Bin Laden Dead!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1304392772' post='2236168']BTW the statement in bold is in direct opposition to what the Vatican has stated about his death. What you are doing in creating your own understanding of the Faith is tantamount to protestantism[/quote]

I actually agree with this, when the Vatican makes such a clear and comprehendable comment and people, who profess to be devout, say comments contrary to that with the intention that they are just as credible, that is on a collision course with the Vatican.


[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1304395675' post='2236210']
The sad, sad truth. Innocent civilians are slaughtered, vengeance is exacted upon the enemy while thousands of other innocent lives are destroyed and marked off as collateral damage but we can justify it because that scjmbag who killed civilians on our side had to be stopped, but if the deaths of innocents on the other side must be avenged . . . where the hell does it stop?[/quote]

I have to disagree, it can't be justified. You don't get justice for 2000 people by a guy that was armed by your own government, with the mass killing of hundreds of thousands more. It also is proven to breed more "terrorists" that want justice for the loss of their loved ones.

[quote]I don't know the exact reasons why Bin Laden became a terrorist and why he made himself an enemy of the West, but I know that among all the good that America has done (just so we're clear here I am acknowledging America [i]has[/i] done good) they've also done some slimy and evil things (as about every government that has ever existed has). I can see how anger towards such an entity can be justified, and how someone may want to put a stop to such abuses propagated by it. It abso-flooping-lutely does not justify the cowardly massacre of thousands and the Sept 11th attacks were totally misappropriated, but it makes me wonder, why do we think it's to kill civilians as well? Now maybe you could argue the US at least tries to avoid civilian casualties rather than directly attacking them, but still isn't that just a faulty "means justify the ends" thing? Maybe in a really twisted and warped way Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy an evil institution and they either see civilians as active members of that institution and thus "fair game" or maybe they just see it as the only way to bring truth to the world and thus the means justify the ends to them.
[/quote]


There is no argument that the US government attempts to avoid civilian casualties. When Reagan armed Saddam Hussein with biological and chemical weapons to fire at Iranians during the imposed war in which a million people died, including a large amount of children, was that doing all that was possible to avoid civilian casualties? More specific, during that war, there was the Halabja poison gas attack. The Iranian photographer, Kaveh Golestan, the first individual to photograph the incident, described it as this:

[i]It was life frozen. Life had stopped, like watching a film and suddenly it hangs on one frame. It was a new kind of death to me. You went into a room, a kitchen and you saw the body of a woman holding a knife where she had been cutting a carrot. (...) The aftermath was worse. Victims were still being brought in. Some villagers came to our chopper. They had 15 or 16 beautiful children, begging us to take them to hospital. So all the press sat there and we were each handed a child to carry. As we took off, fluid came out of my little girl's mouth and she died in my arms.[sup]
[/sup][/i]
[size="2"]Now you might say, "that was in '88 and the US government had no idea Saddam was going to use those weapons for that purpose", which is a strawman argument but nonetheless I'll entertain the idea.

Not only did the US give Iraq arms but they also gave Iraq $35 billion in funding for this war. What was Iran's charge? Did they ever attack the United States or threaten to do so? No, rather their charge was that they overthrow the American puppet dictator, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who mass tortured people in favor of having a government of their choice. Now if you're the parent of a child, who died by such horrific methods as Serin VX Gas, along with the million other people that died in that war and never once is this super power called "America" brought to justice. What do you think that you're attitude is going to be towards the loss of life on 9-11 and justice? Those that died on 9-11 died a far less cruel death then those that died during the imposed war.

However, lets forget the imposed war. America bombs Iraq in the name of "The War on Terror" to remove a dictator that they put into power and backed in the first place. Over 100,000 civilians died [according to Johns Hopkins University and many more credible sources]. What they are told is "America lost 2000 people on 9-11 by a bomber that got funding from their own CIA, who had nothing to do with your country so we're here to remove a brutal dictator that we put into power in the first place, at your expense." Is this a serious miscarriage of justice or what? This is no justification to the mothers, they will not accept it and neither should they accept it. When America first launched that war, they said, "the oil will pay for it". We all know that the oil did not pay for it and that Haliberton was pumping unmetered oil out of the ground while using the US Armed forces as their personal militia to protect them. However, if the oil did pay for the war, that's also not right. Why should Iraqis have to pay to remove a dictator that the United States put into place, funded and supported?

How did Osama Bin Laden come into power? He fought with the Muhajadin and was funded by the United States. That was his financial backing, his "bread and butter", if you will. The United States knew that him and the Taliban were bad people before they funded him, but they thought that since he was bad #$$, he would be able to defeat the soviets [which he did]. They just never thought that he'd attack their country, as he did the Soviet Union.[/size]

[quote]Lest I become accused of being a terrorist sympathizer, I think it's just too easy to say "floopy it, he was crazy, he was evil, he's dead now thank God." I think when we refuse to investigate what really motivates an evil SOB, and make efforts to follow his logic (as insane and warped as it is) then we really do a disservice to the world because I don't think you can stop something without understanding it. Ideologies transcend death, and rather than exterminating everyone who holds to that ideology (which is impossible) maybe we can understand it, and we can prevent the cancer from metastasizing throughout humankind.[/quote]

I think that it is too and I'm not alone, many libertarians like Ron Paul have also pointed out this point.

[quote]I know there will never truly be peace on Earth until the Lord returns, but we can't take that as an excuse to raise hell against our enemies in the interim. Can we? I mean I get the logic: he comes over here and kills our people we need to go kill him so that the slaughter stops . . . for a while at least. Because then someone on the other side is gonna look at the corpses of their friends and family and they're gonna look fro someone to kill and it's gonna keep going.[/quote]

Does this mean that, by his own logic, that we need to come after ourselves now for we have caused more civilian deaths then Bin Laden did? Bin Laden is a mass murderer that is to be held responsible for the 2000 civilian deaths [provided you believe the official account] but by that logic, you have to hold the United States accountable for the 100,000 during the Iraq War, the 1 million during the Imposed War, etc.

[quote]It's a wonder to me how Christianity survived the first few centuries. I mean they did [i]not[/i] fight back but gave their bodies to the lions and their souls and wills to God. It seems to go against all common sense. [i]If you don't fight back they're going to destroy all of you[/i]. I guess that's why there could never be an authentic Christian temporal government as it would sorta be a suicide state.[/quote]

This is the most powerful of points, Christianity did not fight back and yet survived. It did more then survive, when Diocletian seriously stepped up his mass murder, he went insane because of all the miracles that were performed.

[code]These are just my characteristically incoherent thoughts. I just can't make myself dance over a man's grave no matter how evil he is, and I can't help but cringing inside when I see others doing just that. Christ said to love your enemies, and to pray for them, and to turn the other cheek and to do all these things that seem 100% ridiculous. There are asteriks on somethings and loopholes do exist. But sometimes they do not and we shouldn't look for them.

I pray for the repose of his soul, and all of his victims' souls, and people who are cruel towards one another, and people who hate God, and people who love Him, and you and everybody. Is that unchristian? I'm seriously asking this. I don't even find it difficult to pray for him. Am I messed up? Should I want him to be eternally tortured? I mean I will be shocked as hell if I see Hitler and Nietzsche and Bin Laden when I stroll through the pearly gates, but praise be to God if He is redeeming them. And also praise to be God if He sees eternal separation from Him as a fitting sentence.
[/code]

As do I...and I think most people here.

[code]God help us all put down our arms. Most compassionate heart of Jesus, have mercy on us and on the whole world. I beg that you immerse the entirety of humanity in the unfathomable depths or your love and forgiveness even for the most undeserving of us. Even though none of us deserve salvation, I place my trust in your Divine Mercy.

I know I'm not eloquent, and I'm sorry, but these things force me to take a good hard look at the most profound depths of the human soul. I'll stop now, but God please have mercy on us. Hosanna on high.
[/code]

I think that you're quite elequent, given the nature of the thread.


[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1304427801' post='2236301']
you guyz are sheep...that monster isn't dead...[/quote]

Ironically, I agree with you. I think that we have no evidence, if we use our intelligence that G-d gave us, to suggest that he is dead or that he wasn't already dead.

[MithLuin]

I think it is important not to tell people how they should feel.

In other words, your emotional reaction to news is what it is, not what it 'should' be. If people are relieved or jubilant or scared of what might happen next...then that is how they feel about it.

Obviously, what you choose to say or broadcast to the world is a different matter, and as Christians, some reflection rather than a gut reaction might be good.

I'm not going to be dancing in the streets over this man's death. I won't say I don't care, but it's not the most wonderful news I've ever heard either. My first thought was, 'Does this mean my b-i-l won't have to deploy to Afghanistan this summer?' But of course...this will not change that. Bin Laden was not the current leader of al Qaeda, so the practical implications are smaller than the symbolic ones. No doubt Obama's approval rating will temporarily spike, just as Bush's did when Hussein was killed. But it will likely just be for the next few weeks.

When the bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons were kept to verify that we had indeed killed them, there was outrage from the people in Iraq that they were purposefully desecrated like that. Apparently, you have to bury the body within 24 hours in that culture. So, that is why we did things differently this time. I'm sure we collected evidence to verify his identity first.



I am glad God judges souls differently than people do. I trust Jesus to judge justly, and show mercy when appropriate.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304435319' post='2236330']
I have to disagree, it can't be justified. You don't get justice for 2000 people by a guy that was armed by your own government, with the mass killing of hundreds of thousands more. It also is proven to breed more "terrorists" that want justice for the loss of their loved ones.[/quote]

Oh no, we agree. I guess I wasn't as clear when I said "we can justify it." I didn't mean a true justification but rather as a country, this is what we use to justify [b]in our own collective "mind"[/b] the murder of civilians. Obviously there are individual people who see the hypocrisy behind it. But nonetheless many people find the justifications acceptable.

[quote]
There is no argument that the US government attempts to avoid civilian casualties.[/quote][i][sup]
[/sup][/i][size="2"]That was my effort to counter those who might mark that as a distinction between how "we" fight and how the "enemy" operates. We abide by the Geneva convention, not all the time but I'm of no authority to say how much of the time we do. I only know it's not 100% and that it's not 0%, and probably not close to either of those extremes either. But sometimes on this forum people who paint America as a force of cruelty get chastised for being a bunch of whiny brats, I was trying to avoid that because it wasn't relevant to my point: even if ideally the US did all it could to avoid civilian deaths, the number of civilian casualties is too large to justify our fighting. Make any sense?
[quote]
However, lets forget the imposed war. America bombs Iraq in the name of "The War on Terror" to remove a dictator that they put into power and backed in the first place. Over 100,000 civilians died [according to Johns Hopkins University and many more credible sources]. What they are told is "America lost 2000 people on 9-11 by a bomber that got funding from their own CIA, who had nothing to do with your country so we're here to remove a brutal dictator that we put into power in the first place, at your expense." Is this a serious miscarriage of justice or what? This is no justification to the mothers, they will not accept it and neither should they accept it. When America first launched that war, they said, "the oil will pay for it". We all know that the oil did not pay for it and that Haliberton was pumping unmetered oil out of the ground while using the US Armed forces as their personal militia to protect them. However, if the oil did pay for the war, that's also not right. Why should Iraqis have to pay to remove a dictator that the United States put into place, funded and supported? [/quote]

I agree. The Iraq War was a totally preventable human tragedy. [/size]

[quote]Does this mean that, by his own logic, that we need to come after ourselves now for we have caused more civilian deaths then Bin Laden did? Bin Laden is a mass murderer that is to be held responsible for the 2000 civilian deaths [provided you believe the official account] but by that logic, you have to hold the United States accountable for the 100,000 during the Iraq War, the 1 million during the Imposed War, etc.[/quote]

The "eye for an eye" logic isn't really even logic at all seeing the number of gaping holes within it. The logic says you don't have to hold yourself accountable for innocent deaths as long as they are only tangential to getting that SOB that killed your innocent people. It makes no sense, and it will never end as long as sin plagues the Earth. Hence the frustration!

[quote]Ironically, I agree with you. I think that we have no evidence, if we use our intelligence that G-d gave us, to suggest that he is dead or that he wasn't already dead.
[/quote]

I think she was being facetious.


And MithLuin, very well said. I will pray for your brother-in-law as well.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Ice_nine

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1304453828' post='2236479']
Oh no, we agree. I guess I wasn't as clear when I said "we can justify it." I didn't mean a true justification but rather as a country, this is what we use to justify [b]in our own collective "mind"[/b] the murder of civilians. Obviously there are individual people who see the hypocrisy behind it. But nonetheless many people find the justifications acceptable.[/quote]

Ah I get what you were saying, you don't have to walk on egg shells around me, I won't throw the anti-American label on you.

[i][sup]
[/sup][/i][size="2"][quote][size="2"]That was my effort to counter those who might mark that as a distinction between how "we" fight and how the "enemy" operates. We abide by the Geneva convention, not all the time but I'm of no authority to say how much of the time we do. I only know it's not 100% and that it's not 0%, and probably not close to either of those extremes either. But sometimes on this forum people who paint America as a force of cruelty get chastised for being a bunch of whiny brats, I was trying to avoid that because it wasn't relevant to my point: even if ideally the US did all it could to avoid civilian deaths, the number of civilian casualties is too large to justify our fighting. Make any sense?
[/size][/quote]

I could tell you, we don't abide by the Geneva Convention as much as we'd like to think. Waterboarding? Not acceptable... false imprisonment? Not acceptable... accessory to mass murder? Not acceptable to just name a few. I understand, many here do try and paint people as such but I take comfort in what Pope John Paul II said prior to the start of the Iraq War.

[quote]

"War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity," he said.


"And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq, the land of the prophets, a people already sorely tried by more than 12 years of embargo?" he said.


"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations," he said.


[/quote]

Notice he mentioned the embargo sanctions, which claimed the life of a million children, prior to the Iraq War. As a non-Roman Catholic, I might not always agree with [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II [may he rest with G-d] but I will never say that he wasn't aware of the suffering in this world and was willing to take an unpopular opinion in the name of Love.


[quote][size="2"]I agree. The Iraq War was a totally preventable human tragedy. [/size]
[/quote]

That makes three of us: You, [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II and Me. Just kidding, there are alot of cardinals and bishops at Vatican city that have expressed their opinions as such but it can often still feel lonely.[/size]


[quote]The "eye for an eye" logic isn't really even logic at all seeing the number of gaping holes within it. The logic says you don't have to hold yourself accountable for innocent deaths as long as they are only tangential to getting that SOB that killed your innocent people. It makes no sense, and it will never end as long as sin plagues the Earth. Hence the frustration!
[/quote]

I think that's why Jesus said what he said.

[quote]I think she was being facetious.
[/quote]

It's possible but I know many that agree with that statement sincerely, myself [a skeptic] included.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304389718' post='2236110']
Note: There is no Mohammedan religion, it's called Islam.[/quote]
That false religion was founded by the man Mohammed, so it is quite proper for us to refer to it as Mohammedan. It was founded on the lies and delusions of Mohammed, not by God.
True submission to God ("Islam") is submission to His One True Church, not the apostate religion founded by Mohammed the false prophet.


[quote]Socrates, I'm not sure that's what the Roman Catholic Church meant and I think that to truly follow what the Church says often entails doing somethings that we do not want to do. When Jesus said, "love thy enemy", "pray for your enemies", I don't think that he meant only in circumstances that are simple, like when someone steals money from you. I think that he was probably referencing the more difficult times, like in the case of mass murderers. When the Roman Catholic Church took a stand against Mousalini, I don't think that the Church officials [thou I have no evidence of this] stopped praying for him and stopped loving him as a human being, even if they did accept the fact that more then likely he would not have changed [and he didn't]. Loving thy enemy that only steals milk money from you, when you were in the 5th grade, is simple. Loving thy enemy that wishes to kill you is more difficult but that's why Christianity is truly the most loving religion to ever have walked the earth. Christians continued to love Diocletian while he was murdering millions of them, including my daughter's Patron Saint, St. Mohreal who was only 12 at the time of her martyrdom.[/quote]
I never denied that we should pray for our enemies (which also entails praying for their conversion and repentence).

However, there is nothing wrong in rejoicing that an evil murderous and dangerous individual has been put out of action.
And if Osama bin Laden did not repent and accept Christ, then his punishment in Hell is just and should not be begrudged. If he is indeed in Hell (as is most probably the case), it is no more troubling than the fact that Satan is in Hell.
God's will be done.

[quote]As for the comment about a "fluffy bunny form of Islam", I never implied such, nor did I ever say such. However, I wouldn't take your opinion of it being the most evil religion to have ever walked the earth and that what Osama did is no different then what Muhammad did. That is not only historically inaccurate but it's theologically incorrect too.[/quote]
There have been more evil religions (that of the pagan Aztecs comes to mind), but I'm not going to pretend that Islam is in itself good, and not a false religion. And the religion of bin Laden differs no more from that of Mohammed than that of liberal "moderate Islam." As all the various contradictory forms of Islam are false and man-made, there is no such thing as "true Islam."

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304390260' post='2236120']
I probably shouldn't comment on this but I will. How do you know what he was doing while they were conducting the operation and second, what do you want the president to do - suit up - and go along with them? They are special forces for a reason. Thou I don't agree politically with the president, nor morally most of the time, I think this is just a childish attack upon his charector. He said that he was thankful for what the seal team and the intelligence community did and I see no reason why not to believe him. Contrary to some opinions, he loves this country just as you do. He just has a different vision for which direction to take it in then I do. If you want to attack him on his pro-abortion stance, fine...attack him on his fiscal policies, fine...attack him on his war and foreign policies, fine... but attacking the man on the capture of bin laden is just kindergarden talk.
[/quote]
I don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's involvement in the killing of bin Laden.

What I do have a problem with is using the death of bin Laden as an opportunity for cheap partisan political gloating and taunting, as was the post I was responding to.
I think we need to give credit where credit is due, which belongs mostly to our military forces and intelligence, and we shouldn't be acting as if bin Laden's death was all because of Obama's brilliance.

[Nihil Obstat]

Obama doesn't know how to shoot guns; he's a liberal. Guns are evil and kill people, remember?

[Winchester]

Obama would have no problem having a gun. He's a liberal, which means that as a political figure, he is better than everyone else and should have privileges. Liberal politicians only curb the rights of commoners.

[Nihil Obstat]

I keep forgetting that part!!!
[img]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/11/128761697828727867.jpg[/img]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1304462604' post='2236570']
Obama would have no problem having a gun. He's a liberal, which means that as a political figure, he is better than everyone else and should have privileges. Liberal politicians only curb the rights of commoners.
[/quote]
"Fine for me, but not for thee!"

[FutureSister2009]

DING DONG BIN LADEN'S DEAD!

[kafka]

my thoughts after a sober day of reflection. And I want to add right away that I am neither republican or democratic. I'm apolitical, and I have the benefit of not following the news.

* I think it is truly amesome how God's providence struck down Osama, and lifted up John Paul II within the span of about a day. Only God could orchestrate such a grand sweep of events the way it unfolded and it is in my opinion an occassion of joy, exaltation and wonder. God humbles and exalts. It is in one sense sad that a sinner died, it is sobering, but given the circumstance it is truly wonderful the way God is. This is our God! It is not immoral with good intention in this circumstance to rejoice. And it is not right to teach others that it is immoral (see below)

* I think some Catholics are pharasaically interpreting Father Lambardi's statement. Even if it represents a message that Pope Benedict wants spread throughout the world on this occassion, it is not an act of Magisterium. It is not of the spiritual authority of the Church. It is not a formal teaching of faith and morals. People have to understand that Pope Benedict has the entire earth in mind when he makes a guiding statement from the media. In my view he probably wanted to guide people toward sobriety in the matter, since people are fallen and sinful and easily blown things out of proportion. Plus he has to balance the culture of the West and the Islamic world. Did he make a mistake? I dont think so. Did he forbid anyone to rejoice at the death of Osama? The idea that a Pope could even prohibit this is extreme and absurd.

* I think some Catholics are being hypocritical toward other Catholics in a sense to their own practice of Faith in regards to the idea of rejoicing and exalting at Osama's death. Under two weeks ago Catholics were joyfully and exaltingly commemorating the event when God struck down Pharaoh and his army at the Red Sea three to four thousand years after the fact (Song at the Sea, Moses, Exodus 15). The death of Pharaoh and his army was certainly an occassion for rejoicing for Israel and it continues to be commemorated to this day with joy by Catholics in the liturgy!!! Plus we have countless other inspired verses of Scripture as examples of God's people rejoicing at the death of their severely evil and murderous enemies. Priests and religious read Psalms almost every day in joyful commemoration of God killing the enemy:

{134:10} He has struck many nations, and he has slaughtered strong kings:
{134:11} Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan.

{135:19} Sihon, king of the Amorites, for his mercy is eternal:
{135:20} and Og, king of Bashan, for his mercy is eternal.

So a Catholic who lays the burden of guilt on another Catholic for rejoicing at Osama's death is being a hypocrit.

* I think a false Catholic Christian charity is being preached by some Catholics. Catholic charity is inherently just and merciful. It does not contradict true selfless love of God, neighbor, self to rejoice in Osama's death since it is truly a gift of God's Justice, Mercy and Love to have him dead, and unable to do anymore harm to God's children. It is good to rejoice and support the soldiers (and all) who worked so hard for so many years to stop all the horrors of Osama. If I were a king or a soldier fighting a war against a severely murderous enemy I would rejoice in my victory brought about by the occassion of the enemies death, in spite of the fact that war, death, and evil is sobering. And I would fully expect my people to rejoice in my victory. This is just. And we have countless examples of this in Jewish and Catholic Christian history. And I already made the point about the families of the victims.

* In the future the great Catholic monarch of prophecy will kill the great Arab king (and many extremists) in the first part of the Tribulation, and in the second part of the Tribulation Jesus will Return and kill Antichrist, the false Prophetess, and countless of their followers. Both these events will be an occassion of unfathomable joy for the Church.

* It is not intrinsically evil to rejoice at the death of a human person or even the death of Jesus. We are taught to rejoice at the death of Jesus in spite of the fact that it is very sad because our sins caused his death. Death is a part of life. So from a moral viewpoint, if one has a good intention and good consequences outweigh the bad it is moral, licit, good, just to rejoice at another's death. If the intention is bad, evil, immoral then the overall act of rejoicing is evil. If the circumstance is bad then the overall act of rejoicing is bad.


Finally I want to share the psalm that I sung at the Easter Vigil to lend a little perspective. I take what is taught in Sacred Scripture and commemorated in the Catholic liturgy very seriously:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et0OA82Rzng[/media]

Edited May 4, 2011 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]

...and so the Pharisee accusations start. Again.

[kafka]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1304470557' post='2236633']
...and so the Pharisee accusations start. Again.
[/quote]
pharasaical interpretations of the Faith are becoming a big problem for Catholics practicing their Faith on the internet and forums like this one.

Edited May 4, 2011 by kafka

[Nihil Obstat]