Recent posts by anelaid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Israel bombs Gaza

It seems like too many people looked at the 2012 prediction bullshit as a timetable to start getting the apocalypse going.

What I would like to have though is some sort of intervention to bring about an actual peace. Organizations like Hamas give Israel more than ample excuse to pull off these operations, and there are a lot of people in the US who believe that Israel belongs to the ‘chosen people’ or some such. I doubt there is an organization that can realistically do this.

I can understand the need to defend yourself from rocket-attacks, but Israel also needs to look at what its doing to cause people launch these sort of attacks in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by greg:

Felonies, look up what they are. The victim is the state and the state intervenes on behalf of itself. Victimless crime runs contrary to this notion and is a stupid concept in of itself.

This is complete nonsense. The state is not a victim when someone puts something into their own body. Your argument of “it’s not a victimless crime because it’s a felony” is circular and completely nonsensical. This thread is about changing laws, not defining them. You are contributing nothing with comments like these.

Private prisons are a non-entity when it comes to discussion of the penal system.

This is why prisons are not supposed to be private. Private prisons are the ones funding lobbyists to continue the war on drugs. The fact that we have powerful corporations profiting from putting people in prison for no legitimate reason is why America has 25% of the world’s prison population with only 5% of the total population.

Everything Greg brought up is nonsense about Republicans and the CIA forming a military dictatorship

“Republicans”? “Military dictatorship”? You’ve lost a debate when you have to make up lies about what the other person is saying in order to continue defending your position. Just give it up. You’ve lost. You’re resorting to petty insults and mind games (“look up what a felony is,” lol). Admit it and move on. We are trying to have a discussion about the effects of prohibition on society, and you are contributing nothing but nonsense.

You still assume that someone's decision to use drugs has no consequence beyond his person, which is blatantly false and why there aren't victimless crimes. W And stop bringing up private prisons, you're bringing up irrelevant issues (25 percent of the world's prison population, not PRIVATE PRISONS, which you keep going on about) in order to justify linking to a further irrelevant issue of the CIA using contraband in its operations. GEE THE LINK TO ALL OF THESE ISSUES IS SO GOOD. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/27/485205/-GOP-plan-to-suspend-the-Constitution-and-install-a-FASCIST-Military-Dictatorship- Real credible reporting right here. I'm sure they are real trustworthy. These are the same guys who ranted about the CIA and making poorly sourced claims before, I don't trust them and you thus far have done nothing to argue that drugs don't ultimately harm society, regardless of if someone freely takes it.
Originally posted by PescadoJM:
Originally posted by Dr_Stein:
Common sense. Quick reflexes, judgement, and focus are necessary to drive a car, all of which marijuana fucks up.

Actualy, marijuana has less of an effect on driving ability than alcohol does. While it is true that marijuana impairs all these things, a stoned driver is AWARE that he is impaired and alters his driving habits accordingly, resulting in no real increase in actual accident rates. They drive more slowly, maintain longer distances from other vehicles, and generally behave in a manner that indicates they are aware that they are not in the best condition.

In contrast, a drunk driver is unaware of these things, and continues to take the same risks as an unimpaired driver, thus crashing more.

I'm sure a stoner thinks hes a good driver, like a stoner thinks hes onto something big, man.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

Originally posted by Winnabago:

While I’m not sure how that was in response to me, I totally lost you at “Have a little faith in your Govt.”. I try not to blindly follow the statements of authorities.

Considering he followed up the sentence with “not mindlessly absolute” I think you missed the point.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I addressed that very point about the complexity of the schizophrenia-marijauna link in the very next post I made. How about that!

I really couldn’t care less what you think about the actual topic anelaid, but I’ll address this one point:

A lot of you guys are picking some pretty horrible sources. Wikipedia? Seriously? I’m not even going to entertain that deluded notion.

If the wiki article in question is properly cited (and you might take the extra step of actually going to the site and looking up the primary info) wikipedia works fine as a summary. This isn’t academia, it’s a fucking debate forum on a gaming site. Take your snobbishness out of your posts or GTFO.

Your the one who doesn’t care what I think and I’m snobbish? lol. I refuse to trust wikipedia because anyone can edit it. If you consider this snobbish, then you’ve got a problem understanding the subjectivity of what qualifies as a proper source :o

And I agreed with you, I don’t see what you’re getting off on.

Originally posted by greg:

All of your arguments about victimless crimes show absolutely no understanding of the nature of why they are crimes or who else is affected by someone’s choice to speed down the street or take heroin. And you’re arguing that a person’s responsibility for their actions make them NOT legally accountable? That is completely contrary to the basis of a felony. Face it, if its a felony, the state has to intervene.

What the hell are you talking about?

Felonies, look up what they are. The victim is the state and the state intervenes on behalf of itself. Victimless crime runs contrary to this notion and is a stupid concept in of itself.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

anelaid: Wikipedia has links at the bottom, you should check them all out. You should also stop using most of the sources you’ve ever cited anywhere, since they all have about the same reliability as Wikipedia, since one guy with his own personal bias’ probably wrote anything you’d consider “better.” Seriously, “authority” is mostly farce and using your noggin while reading is a far better way to address sources than pretending you can disregard major points because of the URL.


Quite frankly, you’ve failed to address the basic point that is constantly missed, and should be underscored by this thread’s topic: Prohibition isn’t effective at curbing drug abuse and its consequences, and in-fact causes more of the very problems you’re trying to argue drug prohibition avoids. Until you speak to this very plain argument, you’ve really just pretended to make arguments. No one here is arguing that people should use drugs, but that self-destructive drug users who have not committed any crimes should not be treated as criminals, since that’s only going to statistically make them into a violent drug user that will hurt society.


Do you think that otherwise normal, sane average people take PCP and then go kill people? The only people I know that do PCP are crazy psychotic motherfuckers that scare me when they’re not on drugs. The mean drunks I know are the kinds of people who would still drink even though they know they let out their pent-up anger when they do. PEOPLE make bad decisions, drugs don’t. Bad drivers kill people, cars don’t. Self-righteous assholes shoot people, guns don’t. You try to police these things instead of the people, and you make those destructive personalities financially and socially lucrative.

I’m not sure where you got that I was talking about prohibition, I was talking about the war of drugs. Everything Greg brought up is nonsense about Republicans and the CIA forming a military dictatorship which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and something about the prison-industrial complex and privatization of prisons, neither or which has anything to do with the war on drugs. Private prisons are a non-entity when it comes to discussion of the penal system.

At any rate, people who use drugs are criminals and I fail to see why letting them self-destruct does any good for society. I’ve stated support of programs that support rehabilitation so I don’t know what you want me to say. These people aren’t going to get help on their own and left to their own devices, are more of an issue to others. Just because someone can take PCP on the weekend doesn’t mean that their choice exists in isolation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is this whole Anti-Union thing bugging you guys?

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

LOL…Momma. Due to my basic “ignorance” in many areas (Internet//texting acronyms being high on the list),,I had to look QFT up to be sure ya were telling me to: Quit Fucking Talking.

Thanks to YOU & randal for shedding some light on the purpose, the importance, the need, and the benefits (both to the union members and society at large) of collective bargaining.

Good grief, ppl. Please, stop maligning unions. Most of ya haven’t a clue how workers were treated PRE-unions. My wife is from West Virginia….coal mining country. She can tell ya tales about “the company” that would make ya puke. Until 1900, most of the population was rural agrarian (lived on small farms). Those kids that left the farms for the “better pay” (esp. during the "dirty 30’s) of the manufacturing in the cities soon discovered just how little their humanity was regarded by the industrial magnates. These rural “yokels” weren’t humans…they were merely “tools” for the manufacturing process.

Let’s look at the heart of what unions are all about. Let’s not call these organizations “unions”. Let’s call them: We the people. Haven’t ya ever heard our nation called a “union”? Don’t we citizens do “collective bargaining” when we cast our votes on candidates and issues?

Sure, unions have of late fallen in repute. Largely due to the corruption of the leadership.
BUT, geeeeee…guess what? It sure isn’t the union members who “pay off” those leaders. It’s “management”. It’s a major ploy of theirs used to win the battle of “greed”. Other “tricks-of-the-trade” include

Just what the fuck is wrong w/ the “little guy” wanting a fair share of what they produce?
What is wrong w/ the “little guy” wanting a say in how he is governed?
What is wrong w/ the “little guy”, period?
Are any of you on this forum NOT the “little guy”?
Why are you so strongly against something that is nothing more than a process that is designed to COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN TO ENSURE BASIC HUMAN DECENCY?

QFT actually means quoted for truth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pirated games moral?

Originally posted by Beryllium8:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Different situation. You can’t pay the creator of the water. But you can pay the creator of a song. It’s his creation. You usually get a song because you like the music. If you want it, pay for it, if you don’t want it, play it yourself or move along.

Nobody gets this. Content is free, not the containers.

The content is very much what is protected under copyright, patents, and so on, not to mention that you could be brought into a civil suit regarding it. The programming may be a bunch of lines of code, but placed together in a computer program makes it his content. If the container is the CD or digital distribution platform, it doesn’t matter, since they were given permission to distribute that content. Taking the content without paying for it is one issue, taking it and making it freely available, or worse, charging for it yourself, are all taking the content, placing it in your own container, without permission of the owner.

If something is open source, this changes the issue entirely or if the author says that he doesn’t really mind or so on.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Marijauna causes schizophrenia!? Even the bit about car accidents I’d need to see some evidence to back that up, but schizophrenia? You won’t find evidence to back that one up, unless it’s the disinformation pumped out by anti-drug anti-awareness campaigns.

Also, ‘people with mental problems’ are not ostracized by the public and school systems. They were in the 50s, but then, so was marijauna use.

Oh, wait.

Some studies have found a correlation with heavy marijuana usage and the development of psychotic disorders. That said, work is still being done and I wouldn’t make any strong claims about it.

A lot of you guys are picking some pretty horrible sources. Wikipedia? Seriously? I’m not even going to entertain that deluded notion. You have no credibility. And some site that is talking about the GOP creating a Fascist military dictatorship? And linking things like private prisons as a “serious problem?”

All of your arguments about victimless crimes show absolutely no understanding of the nature of why they are crimes or who else is affected by someone’s choice to speed down the street or take heroin. And you’re arguing that a person’s responsibility for their actions make them NOT legally accountable? That is completely contrary to the basis of a felony. Face it, if its a felony, the state has to intervene.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

And are you saying that drugs are bad or that they hurt no-one? You can’t tell me things such as Meth or Heroin should be legalized or available for public consumption nor that the use of drugs does not have impacts that ultimately hurt the whole of society.

The militarization of the police force? You’re completely wrong. Even though SWAT is being expanded and primarily deals with cases involving narcotics and gangs, community oriented policing is the primary police strategy and it is designed around working with the community pro-actively rather than acting in an occupational matter. Hell, LAPD has been using this strategy since the 70s. The truth is that being paramilitary doesn’t actually serve the state’s interests since its too expensive and requires a lot of training, and on the whole, the rates of crime are slowly lowering or evening out. The early 90s and late 80s was a different beast entirely.

Crimes that hurt no-one? The criminal justice system doesn’t recognize the concept of “victimless crime”. That concept is complete bullshit and you should know enough not to bring it up in a legal discussion. People are accountable for their actions, and you can be as Libertarian as you want on the subject, but selling or using things like Meth, Heroin, PCP, and so on, cannot be something that a society allows, if only for its own self-protection. That said, just punishing those who are arrested for drug use doesn’t accomplish anything, the war needs to be more proactive and less response-oriented, the less people using drugs, the whole system breaks down.

And the matter of the CIA is completely separate from the war of drugs. Face it, the CIA sells black-market shit all the time, its part of what do and continue to do.

And the private prison industrial complex is such a small entity, encompassing less than 100,000 people, that its not relevant. Prisons are overburdened, but treating this as a simple medical issue while ignoring the legal elements of drug use and abuse is just as reckless.

You cannot separate this from the legal aspect, even if they were partly controlled or legalized, it would still fall under law enforcement to control it. Alcohol is bad enough, and I’m not going to support the legalization of further drugs. Things like Marijuana are on the low-end of the drug spectrum and I’m not too concerned about it beyond the potential for abuse.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by anelaid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Wake up, Winny.
I said: Bin Lauden HIMSELF said he was responsible—GUILTY—for the various crimes he commited.

You don’t know that. You weren’t there.

I’m not sure why we make the assumption he deserves the death sentence, anyway.

Also, Stalin had an actor who was in all his movies. Osama might have one as well, saying things that sounded bravado-esque, not under orders.

You’re being completely absurd, since your refuting a reasonable claim with a completely unsubstantiated one. I can see us going to a location and Osama NOT being there and us hiding that we went there because of bad intelligence, and us killing the wrong guy, but I think a claim that Osama is not dead is absurd since all it would take is for Osama to show up again to ruin this whole plot. Osama, to the best of my knowledge, did not have a body-double and the actor you are referring to never played as Stalin outside of movies.

Not to mention the complexity in hiding something that is very much under scrutiny.

Anyways, there was no way for us to know whether or not he had a gun on him at the moment we conducted the raid, but a lot of people around him had guns and the chances of him being armed is pretty good.

Not really. Read Karmakoolkid’s posts: I’m doing what he’s doing. He said that we aren’t sure of anything because we weren’t there.

If we are almost certain that Osama is guilty, then there’s no harm in taking him to court. He can’t win.

In this case, I would support taking him to court. It makes us looks better ONLY if we have a fair trial.

Show trials only make things worse.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is this whole Anti-Union thing bugging you guys?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

To be honest, the entire education system needs an overhaul.

Definitely, but the public school system needs to be the focus of it since its in the most dire need in my experience.

Ultimately, an improved education system will help with a lot of the other problems we are seeing related to crime, prison, and so on.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Since you haven’t presented any facts to support your position, ‘the truth’ is a rather slippery thing to hold on to.

No one has done that so calling out one party for it is pretty pointless.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Wake up, Winny.
I said: Bin Lauden HIMSELF said he was responsible—GUILTY—for the various crimes he commited.

You don’t know that. You weren’t there.

I’m not sure why we make the assumption he deserves the death sentence, anyway.

Also, Stalin had an actor who was in all his movies. Osama might have one as well, saying things that sounded bravado-esque, not under orders.

I think the point Winnabago is making is that confessions of crimes do not merit guilty verdicts. Even if you know he’s guilty, you still need a trial to assemble the evidence and arrive at that verdict.

However, since it would have likely been a long and costly show-trial just like Eichmann was, and since it’s almost certain that he wouldn’t tell us anything (outside of torture, which would sort of contradict the lawful ideal here), it was probably better to simply kill him and be done with it. It’s not as though he was a head of state—there’s nothing in US law prohibiting an assassination of a non-state actor and a terrorist to boot.

We didn’t base our belief of Osama’s guilt on his confession alone, we already had other evidence. Since the organization he is in charge of and so on is involved with it and its clear he was involved or approved of its actions, I’m not sure what other evidence we need to assemble.

The CIA/NSA/Military isn’t law enforcement or bound to the same standards of evidential procedures and to apply it to them makes a mess of the process.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is this whole Anti-Union thing bugging you guys?

They also get longer vacation time them most.

At least in California, the entire public school system is a mess and the unions are as much of the problem as the government is. I’m not saying to abolish unions, since they are essential in helping the worker, but the current system isn’t doing that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is this whole Anti-Union thing bugging you guys?

Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by anelaid:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by Winnabago:
So now we should ban unions? Why, exactly? Putting it in the context of holding something hostage, you appear to be saying that employees have no right to collectively threaten the production of those they work for. I can agree with this, except when you look at their methods: quitting and protesting. By not working for the government/corporation collectively, you appear to be saying that are hurting that production, which is bad.

The message here is that employees, like serfs, don’t quite belong to themselves.

The problem being that Unions can be corrupt and undermine the interests of the worker, which is my problem with the current system.

I think the point of this discussion is that there is a balance between the right to protest and leave one’s post and the damage this does to the education system, essentially, whether or not putting a halt on education is worth it.

That means we should ban them, thus putting the power in the hands of the authority, that doesn’t even pretend to hold the best interest of the worker in mind?

I never even implied that is the correct course of action, I’m only saying that Unions are corrupt and not helping the worker. A better solution would be to make it so the unions aren’t corrupt.

I don’t care if they pretend to work for the best interest if they aren’t.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by anelaid:
Originally posted by greg:

While the reaction to the war of drugs is mixed, it hasn’t been nearly at the level to be called a complete disaster.

Then you’re not paying enough attention.

I beg to differ.

LOL,,,,ya can “beg” all ya wnat…
THAT ain’t a gonna change the truth one iota.

YOU must remember that I am old,,,
I remember when that “war” began.
I remember when “drugs” (both legal and “street”) weren’t a “cultural mainstay”.

I remember when a person could get a life sentence for mere possession of a reefer.
NOW, in many jurisdictions, it is only a misdemeanor.

It doesn’t matter if you are old or not, it doesn’t change the truth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Wake up, Winny.
I said: Bin Lauden HIMSELF said he was responsible—GUILTY—for the various crimes he commited.

You don’t know that. You weren’t there.

I’m not sure why we make the assumption he deserves the death sentence, anyway.

Also, Stalin had an actor who was in all his movies. Osama might have one as well, saying things that sounded bravado-esque, not under orders.

You’re being completely absurd, since your refuting a reasonable claim with a completely unsubstantiated one. I can see us going to a location and Osama NOT being there and us hiding that we went there because of bad intelligence, and us killing the wrong guy, but I think a claim that Osama is not dead is absurd since all it would take is for Osama to show up again to ruin this whole plot. Osama, to the best of my knowledge, did not have a body-double and the actor you are referring to never played as Stalin outside of movies.

Not to mention the complexity in hiding something that is very much under scrutiny.

Anyways, there was no way for us to know whether or not he had a gun on him at the moment we conducted the raid, but a lot of people around him had guns and the chances of him being armed is pretty good.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by greg:

While the reaction to the war of drugs is mixed, it hasn’t been nearly at the level to be called a complete disaster.

Then you’re not paying enough attention.

I beg to differ.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: there is a new prohibition era

Originally posted by greg:

We’re already living in a new prohibition era. It’s called the war on drugs, and it has been a complete disaster, just as alcohol prohibition in the 1930s was.

Too many people drink alcohol and underestimate its danger to put up with a second alcohol prohibition era, though. It would be quickly repealed.

While the reaction to the war of drugs is mixed, it hasn’t been nearly at the level to be called a complete disaster.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man Beaten, imprisoned, threatened with execution, and sexually assaulted for converting to Christianity.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:
Wait, so it’s religion’s fault that men misinterpret it, not men’s fault for misinterpreting? BEAUTIFUL Logic.

YES. Ambiguity anyone?

You have no idea what “false understanding” what means and what “misinterpret” means.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man Beaten, imprisoned, threatened with execution, and sexually assaulted for converting to Christianity.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:
So if someone promotes an understanding of the religion that is false, its really on that person head that these things happen and their warped version of religion.

Beautiful logic. Omg. ::facepalm:: No, seriously, that is beautiful logic. You made me facepalm.

If it is a teaching of religion that is false and goes against the basis of that religion, its not the fault of the religion that its misconstrued.

If they are promoting a false understanding of it, that is their fault, especially if they are educated about the tenants of their faith.

Not if they were honestly ignorant and made a genuinely uneducated understanding, then I’d say its still not the fault of the religion.

In any event, just because someone is an authority or claims to be one for religion, doesn’t mean he speaks for the entirety of it, regardless of how loud or influential he is.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is blood taxation moral?

I don’t see any problem with making it mandatory, providing that there is quality-control.

I’m not sure if mandatory donation is the best word for it, but companies have similar programs so I don’t see how letting the state do it is wrong.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man Beaten, imprisoned, threatened with execution, and sexually assaulted for converting to Christianity.

I get the direction your coming from, but ultimately that doesn’t have to do with religion, 9/11 was largely a political move that had religion as an element of it, but had more to do with CIA blowback coming back in a very large way.

Not to mention that suicide bombing, from my understanding of the Quran, isn’t something that can be supported.

So if someone promotes an understanding of the religion that is false, its really on that person head that these things happen and their warped version of religion.

And the problem with citing the Taliban is that they are a pretty loose association at this point and radicalized under Osama’s leadership, since Osama is rather radical in his religious and political views, this didn’t go down a good path.

And I wasn’t really paying attention to you either, lol, you keep ignoring the arguments that don’t fit you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is this whole Anti-Union thing bugging you guys?

Originally posted by EPR89:

Teachers should not be able to protest?! Teachers have to live too. If there is something wrong then they have to be able to voice their opinion. The result of that can only be a better education for the children.

Regarding the money aspect: maybe the US have a higher GDP than other countries, but the US also have a higher population than other countries and thus probably more teachers.

No, we have pretty bad teacher:student ratios, especially in our public school system.

To the best of my knowledge, if this is about Ohio or whatever, the schools weren’t doing that good to begin with so maybe this isn’t that great of a loss to have them out. :V

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Man Beaten, imprisoned, threatened with execution, and sexually assaulted for converting to Christianity.

Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Implicatures. Learn them.

Most Christians aren’t educated about their own religion, but I am

You and every other Christian, guy.

looking at the parts that morons make it wrong and criticizing it because you’re not a part of this group.

Lol? Right, that’s right — that’s exactly why I critique religion.

Let’s back up here — I’m referring to religion on a whole, and saying I have no qualms with individual practicers of religion. You two are saying you have qualms with… me. See the difference here?

I’m saying that I have problems with what you are saying and that you are just as bad as the people you claim to be against, I have nothing against the movement of atheism.

I’m not actively judging you, you may be completely stupid in this point but other than that, I don’t really care about you so stop victimizing himself.

At any rate, you’re not just going against the religion, you are targeting us as well and trying to hide behind attacking the group.

And you’re not doing a good job.

edit: To add, his point is that you can’t look at a group from an outsider’s perspective group, especially when looking at the fringes, and expect to make an accurate judgement of the nature of the group.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Osama Bin Laden finally killed

Originally posted by casspi4three:
Originally posted by anelaid:
Originally posted by casspi4three:

So we give Osama a fair trial. Would it really be fair? He would get the death penalty anyway. If it’s not the military being corrupt and messing up, it’s going to be something else. And frankly I say he probably deserved death. I don’t have much problem with how things went down. He wasn’t an American Citizen, he was classified as a war criminal, and capturing him had the potential to cause unwanted problems down the road that wasn’t worth the gain.

It would be beating around a bush.

I doubt the military would have down a show-trial with the amount of scrutiny this would go under.

I’ve heard mix things, I heard from some sources that we were on orders to shoot-to-kill but others that we were told to bring him alive if possible.

Given how tense these firefights can be, making sudden movements is enough to appear aggressive. For someone like Osama, a known terrorist, if he made a sudden hand movement to his waist, as if he was bringing out to gun, I’d shoot first.

That’s really the thing though. What were the plans and why did they not happen. I’m sure the Military wanted this guy alive. He had potential information that would probably try to get from him (unlikely). People want to think righteous when the truth is they’re just talking out of their a**. Osama has U.S Military experience when it comes to combat. One move is a potential hazard and whatever happened probably happened for a reason.

I’m not sure, the trade-off is whether or not him being dead outweighs the advantage of him being alive so we can interrogate him.