Bin Laden deserves our compassion

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, May 1, 2003.

  1. There are rumors that Osama Bin Laden has been captured, and of course what then should be done with him.

    I used to be of the opinion that we should tie him up at the Ground Zero site, let each WTC survivor and the relatives of each WTC and airliner victim take turns peeling a single piece of flesh off with a rusty and dull pocket knife, and then dab alcohol into the cut. And that would just be for starters.

    However, thanks to our resident ET voice of reason, I have realized the folly of my ways:

    I know many of you blood-lusting conservative fools are weeping after reading this wonderful, wonderful post.

    We are NOT ANIMALS, people!

    We are a peace-loving, evolved, religious, compassionate, and scientifically-thinking nation.

    As Optional has clearly explained, Osama Bin Laden is NOT EVIL.

    No, there is simply something wrong with his mind, and as Optional has pointed out, "the human mind is capable of change."St. Paul did it, so why not Osama bin Laden?

    3,000 dead Americans? Please. It matters not.

    As Optional has poignantly made clear, that is not Osama's fault. He needs to be studied by doctors, theologians, scientists, etc. so that we can discover and heal his mind and thus explain the cause for his actions. In doing so, we may possibly one day be able to deter all terrorists from wishing us harm by finding and removing the "anti-US gene" from the human genetic code, or that portion of the cortex that harbors hatred toward our country.

    Please heed Optional's call and, if we have indeed captured bin Laden, let us A) Forgive him, and B) Allow him the opportunity of not only redemption, but rehabilitation as well.

    It is not our God-granted right to kill those who would kill us. We must turn the other cheek and let the scientists and doctors cure the ills of terrorism.

    As Optional has made abundantly clear, anything less would be uncivilized.
  2. Mercy and compassion is for pussies with no conviction in their beliefs. An eye for an eye -- what about that?
  3. I vote for the second option. Flush Osama down the toilet. Just let us know when you crawl out so we can fit him in.

    This kind of post/thread/poll designed to malign another member is just infantile and absurd, and stupendously narrow minded and selfish. You cheapen the whole experience here.

    Its terrible that you would sieze upon the 9/11 tragedy just to settle what has become your perverse personal flame war with other members.

    Your tastelessness knows no bounds.

    Babak, why don't you kill this thread?
  4. ROFL!

    Coming from you, Beavis, all of the above is a CLASSIC!

    Especially that "perverse" part; hmmm, you've instigated more than your fair share of "perverse" and ridiculous flame wars yourself. Heck, you can't even keep your own word about anything and have to be moderated by other moderators! LOL!

    But what is perverse about this? Optional quotes people to no end and then rails for them to account for their statements (when he's not accusing Don Bright of having a 666 birthmark on his forehead). Indeed, he is always pressing for data and facts and sources.

    Well, here is data from his very own fingers. Let him defend his stance now. Tell us Optional, are morality, mercy, and compassion to be considered only if the subject in question is an American citizen?

    The two of you are hypocrites of the highest order.
  5. I see the hamsterboy was up all night planning this one.


    Silly boy.

    First, Osama stands accused of crimes against America, and Americans. (Accused, not convicted except in the court of public opinion, which fortunately only matters in political polls for those running for re-election).

    He should be brought to justice.

    Notice I said justice, not a lynch mob.

    Should we give in to our "feelings" of revenge, and self-righteous indignation....or should we look upon our higher self, our evolved selves, and practice the type of law and justice we preach to the rest of the world? Should we show our own citizens and the citizens around the world the worst aspect of human nature, or the highest ideals of human evolution devoid of the brutality and lack of justice we claim we deplore?

    He should stand trial according to the rules and regulations currently in place. A fair trial should be held, evidence presented, he should have a right to present his defense, and a decision should be made as to the weight of the evidence determining guilt or innocence.

    If found guilty, then he is punished.

    Sounds simple enough to me.

    Isn't that what happened to Milosevec? A trial, a right to try to defend himself and cross examine the evidence, isn't that the American way?


    Would I favor the death penalty for him, rather than locking him up and throwing away the key?

    I vote against the death penalty.

    Can he be rehabilitated? At least we can try. Imagine the value of getting him to admit he was wrong, to help him see the error of his ways. Imagine the value of him telling other terrorists that terrorism is wrong, that Muslim extremism is wrong, the America is actually a great country.

    Can't happen, you say?

    No, it can't happen unless we try, and it can't happen once he is dead and becomes a martyr for future terrorists.
  6. My God, what a [size=e]HYPOCRITE[/size] you are.

    So you're in favor of due process, a fair trial, against killing the terrorist if found guilty, and that he should be rehabilitated, huh?

    Wow, well then you better find the other Optional777 who wrote this:

    "The American way" you say NOW?
    "He should stand trial" you say NOW?
    "I vote against the death penalty" you say NOW?
    "Should we show our own citizens and the citizens around the world the worst aspect of human nature, or the highest ideals of human evolution devoid of the brutality and lack of justice we claim we deplore?" you say NOW?

    Congratulations, Optional. You just perjured yourself.

    Game, set, match.

    Silly boy.
  7. Again ? At what time please and at what time has the rumour been denied :D

    For the answer: Bush + Ben Laden (+ Chirac if you want) on the same boat and explode them serious !

  8. What hypocrisy?

    Why can't bin Laden be tried by a military tribunal? Don't you think
    They could conduct a fair trial? Don't you trust our military? Are they not enlightened individuals (they have a better chance since you were discharged, dishonorably?)

    Your proposal to nick away at his skin is certainly not what the Bush administration has in mind if they capture him alive.

    Once again, you failed to answer one point Optional raised. It's too much of a challenge for you.
  9. LOL!

    dGAB, it's admirable how you come to your intimate friend's defense. Really. You appear magically with the same frequency and fervor Optional shows while stalking Don Bright.

    That is all that is admirable about you, I'm afraid.

    Other than that, you are blind, illiterate, and obviously unable to string together more than one thought process at a time.

    Take some advice from Twain:

    It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

    Now go huddle with Optional and plan your next dual assault on common sense.
  10. Use whatever means necessary to catch the accused outside of this country, whatever means necessary and within the limit of the laws in this country, and bring them to a fair trial.

    What is confusing about that?

    In the case of Bin Laden, as in the case of Milosevec, as in the case of the high ranking officials of terrorist groups or countries that are enemies of the state, so much more is gained by bringing them to the court process than by murdering them in their sleep, or by stringing them up with a rope by a lynch mob.

    No doubt, if we caught Bin Laden, we could turn him over to some friendly Arab nation, and they would try and kill him under Muslim law.

    Politically speaking, which is important when you are talking about the leaders of countries or movements, they need to be dealt with in a manner to gain the most political advantage, as a man who is accused of plotting and masterminding the killing of 3,000 might bring some temporary satiation of a revenge urge by killing him without a trial, the long run implications outweigh the need of a few to satisfy themselves and their lower instincts in an important case like this.

    Some think it is crazy to have a war where we bomb the shit out of the enemy, and then go in and try to rescue the survivors and nurture them back to health. However, war is not about hating all people, but about stopping the leaders of the country we are at war with.

    War for civilized nations is about the destruction of ideology and termination of regimes in a self defense justification process. Police action is about catching a criminal, or bringing an accused criminal to justice. The justice system is where the process ends to determine fact from fiction, and bring resolution to the matter.

    In my mind, war was necessary in Iraq once Bush had gone too far in his pushing for it, but Bin Laden is a simple police action. Bin Laden is a fugitive from justice, which before the war Hussein was not.

    Now Hussein joins Bin Laden as a simple fugitive from justice, and finding him is now a police action, not a military matter.

    Why can't people see the difference between the two, and know that there are rules to follow in each situation?
    #10     May 1, 2003