3 ms·

Of course not. It's not like they are Himmler's or Goebbels that clearly deserved fair trial for starting a war that costed 70 million deaths. We don't give tha

Of course not. It's not like they are Himmler's or Goebbels that clearly deserved fair trial for starting a war that costed 70 million deaths. We don't give that to people who blow up buildings killing thousands. At some point we started to be very cynical about our own values, like liberalism for that example. I wish we had taken our own values more to the heart. That's the only way to win these things morally as well.

phaus 13y ago
I agree that we should start taking our values to heart, but its ridiculous to act as if the situations are remotely comparable. First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back. Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  > First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back. It was decided precisely by all Allied Forces: USA, UK, USSR during Yalta Conference in 1945 that some kind of International Tribunal will be established to give the Nazis elite a fair process. Mind you, that was after 70m people dead and horrors of the war. When Aushwitz was months old history, not years old. And they still gave them free process. Why? Because they believed in the values of our civilization. Once the political will like that is there, we are morally victorious as well. We just show to the world that our values are different. What you show by killing innocent 16 year old boy whose only fault was to have a father that was suspected of terrorist acticity is that you yourself don't believe in your values anymore and are cynical about them. And this makes radical muslims case in their countries of origin this much stronger. "You see, they are just like us, they kill innocent children too, they are just hypocrites and cynical people when they talk about the freedom, democracy, due process. There are no such things in the world". They can say it, and you know what? They'll be right! On this level we already lost big time, there is no slightest shadow of a doubt about it in my mind. They are ready to commit suicide in the name of their values. We don't give a crap about our own. How exactly you want to win this war of civilizations in this circumstance? Robespierre was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. Dantone was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. People are not going to die in the name of cynism. Capture Bin Laden and give him free, honest, open free trial. That's what people who actually believe in what they preach would do. If we don't believe in these things anymore, why on Earth you think that we can even remotely win? > Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations. Talibans didn't lost. You ask me, they are winning. Winning like a little fly being still alive wins when you try to kill it with a machine gun. Just by its existence is a proof of your inability to win using the current strategy.
  - phaus 13y ago
    Once again you are ignoring every word of what I wrote. You quoted me, but neither of the responses had much to do with what I said. They were just a reiteration of your previous statements. We weren't talking about the legitimacy of our war strategy, or who is winning in Afghanistan, we were discussing whether or not Bin Laden could have been taken alive given the information about him that we had before the raid, as opposed to 20/20 hindsight.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      I don't think you understood. There is something that we know makes sense from a military perspective. I.e. Osama is dangerous and must be dealt with at the spot. I understand what you saying. You didn't understand my response which is: this what you described is and must be a political decision and not military one. It was a political decision to shoot him like a dog at the spot. The excuse you give for that action could have been given regarding Himmler too. It wasn't because at that time it was important to us that even monsters like Himmler - personally responsible for overseeing Holocaust, and actually coming up with the idea itself - were given a chance of defense in a trial. Because that was the decision made by the USA President (among other leaders) at that time at the Yalta Conference. You expected me to come on real terms with your cheap excuse? First, stop your own cynism, and come to the terms with the fact that it was a political decision and then we can talk about the reasons for or against it. Don't give me this BS here as I'm some kind of a naive 6 year old.
      - phaus 13y ago
        If you think that it was politically decided before the operation began that he would be assassinated, that's a different issue entirely. I'm not going to speculate on that because there isn't any way we can know for sure because the people involved aren't going to tell us. You're free to develop a theory, but it will likely never progress beyond that. I actually agree with you in principle, that a trial would have been preferable. I just don't see how it would have been possible without putting even more lives at risk. How would you have recommended we go about apprehending him alive, without any casualties? Its clear that the Pakistanis weren't going to help us apprehend him any time soon.

phaus 13y ago

I agree that we should start taking our values to heart, but its ridiculous to act as if the situations are remotely comparable. First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back. Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
> First of all, if Himmler and Goebbels were hell bent on fighting to the death, they almost certainly would have been shot and killed by U.S. forces. Perhaps not though, because high-ranking German officials aren't known for blowing themselves up, so there's a much better chance of taking them alive even if they do fight back. It was decided precisely by all Allied Forces: USA, UK, USSR during Yalta Conference in 1945 that some kind of International Tribunal will be established to give the Nazis elite a fair process. Mind you, that was after 70m people dead and horrors of the war. When Aushwitz was months old history, not years old. And they still gave them free process. Why? Because they believed in the values of our civilization. Once the political will like that is there, we are morally victorious as well. We just show to the world that our values are different. What you show by killing innocent 16 year old boy whose only fault was to have a father that was suspected of terrorist acticity is that you yourself don't believe in your values anymore and are cynical about them. And this makes radical muslims case in their countries of origin this much stronger. "You see, they are just like us, they kill innocent children too, they are just hypocrites and cynical people when they talk about the freedom, democracy, due process. There are no such things in the world". They can say it, and you know what? They'll be right! On this level we already lost big time, there is no slightest shadow of a doubt about it in my mind. They are ready to commit suicide in the name of their values. We don't give a crap about our own. How exactly you want to win this war of civilizations in this circumstance? Robespierre was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. Dantone was ready to die for Liberal values. And he did. People are not going to die in the name of cynism. Capture Bin Laden and give him free, honest, open free trial. That's what people who actually believe in what they preach would do. If we don't believe in these things anymore, why on Earth you think that we can even remotely win? > Another thing to consider, is that after the Germans surrendered, they largely stopped trying to kill us. They lost, and we occupied their territory in a relatively peaceful manner. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan or Pakistan, so you really can't compare the situations. Talibans didn't lost. You ask me, they are winning. Winning like a little fly being still alive wins when you try to kill it with a machine gun. Just by its existence is a proof of your inability to win using the current strategy.
- phaus 13y ago
  Once again you are ignoring every word of what I wrote. You quoted me, but neither of the responses had much to do with what I said. They were just a reiteration of your previous statements. We weren't talking about the legitimacy of our war strategy, or who is winning in Afghanistan, we were discussing whether or not Bin Laden could have been taken alive given the information about him that we had before the raid, as opposed to 20/20 hindsight.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    I don't think you understood. There is something that we know makes sense from a military perspective. I.e. Osama is dangerous and must be dealt with at the spot. I understand what you saying. You didn't understand my response which is: this what you described is and must be a political decision and not military one. It was a political decision to shoot him like a dog at the spot. The excuse you give for that action could have been given regarding Himmler too. It wasn't because at that time it was important to us that even monsters like Himmler - personally responsible for overseeing Holocaust, and actually coming up with the idea itself - were given a chance of defense in a trial. Because that was the decision made by the USA President (among other leaders) at that time at the Yalta Conference. You expected me to come on real terms with your cheap excuse? First, stop your own cynism, and come to the terms with the fact that it was a political decision and then we can talk about the reasons for or against it. Don't give me this BS here as I'm some kind of a naive 6 year old.
    - phaus 13y ago
      If you think that it was politically decided before the operation began that he would be assassinated, that's a different issue entirely. I'm not going to speculate on that because there isn't any way we can know for sure because the people involved aren't going to tell us. You're free to develop a theory, but it will likely never progress beyond that. I actually agree with you in principle, that a trial would have been preferable. I just don't see how it would have been possible without putting even more lives at risk. How would you have recommended we go about apprehending him alive, without any casualties? Its clear that the Pakistanis weren't going to help us apprehend him any time soon.