Interesting ethical question: Is it ethical to celebrate the death of an enemy?
Only if that death helps to prevent other deaths, or otherwise averts greater harm, or brings about other benefits; even then, the celebration should be focused on the positive effects rather than the death.
I'm proud of not engaging in political discussion. The level of discourse that counts as political discussion is so moronic, I would be ashamed to have any part of it, as you all should be.
Also, all you people telling me assassination is a bad idea. Hey, look, assassination.
Hey Scott? I was telling you Assassinating Gaddafi was a bad idea. I also told you that it would be a serious fucking war crime - You do understand war crimes are really bad things to do, right? A really big no-no? This is an entirely different situation. Apparently, you still think you're a lot more informed on these matters than you really are, but what's new? It's already been mentioned why this is different by others, so I'll just finish it off with a sentiment previously expressed by a Wise and Scholarly man you may in fact know well - If your opinion is indistinguishable from trolling, your opinion is stupid and likely worthless. I'm not sure how many more ways I can tell you this - You don't have a goddamn clue about what you're trying to talk about. It's like watching a primary school kid try and explain quantum mechanics.
I can't wait for the crushing silence from the right wing about this, or the backpedaling, or the goal-post moving. It's a shame it took so long, shame he couldn't be brought to trial, but at least he's gone. That being said, I think terrorists will just fill in the next guy down the ladder and continue. What this did do is prove that it is possible to find a guy like him.
It's hard to overestimate the symbolic importance of this event, and that's where Scott fails. Symbolism often involves appeals to irrational beliefs or thinking, so it's easy to see how it would be as hard for him to process as it would be for your computer to respond to the question, "How do you feel?"
I don't engage in predictions as a rule, because I believe that most people who regularly make predictions are self-obsessed wanker/trolls looking for attention. However, it's hard not to make some predictions in light of an event like this. I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag. I'll also predict that, somewhere in conservative world, people are right now making sad jokes about Obama's peace prize. I'll further predict that there will be conspiracy theories surrounding this event (that the dead person really isn't Osama, etc.) by the end of today.
I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag.
If they do, it's not because of this event. As much as I like the guy, Obama does not run day-to-day military operations. He can't really say, "I got Osama." And I'm sure the Republican party message will be "Obama wanted to pull out before we got the mission accomplished." If anything, the right will grab on to Osama's death as a validation of their hawkish policies and fly it as a pro-conservative banner.
I'll further predict that there will be conspiracy theories surrounding this event (that the dead person really isn't Osama, etc.) by the end of today.
I saw one flit past on Twitter at 10:55 p.m. last night.
Right wing response has been predictable, from playing down to outright crazy tin-foil hat conspiracies. On the lighter side, every single media outlet has had someone screw up the whole Obama/Osama thing, even NPR hosts this morning and the wacky morning show DJ's.
I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag.
If they do, it's not because of this event. As much as I like the guy, Obama does not run day-to-day military operations. He can't really say, "I got Osama."
I didn't say that, and you're kind of getting my point messed up. YOU may be able to process that Obama didn't personally take out Osama, but that's how (or close to how) the AVERAGE person is going to remember it during the election. Presidents take blame or get credit for lots of things that weren't really their doing. What people remember is who was president and what he did at the time. This is largely how GWB became inextricably tied to the Katrina unpleasantness.
It's hard to overestimate the symbolic importance of this event, and that's where Scott fails. Symbolism often involves appeals to irrational beliefs or thinking, so it's easy to see how it would be as hard for him to process as it would be for your computer to respond to the question, "How do you feel?"
I personally feel nothing, for what it's worth. I also don't think it will significantly affect the political landscape after the initial furor dies down.
It was a needed catharsis for a lot of people, I'll grant you that. There was a 10,000+ person spontaneous celebration at ground zero last night. Confetti, dancing.
But the man being dead will not materially impact our security situation. The level of secrecy he would have to maintain to avoid capture/execution for this long would certainly have hampered his ability to orchestrate anything. His death as a symbol won't mean as much as it could, as it's trivial to lie to those without good access to information and tell them it's an American lie.
There's no way to prove to enough people that he's dead for it to matter to the organizations actually attempting to raise terror. There's no way he was important enough to the existing structures to materially affect their continued operations. The effects of his death will be felt primarily in the US. I honestly don't expect much change to come with the news.
It's hard to overestimate the symbolic importance of this event, and that's where Scott fails. Symbolism often involves appeals to irrational beliefs or thinking, so it's easy to see how it would be as hard for him to process as it would be for your computer to respond to the question, "How do you feel?"
I personally feel nothing, for what it's worth. I also don't think it will significantly affect the political landscape after the initial furor dies down.
Remember this statement when you hear the talking points nearer to the election. The average voter is going to remember this as a big win, and associate it with Obama. There's very little the republicans can do or say to lessen the impact, even among their own people while the democrats are going to be trumpeting the win.
I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag.
If they do, it's not because of this event. As much as I like the guy, Obama does not run day-to-day military operations. He can't really say, "I got Osama."
I didn't say that, and you're kind of getting my point messed up. YOU may be able to process that Obama didn't personally take out Osama, but that's how (or close to how) the AVERAGE person is going to remember it during the election. Presidents take blame or get credit for lots of things that weren't really their doing. What people remember is who was president and what he did at the time. This is largely how GWB became inextricably tied to the Katrina unpleasantness.
I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag.
If they do, it's not because of this event. As much as I like the guy, Obama does not run day-to-day military operations. He can't really say, "I got Osama."
I didn't say that, and you're kind of getting my point messed up. YOU may be able to process that Obama didn't personally take out Osama, but that's how (or close to how) the AVERAGE person is going to remember it during the election. Presidents take blame or get credit for lots of things that weren't really their doing. What people remember is who was president and what he did at the time. This is largely how GWB became inextricably tied to the Katrina unpleasantness.
The average person doesn't vote.
Jesus Christ. I'll amend my statement to "the average voter", and my point is still valid. The average voter is going to remember only the win, that Obama was President at the time of the win, and not question who was actually responsible for the win, barring any unforeseen circumstances such as Obama appearing on Jay Leno and saying that he embraces all of Osama's politics and beliefs.
Comments
lol, stay classy Fox News
and i guess in the interest of fairness and balance:
"Obama: bin Laden dead" rather than "Obama bin Laden dead".
I can't wait for the crushing silence from the right wing about this, or the backpedaling, or the goal-post moving.
It's a shame it took so long, shame he couldn't be brought to trial, but at least he's gone. That being said, I think terrorists will just fill in the next guy down the ladder and continue.
What this did do is prove that it is possible to find a guy like him.
I don't engage in predictions as a rule, because I believe that most people who regularly make predictions are self-obsessed wanker/trolls looking for attention. However, it's hard not to make some predictions in light of an event like this. I'll predict that approval rates skyrocket and that Obama, and to a lesser extent, the democrats, have 2012 in the bag. I'll also predict that, somewhere in conservative world, people are right now making sad jokes about Obama's peace prize. I'll further predict that there will be conspiracy theories surrounding this event (that the dead person really isn't Osama, etc.) by the end of today.
On the lighter side, every single media outlet has had someone screw up the whole Obama/Osama thing, even NPR hosts this morning and the wacky morning show DJ's.
It was a needed catharsis for a lot of people, I'll grant you that. There was a 10,000+ person spontaneous celebration at ground zero last night. Confetti, dancing.
But the man being dead will not materially impact our security situation. The level of secrecy he would have to maintain to avoid capture/execution for this long would certainly have hampered his ability to orchestrate anything. His death as a symbol won't mean as much as it could, as it's trivial to lie to those without good access to information and tell them it's an American lie.
There's no way to prove to enough people that he's dead for it to matter to the organizations actually attempting to raise terror. There's no way he was important enough to the existing structures to materially affect their continued operations. The effects of his death will be felt primarily in the US. I honestly don't expect much change to come with the news.