View Single Post
  #35  
Old 05-03-2011, 02:18 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Osama bin Laden is dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Hitler and Osama were about on the same level, albeit Hitler was able to draw closer to achieving his objective of genocide by several millions of more casualties due to Nazi Germany commanding more power and funding than what Al-Qaeda has. Given a hypothetical scenario where Al-Qaeda had as much power, they very likely would have attempted to use similar methods, rather than striking at nations as sleeper cells. Honestly, it's not hard to see that Osama, with Hitler's militaristic power, funding, and influence, would have used propaganda to twist beliefs of Sharia law on a wider scale, and very likely would have called for a genocide of all those not practicing Islam, even though it's clear the motives were deeper than religious beliefs. Osama was using the Islamic faith as a catalyst to achieve his own objectives and draw those who followed the religion to be mislead and misguided by his teaching. And yes, this is exactly how it happened with Nazi Germany.
Hitler's methods were quite interesting in a sense that he's one of the most powerful propaganda machines to ever exist in human history. What he can do is to create monsters out of regular Joes like you and me via various methods of propaganda. It's surprisingly similar to the way Glenn Beck and the church of evangelicals work on home soil. While we cannot ascertain that Osama would use similar methods, it would at least be plausible for him to do so under the circumstance that he actually is both charismatic and is not actually oppressive to his own people, neither of which we can vie for as characteristics of that man. Possible, but unaccountable.

Hitler also has vengeance as one of the major reasons as to why Germany was so eager to go into war. Gosh that is a common theme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Call it bad luck or misfortune, but the damage that Osama did at the World Trade Center was not expected. No one thought that both towers were going to fall, but the structural damage done was the result of a chain reaction, and the success of the attack paired with the massive collateral damage gave Al-Qaeda additional morale. It also put many Americans in a state of fear, concern, and anger, which spread to other countries as well.
This isn't going to change in the near future and certainly isn't going to change ten years from now. The fact that this incident happened changed America likely until its eventual fall (as all nations will, eventually, but probably not within our lifetimes). The thing is, if not Al Qaeda, some other nut job group would take the role of the "terrorist". I do, however, agree with your sentiments here, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Unfortunately, Osama was a person that could not be reasoned with. He had damaged a symbol of American culture, freedom, and democracy, which in turn damaged the economy as well, along with the security and comfort of innocent people. After accomplishing this level of success, it only encouraged him to continue, find more ways to cause damage, and put strong, powerful nations in fear and at his mercy. And he accomplished this to quite a degree, and even managed to cause tensions between Americans and Islamic followers and Arabic people. However, after we took a step back and separated fact from myth, it was clear, blaming Muslims and followers of the Islamic faith for what Osama did was wrong. It was no different than what Hitler did, obscuring truths and beliefs to instill different perceptions, which in turn he could use to accomplish his own objectives, regardless of how destructive and deadly they were.
A sad part of the number of hidden casualties on home soil that we've yet to calculate. I wonder how many Brown people in general were caught in the crossfire that way? Unlike say the Japanese in WWII, the blame here was on a religious sect. The problem here is that most US whites can't tell one from another and just group them all together.

This reminds me of the ongoing conflict between Pakistan and India and how deep seated such a difference between two religions can get. It's interesting that such is the case between Christians and the rest of the religions (and atheism for that matter) within the country. We are, ironically, only bound together by money and forced tolerance rather than empathy and voluntary tolerance. It's not going to go away anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
Because of this, war was necessary, Osama was not a person that could be allowed to continue accumulating power, influence, and command. If we allowed for him keep gathering more power and influence, the attacks would have gotten worse, the damage would have been more severe, and in time, it may have escalated into a situation beyond our control. Casualties in World War II were massive, costly, and incalculable, and while the casualties in the war on terror are still costly, they are far, far less than what we saw in WWII, something that this could have turned into if someone had not done anything about it.
It's interesting to note that Osama can really never amount to anything more than what he did with the resources he had, under the pressure from Russia and China. while I don't think it would escalate to the scale you say it will, it certainly can escalate above the point of 911. The question remains on how much though.

I do agree that unless we have a better method, then war is one option we can go under. According to your next post, you seem to mistaken my intentions. I should address that here. My intentions is stating that there are several factors involved in this whole ordeal.

1. At the moment, there were only two plausible options: do nothing or war.
2. Of these two options, war seems a better choice than doing nothing under the consideration that America has a huge standing army and also the fact that doing nothing doesn't solve anything.
3. This doesn't mean there isn't a third option that may be more optimal. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a genius and can't solve world peace for a reason. To stop at point 2 is erroneous because it undermines the works of courageous men like Nelson Mandela, who found a third option to achieve peace in their country. I am not pleading for this man to remain free, but I am stating that we should continuously strive for this third option. Now that Osama is dead, some other guy will show up, and we should use the time to reflect on this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
And this is why Americans are celebrating his death, because it marks the end of a terrorist leader's tyranny and the possibility of them claiming even more innocent lives. If Hitler had been stopped in a similar fashion, it would have also marked a significant cornerstone in history, and it is very likely there would have been celebration also. If the Nazi regime was stopped earlier, chances are very good many millions of lives would have been spared. Unfortunately, there is no way to go back in time, what was done was done, but we can still learn from it, and understand how and why these events came to pass, and that knowledge can help us prevent something just as costly and catastrophic from happening in the future.
Optimism bias
The act of killing Osama, don't get me wrong, does deal a blow to Al Quaeda. I just don't think it's as great of a blow as we think it is. To say that it marks the beginning of the end of terrorism is overly optimistic at best, and foolishly wrong at worst. I'd like to address your other post with regards to Osama not surrendering here: why would he surrender and have a life worse than death? This is exactly the reason why Hitler committed suicide when things all went downhill.

Most Americans stop at the emotional outbreak you had and don't stop to reflect on it. They certainly don't think as deeply as even you did. I spoke with a friend of mine. American. He celebrated, but really had no idea why when it came down to it. The guy, of course, is a colleague of mine as well, obviously of above average intelligence (well I'd like to pretend that doctors are on average slightly above average in intelligence anyways).

WWII is also in itself also a fault of the corporate structure, but I will not dwell on that. That is, attempts at stopping Hitler early on was blocked by the corporations themselves. This is surprisingly similar in story to Osama, except replacing corporation with the American government. By technicality, all we had to do was not fund and train Osama in the first place and 911 might not even happen.

Thing is, America hasn't learned anything, unless you're willing to state that immediate retaliatory attacks is what we learned. The only thing this has accomplished is vengeance. We haven't learned anything about alternative methods to solve the puzzle. That's the key for us, and I agree that it's a difficult nut to crack. What I do know is that whatever that is happening on home soil isn't what we should be doing, but it's the best we have so far.

On a personal note, I can't get behind celebrating the death of a man in such a manner, whoever it can be. Perhaps it's within the wiring of a doctor. We would rescue rapists just as easily as any other man or woman on the street. As such, it is not within my nature to celebrate like that. I see other doctors do it, and it disgusts me how we can apply such a double standard when the AMA code of ethics dictate us not to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Emolga View Post
The war on weapons of mass destruction is also still necessary, and is arguably more serious considering that if a large amount of these weapons were used in rapid succession, you would be looking at damage and destruction on apocalyptic levels, and the targets of those weapons would very likely be rendered into a state that would be far too destroyed to retaliate, giving the attacker additional leverage over whoever might oppose them.
The rest of your post is a repeat and rewording of what was previously posted (in the same post, interestingly enough). I would like to make a simple statement that perhaps would shed light on this matter: what is the difference between Iraq and North Korea and the difference between our behaviours against them? The answer, of course, is that Iraq never had weapons and we attacked anyway, and North Korea do and we can't do much. It's pretty much the reason why we've left North Korea alone for so long.

I think I've taken the time to address some of the more pertinent aspects of the most recent post as well. Hope this sheds some light into what I'm thinking.
Reply With Quote