On OBL, USA and Murder

[DeTomaso]

On Nurnberg one has to say that this trial has ended the terror regime of the German Nazis, not militarily but philosophically and juridically, and that was important. Consequently they didn't re-emerge like a phoenix from the ashes anymore. Their ideology was uncovered from that moment on and internationally doomed, the outcome of their deeds made known to all.

 

You can't honestly believe that trying Osama would have had even close to the same result.

 

I can. But tell me why you cannot.

 

The main difference between the visions of Hitler and of bin Laden might be partly caused by the smoke they have breathed in; the one has breathed in too much toxic gas in Flanders during WW-I and the other too much opium in the upper class clubs of Saudi Arabia in the late 70s.

[csgators]

On Nurnberg one has to say that this trial has ended the terror regime of the German Nazis, not militarily but philosophically and juridically, and that was important. Consequently they didn't re-emerge like a phoenix from the ashes anymore. Their ideology was uncovered from that moment on and internationally doomed, the outcome of their deeds made known to all.

 

You can't honestly believe that trying Osama would have had even close to the same result.

 

I can. But tell me why you cannot.

 

The main difference between the visions of Hitler and of bin Laden might be partly caused by the smoke they have breathed in; the one has breathed in too much toxic gas in Flanders during WW-I and the other too much opium in the upper class clubs of Saudi Arabia in the late 70s.

 

I don't think it would happen for many reasons. For one thing the allies captured a huge number of top Nazi's and were able to completely decapitate the leadership of the movement and completely defeat the soldiers of the cause. In this case we only got one guy who had been essentially irrelevant for almost a decade. In addition the revelations of the Nazi atrocities was not really known until near the end and it was shocking. In this case the atrocities have been going on for some time with all the world to see and it hasn't changed public opinion of the movement. There are also other factors, the war with the Nazis was due to their dreams of world conquest and domination. In the case of Osama's group they are allegedly fighting against the domination of the Muslim population by the West (USA and Israel) and they are able to cast them selves as freedom fighters of a sort.

 

EDIT: I would also add that the German people were defeated and extremely war weary, civilian casualties on their side (actually all sides) were high. The people who give moral support to Al Qaeda are still living as they did before for the most part, no bombs are falling indiscriminately on their cities and the land is not conquered and occupied. (Iraq and Afghanistan are only two of many, many countries where their supporters reside).

Edited May 19, 2011 by csgators

[SilverDNA]

Osma and Nazis again... ok we had this already ... Association fallacy?

Religion based comparisons vs. Nazi Germany in comparison in a debates forum where religion based debates not allowed ...wow re-read the last posts here and it gets to some conclusions ...

 

Or by the words of Richard Sexton

"You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."

 

You might look around the net for Godwin's law...

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"

 

Silver-DNA's assumption:

"If Osama Bin Laden is mentioned in a debates forum and within 20 post, no one mentioned a relation to the Nazis then it is time to drag out, because with in the next 10 to 20 posts Godwin's law will surely be applicable..."

 

So long and thanks for the fish..

because you are all working

on more than one string of chains of if's here.

[DeTomaso]

We might talk about certain Taliban commanders if you prefer what I'd prefer, SilverDNA from Germany.

It is absolutely not our intention you harm the German culture or something alike. But I guess that our American friends instinctively feel the close relation between the Groefatz and Osama, they vividly smell it, even it is just a metaphorical relation that deals with the personified evil. They are not to be blamed for it, perhaps we are who we often smell almost nothing. isn't it?

[csgators]

We might talk about certain Taliban commanders if you prefer what I'd prefer, SilverDNA from Germany.

It is absolutely not our intention you harm the German culture or something alike. But I guess that our American friends instinctively feel the close relation between the Groefatz and Osama, they vividly smell it, even it is just a metaphorical relation that deals with the personified evil. They are not to be blamed for it, perhaps we are who we often smell almost nothing. isn't it?

 

It wasn't an American that brought up the comparison unless I missed something. I am wondering why bringing Osama to trial would have changed anything though.

[DeTomaso]

It wasn't an American that brought up the comparison unless I missed something. I am wondering why bringing Osama to trial would have changed anything though.

 

At least it wasn't a Belgian. Now ask yourself why we have courts and trials. If they'd change nothing, if they'd be useless, why not kill every caught up bad guy directly? We dump them all at sea and call that a burial according to the holy traditions (of the pirates, I guess). Amen. You see - what goes for one guy goes for everybody or it goes for nobody. If we offer no fair trail we are not to be distinguished from the lawless barbarians that have caused 9/11. Now don't tell me that a Western country would actually want to relapse into barbarism. The reason of the assassination of bin Laden is more subtile. He simply shouldn't talk. His silence was by far more important than his operative knowledge of al-Qaeda could ever have been. And that is remarkable, for still innocent people have to die before the time because of al-Qaeda terror actions.

[Lisnpuppy]

I hope that was a joke, DeTomaso...though I don't find it funny. You keep throwing that around and you will find your arse long gone from this place, regardless of wince you have come.

 

Also what does anyone's countries of origin have to do with any of this....unless someone brings up their own...I see no reason for it.

[Balagor]

 

>snip<Now ask yourself why we have courts and trials. If they'd change nothing, if they'd be useless, why not kill every caught up bad guy directly? We dump them all at sea and call that a burial according to the holy traditions (of the pirates, I guess). Amen. >snip<.

 

A simple answer to your question is, that any bad guy in the street did not admit any crimes in public world wide video, like OBL did. :thumbsup:

[HellsMaster]

Also what does anyone's countries of origin have to do with any of this....unless someone brings up their own...I see no reason for it.

 

This.

 

Quoting Aurielius:

I find it odd that you can take the high moral ground of self righteous indignation given the operational conduct of the Légion Étrangères (French Foreign Legion). French units have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and their conduct has hardly been above reproach. a quick review of your country's involvements might be in order.

 

 

Bringing in the country where i was born in was just child-ish. I dont endorse any governement nor country. It is not because i am French, or live in UK that it means ill blindly follow and endorse what Uk/France will do.

 

It is a matter of personal thoughts, origins has nothing to do with this.

[ginnyfizz]

BTW, Your arguments, Mrs ginnyfizz, don't even swim in salt water. Only those that have something to hide prefer the death of the delinquent already before he begins to talk. So it was already in the case of Saddam Hussein and his two sons. The dead don't talk anymore and in this way they hardly bring others under suspicion. Actually we could draw no advantages, not even the smallest tactical one, from their overhasty death. Brave new world. In the Medieval Age the officals have made a lot of mistakes caused by faith, but for sure not a triple rookie mistake.

 

What a bizarre argument - you cannot really believe that Osama bin Laden had any significant dirt to dish on the USA or her allies, when he has been an isolated international pariah for years talking only to his fellow terrorists. Ironically the government who probably had the most to fear from Osama squealing would be the one who you claim as being the most diplomatically outraged and violated - Pakistan. And as Balagor quite rightly points out, Osama proudly condemned himself out of his own mouth. His only possible defence at a trial would have been to plead insanity, and as any lawyer will tell you, just being nuts is not enough, you have to be so barking that you don't know what you are doing, or alternatively, not know that what you are doing is wrong. So he wouldn't have got away with that defence either.

 

As for Saddam, he did have a trial and people still whinged about that, he actually didn't reveal what we didn't know already. Uday and Qusay may or may not have resisted arrest, but they were hardly missed either.