Political Crossfire Forums

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Quote:
Orchestrating attacks resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.

How many times do we let him attack us, and then let him go free? We're at number 2 so far.

And? Whether or not he would stop would depend on the negotiations. I may or may not agree to specific deals, but I do agree that if possible, talk > death.

Quote: Are you kidding? If you want to discuss it, try looking up the words rather than making up your own silly definitions. I can't believe that someone actually admitted to not knowing the difference between justice and revenge. In short, justice is making the "victim" whole again while revenge is completely focused on punishing the "criminal."

I have looked them up. Can't access www.dictionary.com right now, but I have looked them up and they are the same damn thing. Post the definitions from dictionary.com if you want, and I can show you if you seriously cannot see it.

And what is making the "victim whole again"? Hmm? You're saying that it's making the victim feel good and get "Closure"? Maybe if my neighbor pissed me off, I should go punch him in the face. It would make me feel better (make me whole again). After all, there's nothing wrong with it: It's justice, not revenge
:roll:

Quote: How do you know he still controls Al Qaeda? You attend the meetings?

Last I heard, he did. I am going to assume that he still does until I see evidence otherwise.

Actually, I'll let the dictionary explain it to you since you would never believe me.
Quote:
Revenge:

to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit

Justice:

to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds

bulls**t. I've gotten a dictionary definition of those before. There are multiple definitions, and you're only posting one. Either

1) You're using a dictionary with way different definitions

2) You're ****.

Ozzone · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject:

coppersink63 wrote: Ozzone wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
The same thing Osama can do to bring back the thousands of people he murdered ... or stop terrorists from hating us ... nothing. I just can't do silly hypotheticals that have no basis whatsoever in reality I guess. Sorry.

Except Osama can have the attacks stopped.

No he can't. He has no true power over Al Qaeda anymore. It has grown beyond his direct control. If he appeared to be weak (which would happen if tried to stop all attacks), he would be assassinated by his own.

Wow theres some random statments with no facts behind him.

You're right. I can throw out random statements with no facts in response to random statements with no facts with the best of 'em.

coppersink63 · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4465 Location: Florida

JRM4833 wrote: coppersink63 wrote: Also you repubs must be confused,

In one breath you state that Osama has been crippled and is no threat and in the other you seem to state that its important that we kill him.

Lets pick a side of the fence to play on shall we?

Stop talking to some abstract, imaginary concept of Republicans you have in your head and talk to me. I'm not confused. If you want to say things like "you state" then why don't you make sure that I stated it. Or I will start running around pointing to this thread and saying that you liberals support bin Laden. Deal?

This post was to you and Ozzone collectivly.

Look at it from my point of view. Republicans (like yourself) have supported bush in the war in iraq and even when he stated blasphemous things like "I am not concerned with osama" or "Osama isn't a threat anymore" without any fact to back it up.

You yourself stated that osama needs to be killed because that would be justice (which I agree) however would you care to go back a few months to a year ago when Bush states that he was not concerned with finding Osama? Also commenting on your reaction to that comment as well as the reactions of other republicans on this board at the time.

Because I can tell you it was a resounding "Osama is harmless, dont worry about him, Hes probably in a cave somewhere cowering..." etc.

What your stating here is a complete 180.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 5706 Location: Fairfax, VA

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
Orchestrating attacks resulting in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans.

How many times do we let him attack us, and then let him go free? We're at number 2 so far.

And? Whether or not he would stop would depend on the negotiations. I may or may not agree to specific deals, but I do agree that if possible, talk > death.

So we should take him at his word? You'd trust OBL at this point?

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Quote:
So we should take him at his word? You'd trust OBL at this point?

As I said, it would depend on the deals and negotiation. I am supporting negotiations, not any specific deal :roll:

Ozzone · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

coppersink63 wrote: Ozzone wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Oh please. This is pathetic. Revenge is more important to you all than a resolution to the problem.

You can call it revenge all you want. We call it justice.

Sorry, Republicans are the LAST people who can call it justice. Justice to republicans has been invading Iraq instead of going after Osama.

I guess if you keep repeating that lie long enough you'll actually start to believe it.

Quote: You supported bush after he stated that Osama wasn't a threat and even though he flip flopped on the subject countless times and dodged direct questions to him about finding osama you still stated that Iraq is where we needed to be.

Justice IS getting Osama but if we do get him its not thanks to any Republican hard work.

Justice also doesn't mean we invade Pakistan. That is if we want to keep the Pakistani government as an ally and not make them an enemy.

JRM4833 · Joined: 06 Sep 2004 Posts: 23138 Location: Red Sox Dugout

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote: Are you kidding? If you want to discuss it, try looking up the words rather than making up your own silly definitions. I can't believe that someone actually admitted to not knowing the difference between justice and revenge. In short, justice is making the "victim" whole again while revenge is completely focused on punishing the "criminal."

I have looked them up. Can't access www.dictionary.com right now, but I have looked them up and they are the same damn thing. Post the definitions from dictionary.com if you want, and I can show you if you seriously cannot see it.

And what is making the "victim whole again"? Hmm? You're saying that it's making the victim feel good and get "Closure"? Maybe if my neighbor pissed me off, I should go punch him in the face. It would make me feel better (make me whole again). After all, there's nothing wrong with it: It's justice, not revenge
:roll:

You really don't make any sense here.

Quote: Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

Quote: Revenge: To avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between the two words. I'm not going to waste any more time with this one since everybody else understand the difference.

One final thought ... revenge is subjective ... justice is objective.

JRM4833 · Joined: 06 Sep 2004 Posts: 23138 Location: Red Sox Dugout

coppersink63 wrote: This post was to you and Ozzone collectivly.

You're wrong. It was not to me at all since it had nothing to do with what I said.

coppersink63 wrote: Look at it from my point of view. Republicans (like yourself) have supported bush in the war in iraq and even when he stated blasphemous things like "I am not concerned with osama" or "Osama isn't a threat anymore" without any fact to back it up.

Do you think I agreed with that silly statement? Even Bush admitted it was wrong.

coppersink63 wrote: You yourself stated that osama needs to be killed because that would be justice (which I agree) however would you care to go back a few months to a year ago when Bush states that he was not concerned with finding Osama? Also commenting on your reaction to that comment as well as the reactions of other republicans on this board at the time.

Again ... a silly statement.

coppersink63 wrote: Because I can tell you it was a resounding "Osama is harmless, dont worry about him, Hes probably in a cave somewhere cowering..." etc.

What your stating here is a complete 180.

It can't be a 180 unless you can quote me saying something contrary to what I'm saying here. In the past I've said that Osama is in hiding. Today I stated that he does not have the power to stop terrorist attacks on America/Americans. I don't see a 180.

Ozzone · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:

coppersink63 wrote: This post was to you and Ozzone collectivly.

I know it's confusing to debate two people at the same time, but will work through it.

Quote: Look at it from my point of view. Republicans (like yourself) have supported bush in the war in iraq and even when he stated blasphemous things like "I am not concerned with osama" or "Osama isn't a threat anymore" without any fact to back it up.

And both quotes are taken out of context. Why am I not surprised.

Quote: You yourself stated that osama needs to be killed because that would be justice (which I agree)

I never said he needed to be killed. Maybe JRM did, but I didn't.

Quote: however would you care to go back a few months to a year ago when Bush states that he was not concerned with finding Osama? Also commenting on your reaction to that comment as well as the reactions of other republicans on this board at the time.

Because I can tell you it was a resounding "Osama is harmless, dont worry about him, Hes probably in a cave somewhere cowering..." etc.

What your stating here is a complete 180.

I also don't pick out statements and use them out of context which the media and anti-Bush crowd has done repeatedly. The media loves to do that because people don't want to read 1,000 words when they can read 10 and get their news.

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10094

jeechoscopy wrote: If Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida surrender and turn to dialogue...

would you support him as for the sake of the world's peace?

I say hang bin Laden and his cohorts. They're criminals, nothing more and nothing less. Which doesn't mean that our embassies should close their ears to non-violent types who have grievances.

Ozzone · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Maybe if my neighbor pissed me off, I should go punch him in the face.

What if your neighbor blew up your garage? Would it be justice just to go punch him in the face?

Ah the old revenge or justice argument. Sometimes it is both.

Quote: Quote: How do you know he still controls Al Qaeda? You attend the meetings?

Last I heard, he did. I am going to assume that he still does until I see evidence otherwise.

Last you heard from who?

Quote: bulls**t. I've gotten a dictionary definition of those before. There are multiple definitions, and you're only posting one. Either

1) You're using a dictionary with way different definitions

2) You're ****.

So I post one of the definitions of each. I guess you looked at other single definitions of each to make your assertion.

Bottom line is the major difference between revenge and justice is that revenge is retribution without regard for the law whereas justice is retribution by enforcement of the law.

Going after Osama isn't just revenge, it is justice. Justice in the eyes of the American people.

You can see it any way you want. But I know how I see it.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject:

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Words are my Weapon of choice and Truth is my Shield

Anyone who incorporates the above principle deserves to be heard.

The problem with people like Osama bin Laden is that they sieze upon violence as their first instinct.
The rhetoric of "Islam is a Religion of Peace" coupled with the caveat that Peace will only be evident
upon complete submission is a non-starter in regards to negotiations.

The time for dialog comes before the initial violent action, not afterwords.

Your opinion that "anyone who incorporate the above principle deserves to be heard" is not clear...

Questions appear like... will it be the same criterial if both parties use their weapons to speak instead they use their mouths, or vice versa?

... will the greater criminal be considered with it's greater martyr and the greater peace-maker would be considered with it's greater talkative abilities?

I can guess what a profiled image gives results. In this sense I would be doubting in Osama because he once, worked with/for CIA.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject:

As, this thread was duplicated... some of my friends wrote in the other one, that is blocked now; if anyone want to reply those posts, here they are:

curisz wrote: Support him how? I would support his right to a fair and speedy trial. I would support not shooting someone who is surrendering. I would even be supportive of him writing books about why what he did was not in the true spirit of Islam from his cell on death row.

Nathyn wrote: If Osama Bin Laden made the claim that he was willing to talk, it would probably be some kind of trick. And even if weren't a trick, that's how the U.S. government would interpret it. They'd just arrest him. But regardless, Bin Laden would probably never be dumb enough to even claim such a thing, even if he were sincere, which is extremely doubtful.

Your question makes about as much sense as asking:

If Jews are actually shapeshifting extraterrestrial lizards, what should we do to stop them?

If cabbage could speak, would you stiill eat salad?

And if toaster ovens one day become sentient, would you advocate the legalization of marriage between a man and a toaster?

Rankor and Pissing wrote: The only thing I support where Bin Laden & any of his supporters are concerned are one these (below) to go literally through his mind.

perdidochas wrote: No, as the Koran says that it is ok to lie to infidels. I wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them.

callous wrote: US soldiers died because our government sent them over there, not because of Osama.

I would not give a s**t whether Osama lived, prospered, or died. He is not the source of Americas problems, and he matters not one iota to reality other than the fact that his image is used to create emotional fire storms among weak minded people.

Tono wrote: If there's anything I can do to help him get his virgins....

Thanks

Chymical · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:

coppersink63 wrote: Ozzone wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:
The same thing Osama can do to bring back the thousands of people he murdered ... or stop terrorists from hating us ... nothing. I just can't do silly hypotheticals that have no basis whatsoever in reality I guess. Sorry.

Except Osama can have the attacks stopped.

No he can't. He has no true power over Al Qaeda anymore. It has grown beyond his direct control. If he appeared to be weak (which would happen if tried to stop all attacks), he would be assassinated by his own.

Wow theres some random statments with no facts behind him.

Chalk this up to wishful thinking in support of bush :lol:

I wonder why violence has increased. I thought these attacks were only for the elections or something...

StrawHat · Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 364 Location: New York, NY

Remember this is purely hypothetical. This isn't ever actually going to happen in my opinion, but if it did, I don't see why someone wouldn't lend their support. Yes, he orchestrated the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history, yes, he should be brought to justice, but what's more important? What are our soldiers fighting and dying for if not for the hope of peace? Why wouldn't we support something that could speed the process? I'd be suspicious, of course, but I think that's normal, and very understandable. But given the potential gain, it's certainly worth a try.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 8672 Location: Petah Tikva

No. I think people are losing sight of this a great deal these days, there comes a time where the purpose of a fight is not soley for peace. When someone delivers so a egrigous a blow then you want to pursue them to the death. The Americans didnt want to negotiate with Japanese after Pearl Harbor or even on the eve of the atom bombs. It was surrender or die. There is no dialogue to have with this current group.

Ozzone · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:

The terrorists don't want peace with us. They want us dead.

We don't want peace with the terrorists. We want them dead.

End of story.

jeechoscopy · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:34 am Post subject:

Simply, imagine if Osama were an American agent working for the PNAC....

and then you were asked the same question given in the poll...

What'd you have been thinking...?

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22305 Location: Sin City

Dialogue with Osama?
sure thing... if it goes something like this

Thrilla- "BAM"

OBL- "Damn that Thrilla is a good shot"...*thud*

Dialogue brought to you by Smith and Wesson :-D

unfortunatley.. my "dialogue" will cause Al Quaeda to go nuts and start bombing s**t all over the place.... but thats ok.. i have more "dialogue" for the rest of those crazy bastards as well

Nathyn · Joined: 24 Sep 2005 Posts: 7908 Location: The Great Satan

Ozzone wrote: The terrorists don't want peace with us. They want us dead.

We don't want peace with the terrorists. We want them dead.

End of story.
Lol, so we're fundamentally no different than them, gg.