Will the US charge Seal Team 6...

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

05/06/2011 09:10:05 PM · #1

....for putting a bullet in an unarmed Osama's head?

If not then why did we charge these Seals for giving a target a bloody lip?

Note: I'm all for the bullet and the bloody lip.

KristinaG

Canon EOS-7D

05/06/2011 09:43:13 PM · #2

Wow, that is troubling indeed.
Though the article seems to blame Obama directly for that, which I don't agree with. Commander in Chief he might be, but he has better things to do than court martial people for giving out bloody lips. Someone lower on the totem pole did that.

05/06/2011 09:50:36 PM · #3

First, all were found not guilty, which you conveniently failed to mention.

Second, the nature of the two missions was different. Bin Laden was not seen as a useful intel source, Ahmed Hashim Abed was. The two missions were different.
Further, the abuses were purportedly visited upon Ahmed Hashim Abed after he had already been detained, which is mistreatment of prisoners. The SEALs were also accused of providing false statements to cover up their behavior.

Do you also support the events at Abu Ghraib? This is, in theory, what the prosecution was to prevent, and further, as it was Abu Ghraib that made such sensitivities exist in the first place. It should be noted that the events at Abu Ghraib caused immense unrest and displeasure in the international community, as the supposed bastion of freedom and goodwill that the US advertises itself as was mistreating POW's. Shall we defend the mistreatment of POWs abroad, as well? I guess the Hanoi Hilton had its justifications, after all...

This is just rabblerousing to get your hackles up over something that has all the details glazed over. It's about as kneejerk as the SEALs were acting when they punched the guy...
I'd like to hope that such "professional" servicemen have the ability to follow orders, eh?

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 21:51:34.

05/06/2011 09:51:33 PM · #4

I'm sure you're right, but he is Commander in Chief...and after recent events, he should throw this case out.

Originally posted by Fiora:

05/06/2011 09:52:25 PM · #5

Originally posted by kenskid:

I'm sure you're right, but he is Commander in Chief...and after recent events, he should throw this case out.

Originally posted by Fiora:
Wow, that is troubling indeed.
Though the article seems to blame Obama directly for that, which I don't agree with. Commander in Chief he might be, but he has better things to do than court martial people for giving out bloody lips. Someone lower on the totem pole did that.

Ahem... see above...

05/06/2011 09:53:52 PM · #6

Rabblerousing? Then don't participate in this thread.

As far as Abu Ghraib, I remember the left and the media going nuts over Bush not wanting to release photos. Oh...ahhh it is OK to release those photos but not dead Osama?...oh...that's on another thread.

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

05/06/2011 09:55:04 PM · #7

Ahem....so they were found Not Guilty huh....the fact they even had to go through any of this is perverse !

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I'm sure you're right, but he is Commander in Chief...and after recent events, he should throw this case out.

Originally posted by Fiora:
Wow, that is troubling indeed.
Though the article seems to blame Obama directly for that, which I don't agree with. Commander in Chief he might be, but he has better things to do than court martial people for giving out bloody lips. Someone lower on the totem pole did that.

Ahem... see above...

05/06/2011 10:00:49 PM · #8

No it isn't.
Do you really not take the mistreatment of POW's seriously?
I'm curious to hear your defense of the Hanoi Hilton. Really.
And what I meant by rabblerousing is this:
You cite the left as going nuts over the infamous "media" and its coverage of that scandal.
How, exactly, do you define this? Is this article, which apparently is from some totally separate media, not intended to get you all hyped up over this cause?
As fiercely as the right points fingers at the left, the left does the same back. You're trapped in a cycle where everything, on both sides, is rabblerousing, but you're not open to admitting this. Think about it. Yeah, there are articles that are designed to anger the bleeding heart liberals you're fond of, but there are just as many to make red blooded patriots do the same. They're BUSINESSES. Think about it. You're buying the gospel just as much as the "media" and left that you decry, it's just a different brand.

My issue with this, and why I called it rabblerousing, is that that's all it is. It's crap to get you angry over without basis or explanation. This garbage gets pumped out. I've a good number of friends who have served, and they get this "America hates the soldiers blah blah blah" shit pumped to them all the time, and it's not beneficial for them, and it's not beneficial for the public. BOTH ARE DISTORTIONS, and should be treated as such. Call a spade a spade.

ETA: My rabblerousing comment was aimed at the article, which clearly had that effect upon you. I wasn't necessarily saying you were trying to rabblerouse, at least intentionally. The stuff perpetuates itself, and it isn't beneficial. It just increases polarization, as if we needed more of that...

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 22:03:41.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/06/2011 10:07:41 PM · #9

I wonder if all the bills were paid?

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

FibreOptix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/06/2011 10:10:02 PM · #10

Until all the facts are in it's hard to compare this to the Osama shooting. Lots of BS floating around right now. "He used his wife as a shield"? "He had a fully loaded AK47 pointed at the soldier and the soldier had one bullet left" Really? come on. Right when I heard that I thought here we go with exaggerated truths and pure BS.

However I don't think they will ever release any info regarding the shooting. The helmet video, the photos or the soldiers name...ever. Ever = 50 years BTW.

05/06/2011 10:11:54 PM · #11

I see your comment about the rabblerousing and how it was not pointed at me....at first glance, I thought it was....

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

05/06/2011 10:12:39 PM · #12

The have VIDEO ! Oooooo..... ;-)

Originally posted by FibreOptix:

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 22:12:54.

05/06/2011 10:22:56 PM · #13

Originally posted by kenskid:

I see your comment about the rabblerousing and how it was not pointed at me....at first glance, I thought it was....

No worries. I phrased it to mean that the article was rabblerousing you and get your hackles up, to draw your ire. It's effective hysteria creation, everybody can get up in arms so easily about stuff if they're hit by it in the right fashion. And that's what I'm saying... they're just different ways of drawing the same bad reaction from both sides. Hysteria and hype SELL, and the response they evoke keeps us from investigating and being rational about it. Both sides do it, and it helps nothing but the bank accounts of pundits. Lots of journalism is contrived, and it's important for us as citizens to note that and realize it.

I brought up Hanoi because it's the same "ends justifies the means" situation. It's not enlightening to note how alike humans are across the world and through history, it's actually somewhat disconcerting. Our inherent similarities should be a cautionary tale, one never to be forgotten.

05/06/2011 10:35:02 PM · #14

It's never going to end though...NEVER. It is just how humans are. Like I said before, one of my first "good" memories...I was 10 years old, was the Olympic terror attack on the Israeli team. I think I was 16 when Iran took the hostages. I had a calendar in my room marking the days. Hell, I even hated the fact that the Iranians released the hostages to the minute that the new president was sworn in. I felt bad for Carter IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT.

I'm sorry but it is too late to change me. I'm always going to side with the Kick Ass first and ask questions next when it comes to ALL Evildoers (who made that famous?). However, you must realize that I'm not a "hands on" nut....I just write my feelings down. I leave the heroic work to the real men. I lead a normal life !

EDIT: by GOOD memory...I mean "able to recall easily"...not GOOD in a HAPPY way !

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by kenskid:
I see your comment about the rabblerousing and how it was not pointed at me....at first glance, I thought it was....

No worries. I phrased it to mean that the article was rabblerousing you and get your hackles up, to draw your ire. It's effective hysteria creation, everybody can get up in arms so easily about stuff if they're hit by it in the right fashion. And that's what I'm saying... they're just different ways of drawing the same bad reaction from both sides. Hysteria and hype SELL, and the response they evoke keeps us from investigating and being rational about it. Both sides do it, and it helps nothing but the bank accounts of pundits. Lots of journalism is contrived, and it's important for us as citizens to note that and realize it.

I brought up Hanoi because it's the same "ends justifies the means" situation. It's not enlightening to note how alike humans are across the world and through history, it's actually somewhat disconcerting. Our inherent similarities should be a cautionary tale, one never to be forgotten.

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 22:35:49.

05/06/2011 10:42:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by kenskid:

With much candor,
Isn't it a trifle silly to assert that simply because the events of your youth happen today, that they will continue ad nauseam? As much as I bring up the similarities between the past and the present, I'd argue significant changes and advances have been had, if in bits and spurts, with periodic relapsing.
And further, if it is to continue forever, isn't it a bit silly to get upset about it in the first place, or ought we to act out our automaton roles?

05/06/2011 10:50:38 PM · #16

...man...I don't even know what you just said !

However, I'll take a stab. By mentioning the events of my youth, I meant to say that it is was some of those events that set me up to the mindset I have today. Not unlike someone seeing a tomcat eating her pet bird. That one event may leave a bad or not so bad scar on that girl. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by kenskid:
It's never going to end though...NEVER. It is just how humans are. Like I said before, one of my first "good" memories...I was 10 years old, was the Olympic terror attack on the Israeli team. I think I was 16 when Iran took the hostages. I had a calendar in my room marking the days. Hell, I even hated the fact that the Iranians released the hostages to the minute that the new president was sworn in. I felt bad for Carter IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT.

I'm sorry but it is too late to change me. I'm always going to side with the Kick Ass first and ask questions next when it comes to ALL Evildoers (who made that famous?). However, you must realize that I'm not a "hands on" nut....I just write my feelings down. I leave the heroic work to the real men. I lead a normal life !

EDIT: by GOOD memory...I mean "able to recall easily"...not GOOD in a HAPPY way !

With much candor,
Isn't it a trifle silly to assert that simply because the events of your youth happen today, that they will continue ad nauseam? As much as I bring up the similarities between the past and the present, I'd argue significant changes and advances have been had, if in bits and spurts, with periodic relapsing.
And further, if it is to continue forever, isn't it a bit silly to get upset about it in the first place, or ought we to act out our automaton roles?

05/06/2011 11:03:05 PM · #17

Let me rephrase:

Is it silly to define humanity, in its long history, by the comparatively short life that you've lived? Is it silly to say things will always be that way, because from what you've seen, in the limited years you've been alive, that they haven't changed a ton?
Has humanity changed from its past? I would say yes, it has, and for the better. Therefore, there is reason to hope, to push, and to direct things further along that road.
The second part of my comment was that if things are never going to change, and they are always going to be that way, why even get angry about any of this garbage? It's inevitable, it's futile. Apathy is the natural outcome of a situation that cannot change. On the other hand, if we are to get angry, are we just getting angry to fulfill that predetermined role, since we can't change? Why?

I mean, we're all influenced by those events that we experience, true enough. I'd like to think I have more say than that, that I can still do what's right, in spite of being shown that isn't always what people do. I retain my ability to decide, and to change, in order to do what is right. If I've lost that, what do I really have left?

05/06/2011 11:13:44 PM · #18

It is clearer now...thanks....

However, are we really getting better? I'm risking this but didn't WWII cause 12 million deaths? That is a lot of humans. Was there any other type human (war) activity in the history of mankind that resulted in that number of deaths? That war was nearly 70 years ago. Since then, it may seem that we are learning and getting better. However, IMO, one thing has stopped us from killing each other in those numbers since the end of that war....the one thing IMO is Nuclear Weapons.

Nukes are the reason China didn't "actively" jump in Vietnam, the reason we did not send troops to help the freedom fighters fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and the future reason why we will not be able to stop Iran from pushing the Jews into the Mediterranean .....but at least the world won't end.

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Message edited by author 2011-05-06 23:14:36.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

05/06/2011 11:31:56 PM · #19

Originally posted by kenskid:

Well, 70 years is still a pretty small period of time, even if you are using a biblical time frame for humanity. Its scope is pretty small. It's like me saying that my city is 90% women because the first 9 out of 10 people I see are women.
As far as numbers of deaths... that's hard to say. The nature of war has changed significantly, both in how its fought, and perhaps more importantly, WHY. Justifications for war, and the annihilation of the enemy are both vastly different from prior times. Also, it was a lot harder to kill that many folks that effectively. Machine guns are a bit better than the gladius at this. Also, our population was WAY smaller, so of course it would be impossible to kill off that many. Not too sure how the numbers would figure as a percentage of global population though, that would be interesting to see (though I haven't seen it represented like that before).

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/06/2011 11:40:38 PM · #20

Originally posted by kenskid:

I'm risking this but didn't WWII cause 12 million deaths?

You might want to check Here These numbers truly are scary.

Ray