradition of a quick burial was the subject of intense debate in Iraq in 2003 when U.S. forces embalmed the bodies of Saddam Hussein's two sons after they were killed in a firefight. Their bodies were later shown to media.

"What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims," said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's famous Abu Hanifa mosque. "It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him."

Prominent Egyptian Islamic analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said bin Laden's sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave.

I am curious. What would be the sage advice for an action like that?

Oh something like "Instead of dumping him overboard, the US should have done this." Anything at all would be better than nothing.

What, you missed the section where he stated that he should have been tried in court?

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial.

Then it naturally follows that all international actions of the US are imperialism, because I am sure you can find complaints about all of them by people who were powerless to do anything about it.

That does not invalidate the argument, as I am pretty sure even you understand that while a girl may be blonde, not all people with blond hair are girls.

They are predisposed to not liking us and changing our actions is not going to change their minds. Or if you mean other major international players, well... which government besides Pakistan has condemned the US for these actions?

You are not currently winning much favor in Europe, for example. Putting bin Laden on trial would both instantly secure the faith of Europe in the american legal system. But hey, if your standards are "it is all good until somebody blows us up", then more power to you?

But US officials have stated that he was reaching for a weapon as the SEAL team found him. Obviously this act of reaching for the weapon was enough of a threat that they shot him. Some mission planner must have made the decision that an alive Bin Laden was not worth even one dead SEAL, and thus authorized shooting him under such conditions.

If this is true, then yes, shooting him was completely correct. However, we also have heard sources in this very thread which stated that he was unarmed. Quite frankly, one cannot make the argument that the shooting was self defence based on this incomplete information.

I give Obama credit for at least attempting a snatch party, though.

[Samuel]

So your response to Chomsky saying "stereotype" is...to respond with "nah-uh, your alleged stereotype is wrong, see my stereotype for that"? Heck, Disney's version of Pocahontas of all people is a stupid portrayal of its own. And really, I love how you once again latch on to a minor detail and try to use it to discredit the whole thesis. Do you disagree that the vast majority of ameericans thinks of NA as stereotypes? Pray tell, what is the knowledge of the average american about the actual cultures?

My point was that Americans do not think of Native Americans exclusively as warriors.

You claimed the Roman Empire existed within the Roman Republic. I await support for that claim, as it is quite false. In case you did not know this before, but the illusion of democracy is no democracy. Also, it is funny how you claim "no emperor" when "emperor" is nothing but the english version of the title Imperator, which guess what, was one of the most important titles of Caesar and Augustus.

This speaks for itself. A momument of your inability to read.

Samuel, your definition requires that France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Rwanda, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada, and a hell of a lot more countries be considered empires.

What could my definition be? It isn't like I have repeatedly stated it and argued about it with Bakustra... in fact the post you quoted we were arguing about it.

So you have a habit of making sweeping, unfounded generalizations on the basis of one article?

Yes. I don't have time to read everything.

Anyway, this seems to be a complete waste of time. You and Zed's responces show an inability to read my posts.

As for Bakustra...
I'm going to have to differ on the imperial mindset. However, you are probably right on naming things after tribes we defeated is comparable to Nazis naming... well, except they failed to defeat the Jews and Gypsies. A better example if the British named weapons systems after the Boers.

It feels wrong, but there is no logical reason to say it is wrong unless the people it is named after complain.

Feel free to right scathing rebuttals. I'm done with this topic.

[Justforfun000]

I personally have no credentials to weigh in on this matter whatsoever, so as purely opinion...I think it would have been ideal if he had of been captured. Ideal if he could have been "tried" and sentenced by at least the general visibilty and consensus of a world opinion courtroom. Wouldn't have been anything more then a done deal for show obviously..I seriously doubt there are any major arguments exonerating his involvement as a mastermind for global terrorism..

But I can easily shrug off any concerns about his "due process"...some people are just demonstrably evil. I don't care what his supposed beliefs and motivations are, it's your actions that prove your identity. He was a mass-murdering psychopath and even more annoying to boot...a fucking hypocrite! Living in a palatial compound with western style comforts...all the while decrying the influence of westernized influence...Fuck him!
We wouldn't have shed a tear over Hitler being assasinated if it had turned out that way.

Quite frankly, I think even the ATTEMPT at burying/sinking him in anything close to his religious beliefs was an honour he didn't even deserve! Was it really for him though? Of course not.

[FSTargetDrone]

"What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims," said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's famous Abu Hanifa mosque. "It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him."

Prominent Egyptian Islamic analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said bin Laden's sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave.

Was an offer not made for a country to take him? Did that country not refuse? As far as I am concerned, the US went well beyond the pale in this matter with the treatment of the body. I'm not a "Sea-burial is too good for him! They shoulda put his head on a pike!" sort but I have little issue with the manner of disposal of this particular dead man given how callously he treated innocents in life.

[Zed]

As for Bakustra...
I'm going to have to differ on the imperial mindset. However, you are probably right on naming things after tribes we defeated is comparable to Nazis naming... well, except they failed to defeat the Jews and Gypsies. A better example if the British named weapons systems after the Boers.

Seriously? Are we going to talk about the genocide of the Jews and the Gypsies as a defeat, as though they lost a military struggle?

[Pelranius]

"What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims," said another Islamic scholar from Iraq, Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, who preaches at Baghdad's famous Abu Hanifa mosque. "It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea. The body of bin Laden should have been handed over to his family to look for a country or land to bury him."

Prominent Egyptian Islamic analyst and lawyer Montasser el-Zayat said bin Laden's sea burial was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a shrine. But an option was an unmarked grave.

Was an offer not made for a country to take him? Did that country not refuse? As far as I am concerned, the US went well beyond the pale in this matter with the treatment of the body. I'm not a "Sea-burial is too good for him! They shoulda put his head on a pike!" sort but I have little issue with the manner of disposal of this particular dead man given how callously he treated innocents in life.

Some people are inherently un-pleasable. And does anyone seriously expect any unmarked OBL grave to stay that way, given this is the era of Wikileaks and all?

[Hawkwings]

Some people will always bitch. That said, even critics of Al-Quida have been very forward in their interpretation:

But Mohammed Qudah, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Jordan, said burying the Saudi-born bin Laden at sea was not forbidden if there was nobody to receive the body and provide a Muslim burial.

And I provided two more sources who stand in opposition to this idea, one of which said that the US government's approach was reasonable, and one who said that he was a scumbag and shouldn't have deserved such a burial.

As for the unmarked grave... Where are we going to put said unmarked grave? Certainly not in the US, and not in any country that doesn't want him or is going to create a shrine to him. Hmm, guess that leaves... nowhere? Or we could breach international borders again by finding a tiny island in the Pacific that's uninhabited but claimed by some country, secretly bury him there, and call it a day. Right?

Anyways, this still ignores the fact that sea burial was probably the safest and least offensive option. You're right, some people will always bitch. That is why we don't make decisions based on who bitches the loudest, we make them based on what our own goals are. And in this case, the sea burial met all of our goals.

What, you missed the section where he stated that he should have been tried in court?

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

"The decision to dump the body at sea", not "The decision to kill him" or "The decision to carry out this operation". He meant that the Muslim community was outraged over how we treated his dead body, not that we killed him. And I have already addressed this by saying that this was the best option available.

That does not invalidate the argument, as I am pretty sure even you understand that while a girl may be blonde, not all people with blond hair are girls.

So while all imperialist actions originate from the US, not all actions taken by the US are imperialist? Or do you mean the other way around: While all US actions are imperialist, not all imperialist actions originate from the US? Do you fault the US because it takes actions that benefit itself?

You are not currently winning much favor in Europe, for example. Putting bin Laden on trial would both instantly secure the faith of Europe in the american legal system. But hey, if your standards are "it is all good until somebody blows us up", then more power to you?

Don't kid yourself, nobody would be satisfied with the hypothetical trial. And it's foolish to believe that putting one guy, even Bin Laden, on trial will "secure Europe's faith in the American legal system". Attitudes do not change over one case, and they do not change overnight. A trial would have just turned into a perfect arena for mudslinging at the US, and a travesty of justice. Nobody would be satisfied. Justice would not be served. And we'd have people saying "Damn, it would have been a lot easier and less contentious if that SEAL had just put a bullet or two in Bin laden's head."

If this is true, then yes, shooting him was completely correct. However, we also have heard sources in this very thread which stated that he was unarmed. Quite frankly, one cannot make the argument that the shooting was self defence based on this incomplete information.

Again, "reaching for a weapon" and "unarmed" are not mutually exclusive. He is unarmed because he was not holding a gun in his hands. The act of reaching for a gun does not make him armed, but it does make him dangerous and give apparently sufficient reason to shoot him. I see no grand information gap here.

[Thanas]

As for the unmarked grave... Where are we going to put said unmarked grave? Certainly not in the US,

Why not? Did you run out of useless desert?

Anyways, this still ignores the fact that sea burial was probably the safest and least offensive option. You're right, some people will always bitch. That is why we don't make decisions based on who bitches the loudest, we make them based on what our own goals are. And in this case, the sea burial met all of our goals.

Assuming the goal was to satisfy Islamic customs, it seems to have failed at least in part.


[quote

The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

"The decision to dump the body at sea", not "The decision to kill him" or "The decision to carry out this operation". He meant that the Muslim community was outraged over how we treated his dead body, not that we killed him. And I have already addressed this by saying that this was the best option available.[/quote]

Yes, but how does that make what he says untrue?

So while all imperialist actions originate from the US, not all actions taken by the US are imperialist? Or do you mean the other way around: While all US actions are imperialist, not all imperialist actions originate from the US? Do you fault the US because it takes actions that benefit itself?

No. You either have a serious inability to read what I am actually writing. My position is: The vast majority of US actions, like the actions of any nation, are inherently self-serving. The overall policies of the US towards the Third world and the Middle East are, in general imperialistic.

That is not to say the USA is the only country that has persued imperialistic goals (just for one example, look up the way the EU is treating african fishing grounds) or imperialistic policies.

However, the long history of US engagement in the middle east is Imperialistic. No other way to describe it IMO.

Don't kid yourself, nobody would be satisfied with the hypothetical trial. And it's foolish to believe that putting one guy, even Bin Laden, on trial will "secure Europe's faith in the American legal system". Attitudes do not change over one case, and they do not change overnight. A trial would have just turned into a perfect arena for mudslinging at the US, and a travesty of justice. Nobody would be satisfied. Justice would not be served. And we'd have people saying "Damn, it would have been a lot easier and less contentious if that SEAL had just put a bullet or two in Bin laden's head."

The actual track record of the tribunal on war crimes in former Yugoslavia is pretty good in that regard. Nobody in Europe doubts its legitimacy and authority outside of the very nationalists whose leaders are put on trial.

See, the point here is one of public perception. Right now, the perception of the USA in Europe is mostly that of a thug who does not care about laws and murders/tortures people at will. But sure, I can see no reason why the USA would want to change that, right, after all, it has no influence on the reactions to US foreign policy.

Again, "reaching for a weapon" and "unarmed" are not mutually exclusive. He is unarmed because he was not holding a gun in his hands. The act of reaching for a gun does not make him armed, but it does make him dangerous and give apparently sufficient reason to shoot him. I see no grand information gap here.

If that was the way that it went down. Others have put out differing opinions (saying he had already surrendered when he was executed) and due to the US refusing to release videos of the raid (probably to protect the identities of the special forces, maybe to protect their version of events) we will not know what went down. However, as I said in my very first posts in this thread, I don't really find fault with the end result. I think however the way it was achieved was not the best for a matter of reasons.

[Zinegata]

The actual track record of the tribunal on war crimes in former Yugoslavia is pretty good in that regard. Nobody in Europe doubts its legitimacy and authority outside of the very nationalists whose leaders are put on trial.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749 ... y-24917847

Let's not pretend it's only the "very nationalist leaders" here. There are very many nut jobs in Europe too.

[Thanas]

I did not say "the very nationalist leaders". Jesus Christ, what does it take for people to actually read carefully these days? I said, in the very quote above, "the nationalists whose leaders are put on trial". Ergo, the people in the video.

[Hawkwings]

Why not? Did you run out of useless desert?

Do you comprehend the outrage that would have ensued if we buried Osama Bin Laden, America's biggest enemy in modern times, on American soil? What could your reasoning possibly be for such an idiotic action? Please explain.

Assuming the goal was to satisfy Islamic customs, it seems to have failed at least in part.

The goal was never to "satisfy Muslim customs" the way I see it. The goal was to treat the body respectfully and show the world that we are better than terrorists because we treat our defeated enemies with respect. Said muslim burial rites were a means to that end. OK fine, they weren't followed exactly by-the-book. That is not the point. The point is that we conducted the burial with respect, in good faith, and in accordance with as many of the Islamic burial customs as we could follow. Do you think the Russians were angry at the US after we didn't get the Soviet Navy burial at sea ceremony right when the CIA pulled up K-129 and gave the Soviet submariners a burial at sea?

Yes, but how does that make what he says untrue?

Makes what untrue? I'm tired of going around in circles on this with you. He is saying that people are predictably pissed off because we buried him in the ocean and not on dry land. There is no truth to debate on that because he is simply stating a fact. The point he is implying is that we should not have taken these actions because they would make muslims angry. My rebuttal is: there was no better option available, and people would have been angry anyways.

No. You either have a serious inability to read what I am actually writing. My position is: The vast majority of US actions, like the actions of any nation, are inherently self-serving. The overall policies of the US towards the Third world and the Middle East are, in general imperialistic.

That is not to say the USA is the only country that has persued imperialistic goals (just for one example, look up the way the EU is treating african fishing grounds) or imperialistic policies.

However, the long history of US engagement in the middle east is Imperialistic. No other way to describe it IMO.

We have taken actions in the area that were meant to benefit ourselves, such as rooting out terrorists and terrorist support networks to prevent future attacks on the US. I'm not aware of us attempting to dominate other nations, either military, politically, or economically, as empire-builders tend to do.

The actual track record of the tribunal on war crimes in former Yugoslavia is pretty good in that regard. Nobody in Europe doubts its legitimacy and authority outside of the very nationalists whose leaders are put on trial.

And why would this have anything to do with a hypothetical trial of Bin Laden? My point still stands: it would have turned into a media circus, a "bash the US" party, and a travesty of justice.

See, the point here is one of public perception. Right now, the perception of the USA in Europe is mostly that of a thug who does not care about laws and murders/tortures people at will. But sure, I can see no reason why the USA would want to change that, right, after all, it has no influence on the reactions to US foreign policy.

As I'm sure you know, public perception is both notoriously unreliable and slow to change. Along with the fact that it's useless. It's not the perception from the public that the US cares about, it's perception from foreign leaders. And such perception is again not swayed by single actions.

If that was the way that it went down.

I'm willing to drop this part of the discussion seeing as how we will never get enough information about it to make any judgments.

[Broomstick]

As for the unmarked grave... Where are we going to put said unmarked grave? Certainly not in the US,

Why not? Did you run out of useless desert?

Now, Thanas, we find our deserts extremely useful for all manner of things, like the Burning Man Festival, testing atomic bombs, hiding alien space ships, building military bases, and renting to BBC film crews. There is really not that much unused desert real estate anymore

However, the long history of US engagement in the middle east is Imperialistic. No other way to describe it IMO.

I would have to agree with that statement, as well.

However, as I said in my very first posts in this thread, I don't really find fault with the end result. I think however the way it was achieved was not the best for a matter of reasons.

In other words, you approve of the end but still have a lot of questions about the means?

Do you comprehend the outrage that would have ensued if we buried Osama Bin Laden, America's biggest enemy in modern times, on American soil? What could your reasoning possibly be for such an idiotic action? Please explain.

There is precedent for burying US enemies on US soil. Hell, when they recovered the crew of the CSS Hunley they gave them a full military burial with Confederate honors complete with the stars and bars over the coffins. Burying bin Laden on US soil is not as inconceivable as you pretend.

Fact is, no matter what was done with bin Laden's body people were going to be pissed off. I think a stronger argument against burying bin Laden on, say, a military base is that the grave would be desecrated in short order because you only need one or two jackasses on a base of thousands to get the notion of going out and literally pissing on it for that to happen.

Personally, I think burial at sea protects against both desecration and veneration of the corpse, so I'm totally fine with it. Obviously, others disagree.

We have taken actions in the area that were meant to benefit ourselves, such as rooting out terrorists and terrorist support networks to prevent future attacks on the US. I'm not aware of us attempting to dominate other nations, either military, politically, or economically, as empire-builders tend to do.

What about Iraq? What the hell do you call that? Sure as fuck looks like a military and political domination to me, and likely economic as well. What else do you call it when you invade and take over, removing the prior government and installing another, presumably more to your liking?

See, this is why Americans look like such fucking idiots: short memories and self-glorifying ethnocentrism. This is why I make it a point to listen to people even when I disagree with them, it keeps me humble (stop laughing, I could be a lot more arrogant than I am, really).

And if you don't like Iraq as an example look into the history of the term “banana republic” - you can thank the Dole Food Company for that one, and some of the competitors now part of it, like Standard Fruit Company which was, indeed, quite imperialistic in Latin America.

Then there's how the country of Panama came to split off from Columbia – definitely US Imperialism, which bought us a 99 year lease on the canal zone, among other things.

So, please, go back and learn some actual history and stop embarassing us more educated Americans in front of the Europeans and others on this message board.

[Zed]

However, the long history of US engagement in the middle east is Imperialistic. No other way to describe it IMO.

We have taken actions in the area that were meant to benefit ourselves, such as rooting out terrorists and terrorist support networks to prevent future attacks on the US. I'm not aware of us attempting to dominate other nations, either military, politically, or economically, as empire-builders tend to do.

The United States has hundreds of military bases spread across over a hundred countries. It uses the guise of free market economy to enter foreign markets while using protectionist strategies to defend its own economic interests. Over the last half century, it has repeatedly rigged elections or supported coup-d'états. It supports dictatorial regimes in Africa and the Middle East, on the provision that said dictators are sympathetic to U.S. interests. It regularly engages in warfare unilaterally, without U.N. support. Since the 1950s, the United States have intervened militarily in Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afhanistan and Libya. How else can you interpret this conglomerate, if not as imperialism?

The actual track record of the tribunal on war crimes in former Yugoslavia is pretty good in that regard. Nobody in Europe doubts its legitimacy and authority outside of the very nationalists whose leaders are put on trial.

And why would this have anything to do with a hypothetical trial of Bin Laden? My point still stands: it would have turned into a media circus, a "bash the US" party, and a travesty of justice.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[DudeGuyMan]

There are situations where America does and ought to give a fuck what Europe thinks. This is not one of them.

[Hawkwings]

Burying Confederates on American soil is hardly the same as burying OBL on American soil. But yes, I agree that the problem with burying him in any US-controlled area is people literally going and pissing on his grave, among other things.

Regarding US imperialism, I will admit that I am only looking at very recent years and not history. Anyways, I will bow out of the discussion on this topic as I am obviously not informed enough to debate it, and I do agree that the US has a tendency towards imperialism.

Re: hypothetical trial. Look to the trial of Saddam Hussein, that sure didn't go off without the unavoidable accusations of a heavy US hand. What makes you think the OBL trial would be any better?

[Shroom Man 777]

They should've buried Osama in the Antarctic. Try pilgrimaging that.

[HMS Sophia]

There are situations where America does and ought to give a fuck what Europe thinks. This is not one of them.

I actually agree with this. The Americans got the intel, did the leg work, and were the ones who shot the fucker in the face. Piss off Europe.

[Simon_Jester]

They should've buried Osama in the Antarctic. Try pilgrimaging that.

That would actually be quite clever and I am now tempted to put Shroomy in charge of the War on Terror, just to see what would happen.

EDIT: Seriously, it violates fewer religious dictates, but is a completely impractical place either to desecrate or to make pilgrimages to, because of the difficulty of traveling there.

[Sea Skimmer]

They should've buried Osama in the Antarctic. Try pilgrimaging that.

That would actually be quite clever and I am now tempted to put Shroomy in charge of the War on Terror, just to see what would happen.

EDIT: Seriously, it violates fewer religious dictates, but is a completely impractical place either to desecrate or to make pilgrimages to, because of the difficulty of traveling there.

Then you'd just run into bitching environmentalists and people complaining that putting the body on a 8,000 mile plane flight wasn't burying him as quickly as possible as required by Muslim traditions. And since the Antarctic is sovereign for nobody, anyone might fly down and dig up his corpse and then haul it back home. Someone in the Arab world would do it; its not like it'd be super expensive when you have millions or billions in personal fortune already. This was a no win situation for the US with regard to body disposal, the option chosen was by far the best and ensured that no one could go back on things. The issue was totally settled before complaints could be mobilized.

Personally I like how the Soviets handled Hitler, half burning the remains and then burying them under a building, then repeatedly digging up and moving the remains until they were scattered, partly thrown in a river, and just literally no one is sure where any of it is anymore;l but that was a non starter here.

[Master of Ossus]

For anyone who's still interested, two documents:

This is a copy of an indictment issued by an American court against bin Laden and several of his chief lieutenants in 1998. Three years before the September 11 attacks. The Interpol indictment was issued that same year.

This is a very long article, written by a law professor, that details the ethical and legal justifications for killing people like bin Laden. I found it pretty compelling, and applying these standards it seems quite evident that the strike on bin Laden was fully compliant with relevant law (at least provided that the armed conflict model is followed), so see how much your mileage varies.

[FSTargetDrone]

Some who have seen the photos:

Members of Congress see bin Laden photos

By the CNN Wire Staff
May 11, 2011 9:56 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- More members of Congress are seeing something cleared for only a select group of Americans: Photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe told CNN's Eliot Spitzer on Wednesday he saw about 15 photos of bin Laden's body, most taken at the al Qaeda leader's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Three were taken on a naval vessel from which bin Laden was buried at sea after the May 2 U.S. commando raid.

"Pretty gruesome" is how Inhofe described photos of brains hanging out of bin Laden's eye socket. The wound either entered or exited an ear, the Oklahoma senator said.

Many people have demanded proof that bin Laden was killed.

"That was him," said Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "He is gone. He's history."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, told CNN national correspondent Susan Candiotti he will see the images Thursday morning at the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

Members of Senate and House committees that deal with intelligence and military matters have been invited to see the photos in the coming days, but they won't be allowed to take any copies of the photos.

Nelson is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Inhofe said at least some of the photos should be released, but not all his congressional colleagues, including Nelson, agree.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, last week said he supported President Barack Obama's decision to keep them under wraps.

"In my opinion, there's no end served by releasing a picture of someone who's been killed, and I think there is absolute proof that Osama bin Laden was in fact the person ... killed," said Hoyer, D-Maryland.

"It is not in our national security interest ... to allow these images to become icons to rally opinion against the United States," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at the time. "We have no need to publish those photographs to establish that Osama bin Laden was killed."

U.S. Navy SEALs killed the al Qaeda leader last week in an attack on his compound. Bin Laden died of wounds to the head and chest.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said, "I actually haven't thought much about it, but I likely will" view the photos.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, called Obama's decision on the photos a "mistake."

"The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of bin Laden's death. I know bin Laden is dead," the South Carolina lawmaker said last week. "But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world. I'm afraid the decision made today by President Obama will unnecessarily prolong this debate."

Relatives of bin Laden want proof that the terrorist leader is dead and are calling for an investigation into how he was killed, according to Jean Sasson, an author who helped one of bin Laden's sons write a memoir.

I see nothing good coming from showing these photos, so I am glad the decision was made.

[Samuel]

Note- I haven't looked at the responces. If I did, there is a high likelyhood I'd continue arguing and I found a stash of Alistair Reynolds books so I need the free time.

I've been thinking over why the Chomsky article pissed me off. It really annoyed me. I think I know why. We often talk about how conservatives have constructed a bubble. Well, what is required for a bubble? It isn't that it thinks its opponents are wrong- otherwise it would never have been written in the first place. It has to ignore, not just its opponents objections, but their logical objections. If it tells its audience something they already believe is also a sign.

Well, what are logical objections conservatives have to liberal positions? After reading several of Thomas Sowell's books and The Enemy at Home (and before people think I am a hardline conservative, I have read A People's History of the United States. Also Moore and Al Franken and probably some others.). Anyway, I'd recommend reading Sowell if you are curious about what conservatives think. Dinesh D'Souza is rather nutty. There are alot of logical errors and blatantly false things they say, and the amount of fear and hate regarding gays is really annoying.

Anyway, some of the main themes they hammer at about liberals is that
-liberals rely on emotion and talk about harm without thinking things through
-liberals make false equivalences between the actions of the US and their enemies
-when in doubt, liberals will smear a right wing position with the label of fascism, racism, sexism, etc

These are valid examples of logical errors- things that they can point at in their opponents to show they are wrong. If you are trying to convince a conservative of something and you make one of these errors, they will pounce on it.

That is what pissed me off about Chomsky- he makes these mistakes. His writing isn't intended to appeal to conservatives- the only people who will agree with it are people who already agreed with it in advance. And not only will they agree with it, they won't understand why other people do not agree with it. This is why it pissed me off and I thought it was crap- because it is written in such a way to be useless.

Edit- as for the indictment

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

That is ironic. Can anyone confirms if anything came of this or relationship between the two groups broke down?

[Metahive]

There are situations where America does and ought to give a fuck what Europe thinks. This is not one of them.

I actually agree with this. The Americans got the intel, did the leg work, and were the ones who shot the fucker in the face. Piss off Europe.

Quality posts. I can see no way why people would ever complain about certain imperialistic attitudes in the US.

This is a very long article, written by a law professor, that details the ethical and legal justifications for killing people like bin Laden. I found it pretty compelling, and applying these standards it seems quite evident that the strike on bin Laden was fully compliant with relevant law (at least provided that the armed conflict model is followed), so see how much your mileage varies.

Thanks, interesting article. Will definitely read in full when time allows it.