Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

I know Austria and the UK intimately and there are more church-goers in Austria than the UK. In poll after poll, less people believe in God in the UK than any other western country in the world.

The Czech Republic is now more religious than it was under communism.

The problem is that western countries now have an influx of muslim migrants who believe in Allah with a passion and think that it is a capital offence not to believe.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011...

Parts of the world are literally losing their religion, according to a new study.

The findings unveiled at an APS meeting in Dallas show that religion may become extinct in Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
The study, conducted by Richard Wiener of the University of Arizona, and Daniel Abrams and Haley Yaple of Northwestern University, took data stretching back 100 years for those nine countries.

You fools are amazing. Religion is literally evaporating in New Zealand, and members of the local NZ Objectivist Club are waxing hysterical that religion will somehow destroy civilization.

LOL!

Both.

Well, which is it? You simply assert that man is obliged to follow the "laws of the land". You give no reason. The latter statement blatantly contradicts the former statement. If justice is left to God, then why is the Christian obliged to respect the laws of man?

Christians are here to bear witness.

God creates all, even the wickedness of man. It's a nasty little game, like the sadistic parent who allows (actually:causes) his child to do wickedness, then punishes him for it.

Never mind, the insanity will all make sense on judgment day.

Rand opens her essay, The Argument from Intimidation, with

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument

An argument that is not an argument? An A that is not an A?! Oops!!

(Rand doesn't just mean that there is a so-called argument which, in fact, is not an argument. No. A few paragraphs later she insists that her argument which, in fact, is not an argument "should be classified as a logical fallacy".)

Now for Rosie's other two answers.

3.

But it is definitely the case that if death were considered and judged to be the appropriate and commensurate measure of justice, from a Christian's point of view, it would ONLY be this way if the person deciding this had considered that God's will would be best served in so doing. (see what was written above and also the Step Three reading about this attitude in a much broader way , and the mind/attitude required of a judge.)

It is this principle, I think, that Richard relies on when he moves from prison to death - what he is saying, I believe, is that the first step is to consider that the wrongdoer be spared until such time as due consideration and all the relevant facts are brought to the attention of the judge for her consideration as stated above. His movement then to declare that death was appropriate, was simply an expression of his agreement that justice in the eyes of God (and the law) was met and made conmmensurate with his acts of wrongdoing, by taking away OBL's life.

A rather stellar example of circular reasoning. In two excruciating paragraphs, all Rosie has said is: a Christian judge can pronounce death if it is in accordance God's will. Ring ring...this is what you have to prove. You have to prove death is appropriate for bin Laden according to Christian doctrine.

As Richard instructed us: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink."

Following this piece of "God's will", the Christian judge would have a hard time pronouncing death. After all, it is a bit hard to feed bin Laden and quench his thirst once he is put to death. Don't ya think, Rosie?

4.

"Revenge, by contrast, is a wholly human and worldly/sinful response to an act of wrongdoing. The "justice" is administered with little or no regard to the spirit and laws of God, and harshly so with regard to the law of the land and cares not whether the "justice" is commensurate. The judgement is carried out also, by contrast, with an hateful and spiteful attitude/s (i.e., without love) and which attitude is, of course, a sin in itself if you read the reading of Step One.

I've already gone over the last part in my previous post, but would you also prosecute the judge (prosecuting the murderer) for transgressing "God's will" if he carried out a judgment with a "hateful and spiteful attitude"? Jeepers, let's hope you never, EVER become a judge (and stay as far away from the law as possible).

In re your "revenge" argument, I hate to tell you this, but you are arguing against your own position and wrong on both counts. A common utilitarian critique of retribution is that it is based on revenge.

And this is certainly true of the Christian version of retribution. In the Christian's case, it is not tied to the actions of the criminal, but rather text arbitrarily selected by Bible Grippers to support whatever they deem as "God's will".

Consider the Old Testament urging the stoning to death for: being a witch or "wizard" (is that the end of God??), for taking "accursed things", for a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night, for disobeying one's parents, for working on the Sabbath, etc. etc.

Could there be any greater display of vengeance than to stone people to death for violating God's arbitrary edicts, for things that are not even crimes in the West and are not force against anybody?

Or does Rosie like the New Testament version? Some Christians argue that Jesus left the Old Testament law intact during the Sermon on the Mount, and thus the same retribution applies. Or maybe Rosie wants to go with the "love" in the New Testament, in which case bin Laden will receive ham turkey sandwiches (except on Fridays during Lent, of course) and diet Coke, and the punishment meted out in 40-day increments perhaps. True, this might not be "vengeance", but it is nevertheless monstrous and calling it disporportionate to the crime is the understatement of the year.

Yes, being insulated from this nonsense in the West, we can all have great big belly laughs at it. Reed arguing we should pluck people's eyes out. Rosie and Goode saying no. Or maybe the victim should pluck out his own eye and give it to the perpetrator? Rosie says retribution, Goode says utilitarian. This passage is literal, this one is not. This one taken on its face, this one trimmed back to "lesser offenses". This passage counts, this one does not. Yada yada yada. A fine, fine example of intrinsicism collapsing into subjectivism when trying to put it into practice.

It ceases to be funny, however, when Rosie urges her Christian judge to abide by whatever his arbitrary version of "God's will" is, and then forcing it on the rest of us through the law. Let's all count our lucky stars that Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison believed the relationship between a man and his god (if he should have one) was a "personal matter" and should be walled off from the law.

In contrast, retribution based on secular and objective morality is based on the criminal's actions. Contrary to your assertion, the "proportionality principle" is one of the bedrocks of this type of justice and retribution. That is, punishment is meted out in proportion to the harm one caused by initiating force against another--from petty theft to first degree murder. Notice this is NOT "vengeance", which is simply somebody responding with anger/hatred and without regard to the harm caused by the perp, i.e. it is disportionate. No, the proportion stems from the perp's actions and the punishment is meted out in proportion to this harm. For evidence of this conception, look at any state's penal code and examine how criminal punishments are graded in precisely this manner.

Rosie,

I am going to break up my response into a few parts and respond as time permits. The last response being a rebuke of Zimmerman's alleged "scholarship". And no, Rosie, this "feast" he presents is nothing new, and, quite frankly, makes me ill because of the number of times these falsehoods have been repeated. Anyway, let's get to it:

1. Rosie writes:

"The Christian does indeed, and is obliged to, leave justice to God..."

then

First, he is obliged to respect the laws of the land (and there is reason for this).

Well, which is it? You simply assert that man is obliged to follow the "laws of the land". You give no reason. The latter statement blatantly contradicts the former statement. If justice is left to God, then why is the Christian obliged to respect the laws of man? Indeed, both you and the article in Step Three say that God will administer justice in this lifetime or the next. So why is there any need for man to act? Presumably, God knows "His will" best and man could only foul it up. And again, you say that justice is reserved for Him. So where again is this necessity for man to carry out justice and respect something that could be contrary to God's will?

I find it quite extraordinary that the idea--both stipulated by you and the Step Three article--that certain moral principles (eg. "turn the other cheek") only apply to "lesser offenses", and not offenses like murder, rape, etc. One would think that if these are paramount moral principles, the more "serious" the indiscretion the more they should apply.

However, it is obvious why you and that article seek to trim back those principles in this manner. The idea of "turning the other cheek" to somebody like bin Laden is monstrous and would make you a "sacrificial lamb" to any person who came along and used force. It encourages and incentivizes the use of force. Some concept of justice, that.

Be that as it may, you go on to contradict yourself once again:

Second, the arbiter of justice, or judge, if she is also Christian, must exercise her judgement bearing in mind at all times not only any relevant statutory or common law , but also the nature of grace, love and justice which is in effect the legal discretion that is granted to any judge, and weigh this against the criminal's acts of wrongdoing, his responses in both thought and action to his actions afterwards and whether any semblance of restitution was made or repentance given at any time thereafter (or not) - thereby applying a mix of worldly legal precedent and a divine sense of grace, if you like, in exercising her final judgement.

Well, Rosie, you and article just got done saying that certain principles only apply to "lesser offenses". But a judge is very much concerned with "serious offenses" like rape, murder, etc. So according to your earlier position and the Step Three article, the judge would NOT concern himself with this "divine sense of grace" (eg. "turn the other cheek") when judging murder, rape, etc. Now you are saying he should. So which is it? Pick a position, any position.

BTW, how does one distinguish "lesser offenses" from more "serious offenses"?

2.

Retribution for the offense vs the attitude towards the sinner are entirely separate things from a Christian's viewpoint; and he can separate the two in practice also so not just theoretical. (Love the sinner, hate the sin.) I think this distinction may have confused your understanding of Richard's words, perhaps.

No, I think you are confused with Richard's position. He is advocating a utilitarian position, you are advocating retribution. These are the two generally competing theories of justice and punishment. You two better huddle up right quick and get your stories straight. Gee, wotta surprise, Christians not being able to decide which position Christianity actually supports.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin". The ole' mind-body dichotomy, eh? Rosie, there is no such thing as actions apart from the actor. We do not punish disembodied actions. We punish the person who commits those actions because he is morally responsible for those actions. Please tell me how you propose to punish just the actions.

Think about how vicious this concept is when we sever the actions from the actor. A person can commit murder and the Christian demands that we still love him. Do we love the murderer in the same way as, say, a businessman? Who profits from such morality? It ain't the businessman, who is forced to accept and pay for parasitic criminal, while the criminal is busy demanding Christian "love" from such victims.

Oh, but it gets more vicious. Here we see Rosie on the flip side of this dichotomy:

2. Sin is not just these violent crimes of the world but also includes the evil thoughts of our minds.

3. Thus it is our thoughts that need to be considered when deliberating whether our reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death is right or wrong.

Say good night to any connection with the 1st Amendment and the Constitution. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression, no matter how reprehensible or evil we may judge one's thoughts. The law embodied by the Constitution protects thoughts, and punishes for actions.

Now we see the flip side of the mind-body dichotomy. Is Rosie's hypothetical Christian judge, who is suppose to blend legal precedent with God's "divine sense of grace" and the "spirit" of God's laws, going to start prosecuting for thought crimes? The answer is yes. After all, this "sin", according to "God's will", includes the "evil thoughts of our minds". And the Christian judge, according to Rosie, is obliged to consider this when making his judgments.

It is hard to pick a winner from the catalogue of evil premises in the Step Three article, but this one may just take the cake:

"The central thought Jesus expresses is that such thoughts [anger and hatred] are tantamount to murder in God's eyes." And he links to 1 John 3:15: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."

So the murderer gets loved (according to "Love the sinner, hate the sin"), while the person who hates the murderer gets hell fire. According to the Christian, this is the "good" that we are suppose to overcome "evil" with.

Does this mean that those who hated bin Laden are now going to be prosecuted for murder by Rosie's Christian judge who must blend "God's will" into his decisions?

Downright evil.

Excuse me while I go thank the Founding Fathers for their separation of of church and state and the fact that a judge's oath is to the Constitution, and not to arbitrary caprice of "God's will" as interpreted by people like Rosie.

...you've got Goode shitting nuggets.

Keep up the good work.

Now you just need to deflower Rosie

I've wrapped it up with Richard.

Thank God for that.

Uh yes, sweetie pie, as a lawyer you can say I am acquainted with "jurisprudence, history, and the law", whereas I can see from your arguments that you are not. I asked Richard if he agreed with you (and he doesn't if you understood the competing theories of justice), so that I could kill to birds with one stone. He went another direction, unfortunately. Don't you worry, I'll get to arguments once I've wrapped it up with Richard. I would please ask that you hold off with any more of your drivel until I've had a chance to respond, I can only take so much.

Thanks.

Goode now:

"I didn't argue that Osama bin Laden should be killed. I argued that he should be stopped."

Goode then:

"Kasper: 'Or we could find the bastard and lovingly shoot him and then lovingly dump his body at sea.'

I didn't want to say it but, under the circumstances... yes.

It occurred to me that he was already in prison. Self-confined to a grotty, low-rent compound surrounded by 18-foot high concrete walls topped with razor wire. No phone and no internet access."

Yes, yes you did reach the conclusion that it was ok to kill him. The particular form of "stopping" him in this case is killing him, and you argued for it. Killing him is one way of "stopping" him, duh.

And you are not drawing similarities, you stated that "he was already in prison". Besides, the "similarity" to prison argument is even worse. By your logic, if somebody meets these "similarities", would it be ok to go ahead and execute them? Yikes!

Goode now:

"I did not say that Osama bin Laden deserved prison. I did not offer an argument for this conclusion. Since I did not offer an argument, I have not thereby committed petitio principii."

Goode then:

"'Love your neighbour as yourself' obliges us to put a stop to Osama bin Laden terrorising the neighbourhood. If necessary, by lovingly placing him in a prison cell."

Yes, yes you did commit the fallacy of question begging. Again, your conclusion here is to place him in a prison cell as one form of "stopping him". And yes, yes you did argue for this conclusion by using the 'Love thy neighbor" quote. In fact, we don't even have to go back, you contradict yourself in the very same post, albeit with a new wrinkle thrown in:

Goode:

"I argued for the conclusion that we had an obligation to stop Osama bin Laden from terrorising the neighborhood. If necessary, by putting him in prison or (as I conceded to Kasper) by killing him. My premise is the utilitarian moral principle, 'Love your neighbour as yourself', as taught by Jesus. To love someone is to value their happiness. To love your neighbour is to value, as Bentham put it, 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'. To love your neighbour as yourself is to heed Bentham's dictum, 'each to count for one, and none for more than one'."

Imprisoning him or killing him is of the wider class of actions of "stopping" OBL. So yes, you did conclude both (depending upon which post of yours one reads), and stated so explicitly as quoted above.

Secondly, this new wrinkle of attempting to shoehorn the utilitarian defense into the "Love your neighbor as yourself" principle fails. The quote does not say "Love your neighbor as will serve the greatest happiness for the greatest number". "Love your neighbor" does NOT discriminate between certain neighbors, or "the greatest number" of them. The statement, by itself, applies to the entire class of "neighbors" of which you claim OBL is part.

Nope, you are singling out OBL and treating him differently than the rest of your neighbors. That is, your practice of "love" is inconsistent among your neighbors. You are excluding him from the principle as it applies to your other neighbors. Again, in order for this argument to work, you need to provide justification for this exclusion, for this inconsistent application of the principle.

And remember the quote: "Love your neighbor as yourself". I asked you this earlier and you did not answer: your practice of "love" is to place him in a prison cell, so do you love yourself so little as to place yourself inside a prison cell? After all, you stated yourself that he is a "neighbor". So will you be going to prison or inviting death any time soon? Or do you not love yourself like you love your "neighbor" bin Laden?

Lastly, your recent inclusion of the utilitarian defense only widens the breach with Christian principles, at least according to Rosie. Bentham's utilitarian theory of justice is a consequentialist theory. That is, the theory looks forward in time to the consequences of "stopping" somebody, i.e. the protection of others from future harm.

The main flaw of this theory, however, is that it divorces punishment from the criminal's past actions. Thus, it has no basis for proportionality. If the justification is to prevent future harm, then the easiest and surest way to accomplish that goal is to simply execute the person, even for crimes like petty larceny. Thus, if you are with Rosie that punishment should be in proportion to the crime according to Christian doctrine, then your advocacy of the utilitarian defense is pushing you further away from Jesus. Sorry, Ace.

Yes, I agree that prevention and retribution are two different things. As an alleged libertarian, I don't think you want to go there as you not only lose proportion in the meting out of punishment, but it also justifies such "preventative law" measures as economic regulation. But by all means, be my guest.

But then you need to answer the question as to why prevention is preferable to retribution?

Oh, please allow me to preempt your likely attempt at word games. It is only now that you brought in the utilitarian defense, in which case retribution would not be appropriate. That is, one would not speak of a criminal "deserving" a certain kind of punishment.

However, before you were answering questions and/or trying to make distinctions on retribution vs. revenge. Now you've switched to the utilitarian defense in which case you are speaking of "stopping". Either way, it does not matter. Your conclusions of imprisoning or killing OBL fall within the wider class/conclusion of "stopping" him. So let's not play word games about "stopping" vs. "deserving".

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. "Surely you are not an advocate of Christianity and so think Christian jurisprudence is relevant to modern law, are you?" And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: "I am,"—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: "Oh, you couldn't be! Not really!" "Really." "But everybody knows that Christianity and hence Christian jurisprudence is outdated!" "I don't." "Oh, come now!" "Since I don't know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking this?" "Oh, don't be so irrational! or ridiculous!" "Will you tell me the reasons?" ""Well, really, if you don't know, I couldn't possibly tell you! [Rolls eyes then smirks sarcastically as an hilariously witty and brilliantly exposing idea strikes him.] But while we are at it, why don’t we just remove “Christian/God” and plug in “Muslim/Allah”?! " [Enormous guffaw at his own wit followed by thigh slapping and a repeated bending over and rising again motion seemingly in rhythm with his mirth.] "What irrationality! What entertainment!" he finally exclaims to his victim in an effort to clarify for he perceives she is looking somewhat puzzled - although it is actually to do with his "analogy" to Allah rather than his behaviour (puzzling as this is too, of course!).
As his hilarity and thigh-slapping gradually subsides, she speaks.
“But what can you mean by that? Aren't you at all acquainted with jurisprudence, history and law? Read this extract by Dr Zimmerman from Murdoch University! It is very goode! He clearly explains how not only is the very basis of our modern constitution and law founded on Christian jurisprudence (and very neatly brings together the ideas of the two foremost influences and creators of our legal foundations in so doing) but then he goes on to explain the actual and practical dangersto the law and its efficacy in these secular times! Especially should popular opinion become so complete in its ignorance that we might actually disregard and fail to recognise the importance of God and Christian jurisprudence to our constitution and law yet still believe that it bears any weight any longer! Here! You MUST read this!!! It is called GOD, LOCKE AND MONTESQUIEU: SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM by
AUGUSTO ZIMMERMANN, LLB, LLM, PhD" (From Ayn Rand's quote re argument from intimidation. The very apt and fitting deviations are, of course, a recognisable mixture of Michael's, Curt's and my own.)

But before you begin! Here is a tiny, little sample to whet your appetite on the subject. In your best interests, I would suggest a pause after you have read this in which to gauge the degree of your mental malnutrition on the subject and so determine the appropriate rate in which to devour the waiting feast. It is the kind of feast that won't disappear as you pause for reflection, be assured, and I would not have you become ill as a result of your not recognising the extent of your mental impoverishment and the terrible potential for damage that this may cause for you in such a case where the enlightenment is so intense and penetrating.

“Christian jurisprudence has played an enormously important role in the origin and development of modern constitutionalism. The view adopted by the American Founders is that people cannot know the natural moral order and their inalienable rights from their own reasoning unaided by God‟s revelation. There are, of course, those who resist the idea of a supernatural lawgiver because they fear it may lead to intolerance or even theocracy. They have it entirely wrong. For if they are really „endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights‟, they are therefore entitled to preserve these rights no matter their ideological or religious convictions. Conversely, asked Thomas Jefferson, the author of the American Declaration of Independence, rhetorically: „How can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed their only secure basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?‟

Now a pause. Then, when you have finished Dr Zimmerman’s exposition, embedded above, and another pause for reflection, you may be sufficiently hungry again, intellectually speaking, to continue and expand upon your new found food with this : Chapter 47 - The Civil Magistrate - from Systematic Theology by Robert L Dabney.

Between the two documents, I hope that sufficient learning is established to educate and perhaps even help to clear up some of the many, many outstanding, unresolved queries, issues and arguments that lie festering in the archives of SOLO concerning God, Christian jurisprudence, The Declaration of Independence, the relationship between God, government and the people and many more.

Although the language of this last document is Victorian, the content is worthy of the struggle (excluding one point - and although the reasoning is correct if the premise it relies upon were correct, it rests upon a false premise - and this is his approval to the law imposing restrictions on Africans in America in the 19th century. i.e., racism. It is almost worth reading just to hear the complete conviction with which he speaks of these inferior people and spoken with such a well educated use of language! LOL) .

I wonder if the eyes of Alex Jones are popping out of their sockets?

Thanks for the clarification.

You think I don't know what you are trying to do?

Yes. I suspected that you didn't. Now I'm sure.

To justify that OBL deserved prison (the conclusion), you offered the Love Thy Neighbor quote.

I did not say that Osama bin Laden deserved prison. I did not offer an argument for this conclusion. Since I did not offer an argument, I have not thereby committed petitio principii.

In fact, I have said nothing at all about what Osama bin Laden deserved.

The intermediate argument was that to stop him from "terrorising the neighborhood", we should place him in prison.

I argued for the conclusion that we had an obligation to stop Osama bin Laden from terrorising the neighborhood. If necessary, by putting him in prison or (as I conceded to Kasper) by killing him. My premise is the utilitarian moral principle, 'Love your neighbour as yourself', as taught by Jesus. To love someone is to value their happiness. To love your neighbour is to value, as Bentham put it, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". To love your neighbour as yourself is to heed Bentham's dictum, "each to count for one, and none for more than one".

Yet, in order for this to be valid, you would first have to show that OBL is not a neighbor. Your intermediate argument already assumes that he is not a neighbor in the premise, you offer no justification for it.

I don't assume that Osama bin Laden is not a neighbour. In fact, I assume the opposite.

Next, in order to justify OBL's killing (the conclusion), you argue that he was imprisoned first.

I didn't argue that Osama bin Laden should be killed. I argued that he should be stopped.

I did not say that Osama bin Laden was already in prison. I said, "It occurred to me that he was already in prison." And then noted some striking similarities between his actual circumstances and imprisonment.

You never offered a valid argument for imprisonment in the first place, as shown in my second paragraph. That is, you've not proven any form of retribution without first committing the fallacy of question begging (when arguing for imprisonment).

I wasn't arguing for retribution. I was arguing for prevention. Prevention and retribution are two different things.

Then you merely assert--without justification--that one can proceed from imprisonment to death. You've simply "chained" them together to arrive at the conclusion that OBL deserved death.

I did not assert that "one can proceed from imprisonment to death." I did not arrive at the conclusion that Osama bin Laden deserved death. I did not say that Osama bin Laden deserved death. In fact, I have said nothing at all about what Osama bin Laden deserved.

I'll be happy to point out your contradiction after you answer the questions originally asked, as i have no intention of being distracted by your meanderings and diversions from the essential issue.

It is not "beyond disgusting" to contend (as Russel Norman did) that it would have been better to take bin Laden alive so he could face trial. I don't know what you think the essential issue is, but that was my original point. A trial, followed by execution, was good enough for Saddam Hussein. Why not good enough for Osama bin Laden?

Alex Jones can have good information one day and total crap the next, including his faith in mysticism. Furthermore he sermonises to his audience, most of whom are not objective thinkers at all.

My opinion comes from my own objectivity based solidly upon research. I am not influenced by the likes.

According to the page you linked to, the "appeal to faith" is a form of begging the question, i.e., "Assuming as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach."

There's also the appeal to faith: Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought.

"If you accept the Lord, you will understand!"

"If you would only take Maslow at his word, you would finally get it!"

No, I've never used the "appeal to faith".

Michael Moore:

"'I hear a lot of people often say, what would Jesus do?' he said. 'I don't think Jesus would go down to Ground Zero like a lot of people did...and have a party.'"

And when Goode found "nothing disgusting" about Norman Russell's advocacy of a trial:

Noam Chomsky:

"It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress 'suspects.'" (Read the whole thing to get the full scope of Chomsky's lunacy.)

Rosie O'Donnell:

"Uncomfortable with the wild celebrations last week of 'drunken fraternity boy'” celebrating Bin Laden’s death in New York and Washington, Rosie also reveals that she expects America to be an example for how we want other countries to act and was disappointed we were not the leader of morality and fairness here.

Rosie explains:

“You can also be upset about the fact that he didn’t have due process, that he didn’t get tried, that he wasn’t you know brought to The Hague for war-crime tribunal. . . . Many, many people, including now on the Twitter feed say, ‘Well, Rosie, it was illegal for them to fly planes into the Twin Towers.’ I’m fully aware of that. Because other people are capable of criminal acts on our soil doesn’t equate to ‘therefore, we are allowed to do criminal acts on their soil.’”

Richard,

If you bothered to read my last post to you, I pointed out where you were committing this fallacy. You know, the one you called "rubbish".

To justify that OBL deserved prison (the conclusion), you offered the Love Thy Neighbor quote. The intermediate argument was that to stop him from "terrorising the neighborhood", we should place him in prison. Yet, in order for this to be valid, you would first have to show that OBL is not a neighbor. Your intermediate argument already assumes that he is not a neighbor in the premise, you offer no justification for it. That's question begging #1 by intervening steps.

Next, in order to justify OBL's killing (the conclusion), you argue that he was imprisoned first. You've offered no valid justification for imprisonment, nor why it is appropriate to move from imprisonment to death. You've simply assumed these in your premise/assertion that he was imprisoned.

This is the "chain" form of begging the question. You never offered a valid argument for imprisonment in the first place, as shown in my second paragraph. That is, you've not proven any form of retribution without first committing the fallacy of question begging (when arguing for imprisonment). Then you merely assert--without justification--that one can proceed from imprisonment to death. You've simply "chained" them together to arrive at the conclusion that OBL deserved death.

Beyond that, your inconsistencies/contradictions are actually worse than the question begging, which you obstinately refuse to address. Also, even before we get the question begging in your justification for death, you use a false premise that OBL was imprisoned, so that whole argument is immediately thrown out the window.

Now, Goode, are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to keep bobbing and weaving, dodging and dancing? Or does Rosie speak for you in her last post (in which case I will address that exquisite piece of irrationality in your absence)?

You think I don't know what you are trying to do? You are trying to selectively focus the argument (eg. the logical fallacy of question begging) in hopes of finding an error that you can pick at, while ignoring the questions you were asked. You are using this to distract from the questions your were asked and the errors you have committed. Please try again.

See the "Appeal to faith" section:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboe...

… is observing goblinists/goblians while they argue their various versions of Gobby’s rules and, even better, his “will.”

Just reflect for a moment on this one:

But it is definitely the case that if death were considered and judged to be the appropriate and commensurate measure of justice, from a Christian's point of view, it would ONLY be this way if the person deciding this had considered that God's will would be best served in so doing.

Are not these the same people who criticize Rand for her definitions? Didn’t at least one of these goblians consider it to be moral and right, at sometime in the not too distant past, to stone people to death for working on the “sabbath”?

And, while we are at it, why don’t we just remove “Christian/God” and plug in “Muslim/Allah”? Only seems fair.

You just keep on committing the question begging fallacy.

According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, begging the question is "a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."

Please show where I commit this fallacy, making sure to clearly identify both the proposition to be proven and the premise which assumes it.

Actually Richard, the "Argument from Faith" is the one most often used. Witness it in the likes of yourself and the Jihadists.

What is the "Argument from Faith"? I never heard of it.

Now the full article, minus Goblian interpolations ... to counter the filth's attempt to hijack it for its ignoble ends

Do you agree that Obama is guilty of the Argument from Intimidation?

Have you ever seen a more clear-cut, real-life example of the Argument from Intimidation?

... you need a slap up the side of the head.

(Jeezy H. Christ... funny. )

...I came across Alex Jones. I once thought he had some good things to say about Global Warming, but since he has so lost all hold of reality and I was laughing my head off at his latest theories. Anybody who has seen him must know what I mean when I say his eyes almost pop out of his head when he says the word "psyops". He makes a great character study for fiction. Because he is a 911 conspiracy theorist he now has an elaborate story about Osama having died in 2002 and put on ice by the US government to bring out and claim they had killed him. I couldn't have made up this stuff if I tried.

Be it against my opinion of the existence of Osama: it is nonetheless KASS worthy.

“They should have kept the body. They should have brought the son of a bitch back to New York, pickled him in alcohol and mounted him on top of the ground zero mosque with a pork chop in his mouth and a fireman’s axe up his arse”
- Pat Condell

One good decision does not a decent man or good President make. Obama is refusing to stop the CIA investigation into the agents who interrogated the filth who yielded the information that led to Osama's demise.

Obama will milk Osama for political gain while essentially remaining his soulmate. They're both filth. Had Stalin ordered Hitler's assassination and had we been around we would have applauded Hitler's demise without entertaining illusions about Stalin. Obama may not be a mass murderer literally, but he is expediting America's descent into fascism/communism in a way that would make a mass murderer envious. Happy about a second term for that maggot?! Jeezy H. Christ!

But hey, lets bring some objectivity to this thread.

It looks like I will have to break my pledge too.

Obama's second term is assured and I am happy about it.

Will someone please pinch me and tell me it's all a dream.

Goode actually rejects something Obama has said.

It's get out your popcorn time

... to counter the filth's attempt to hijack it for its ignoble ends:

Ayn Rand—The Argument from Intimidation

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.

This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."

But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."

In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today's epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea."

The classic example of the Argument from Intimidation is the story The Emperor's New Clothes.

In that story, some charlatans sell nonexistent garments to the Emperor by asserting that the garments' unusual beauty makes them invisible to those who are morally depraved at heart. Observe the psychological factors required to make this work: the charlatans rely on the Emperor's self-doubt; the Emperor does not question their assertion nor their moral authority; he surrenders at once, claiming that he does see the garments—thus denying the evidence of his own eyes and invalidating his own consciousness—rather than face a threat to his precarious self-esteem. His distance from reality may be gauged by the fact that he prefers to walk naked down the street, displaying his nonexistent garments to the people—rather than risk incurring the moral condemnation of two scoundrels. The people, prompted by the same psychological panic, try to surpass one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of his clothes—until a child cries out that the Emperor is naked.

This is the exact pattern of the working of the Argument from Intimidation, as it is being worked all around us today.

We have all heard it and are hearing it constantly:

"Only those who lack finer instincts can fail to accept the morality of altruism."—"Only the ignorant can fail to know that reason has been invalidated."—"Only black-hearted reactionaries can advocate capitalism."—"Only war-mongers can oppose the United Nations."—"Only the lunatic fringe can still believe in freedom."—"Only cowards can fail to see that life is a sewer."—"Only the superficial can seek beauty, happiness, achievement, values or heroes."

As an example of an entire field of activity based on nothing but the Argument from Intimidation, I give you modern art—where, in order to prove that they do possess the special insight possessed only by the mystic "elite," the populace are trying to surpass one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of some bare (but smudged) piece of canvas.

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today's discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. ("Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.") But in private, day-to-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice.

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. "Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?" And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: "I am,"—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: "Oh, you couldn't be! Not really!" "Really." "But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!" "I don't." "Oh, come now!" "Since I don't know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?" "Oh, don't be ridiculous!" "Will you tell me the reasons?" "Well, really, if you don't know, I couldn't possibly tell you!"

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reason, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

The primordial archetype of that Argument is obvious (and so are the reasons of its appeal to the neo-mysticism of our age): "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who don't, none is possible."

The psychological source of that Argument is social metaphysics.

A social metaphysician is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a social metaphysician that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan's moral sanction. It is only a social metaphysician who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: "But people won't like you!"

Strictly speaking, a social metaphysician does not conceive of his Argument in conscious terms: he finds it "instinctively" by introspection—since it represents his psy-cho-epistemological way of life. We have all met the exasperating type of person who does not listen to what one says, but to the emotional vibrations of one's voice, anxiously translating them into approval or disapproval, then answering accordingly. This is a kind of self-imposed Argument from Intimidation, to which a social metaphysician surrenders in most of his human encounters. And thus when he meets an adversary, when his premises are challenged, he resorts automatically to the weapon that terrifies him most: the withdrawal of a moral sanction.

Since that kind of terror is unknown to psychologically healthy men, they may be taken in by the Argument from Intimidation, precisely because of their innocence. Unable to understand that Argument's motive or to believe that it is merely a senseless bluff, they assume that its user has some sort of knowledge or reasons to back up his seemingly self-confident, belligerent assertions; they give him the benefit of the doubt—and are left in helplessly bewildered confusion. It is thus that the social metaphysicians can victimize the young, the innocent, the conscientious.

This is particularly prevalent in college classrooms. Many professors use the Argument from Intimidation to stifle independent thinking among the students, to evade questions they cannot answer, to discourage any critical analysis of their arbitrary assumptions or any departure from the intellectual status quo.

"Aristotle? My dear fellow—" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor Spiffkin's piece in—" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of Intellect magazine, which—" (contemptuously) "you obviously haven't, you would know—" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted."

"Professor X?" (X standing for the name of a distinguished theorist of free-enterprise economics.) "Are you quoting Professor X? Oh no, not really!"—followed by a sarcastic chuckle intended to convey that Professor X had been thoroughly discredited. (By whom? Blank out.)

Such teachers are frequently assisted by the "liberal" goon squad of the classroom, who burst into laughter at appropriate moments.

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, today's political debates consist of smears and apologies, or imtimida-tion and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the "liberals," the second by the "conservatives." The champions, in this respect, are the "liberal" Republicans who practice both: the first, toward their "conservative" fellow Republicans—the second, toward the Democrats.

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers.

The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all ages and cultures, but seldom on so wide a scale as today. It is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity, but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture. It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy's sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone's approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one's own.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

When one gives reasons for one's verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one's reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral "hit-and-run" driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.

Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle—and when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest in protesting that "moralizing" should be kept out of intellectual discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it.

The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important to be certain of one's premises and of one's moral ground. It illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions, wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals—those who recklessly leap into battle, armed with nothing but a few random notions floating in a fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings, hopes and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis. In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right: one has to know that one is right.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy's moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said: "If this be treason, make the most of it."

[q]In today's epistemological jungle, this method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."[/q]

Actually Richard, the "Argument from Faith" is the one most often used. Witness it in the likes of yourself and the Jihadists.

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. It consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his position, thus impeaching the position without debate. Example: "Anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined." The falsehood of the position is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of the opponent's immorality.

In today's epistemological jungle, this method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as "The Argument from Intimidation."

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, deluded, etc.) can hold such an idea."

We spend years hunting down OBL, but when the enemies in this war blatantly make themselves known in public we do nothing. Meet your future OBL's; and yes, they're promising it. I suppose they'll have to deliver on their promises before we take them seriously. Then we can spend years hunting them down as well.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts...

I give the SOLO Pledge that first thing tomorrow morning I will stop being pleased with Obama -- but here is what he had to say to Richard Goode on 60 minutes today : (quoted from a story on foxnews.com)

Obama also said the thought of actually taking bin Laden down did not weigh on him in the slightest.

"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over was the possibility of taking bin Laden out," Obama said. "Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

In answer to Kasper's request that Goode respond to my post/questions, Goode concludes:

"It's rubbish."

Great!! Goode should have no problem answering the questions, then.

Whew, for a second there I thought Goode was not only etching in stone his well-deserved reputation for dodging and dancing around questions, but also building a statue to said reputation.

.....I have something to say that may help.....if you make it to the end, that is.

(The embedded readings are interesting and add heaps of explanation but you may wish to wait until taking the small nap required at the end of this post as they are also rather long. Because they embellish only, you won't lose too much from the explanation provided, I don't think, so there is no need to lose any sleep over it! lol )

Step One . Understanding Sin
What is sin and what does it do?

See here.

Step Two. Understanding Retribution . - “an eye for an eye“- What does this mean exactly?

From the Berean

Matthew 5:38-39
Some may have taken the Old Testament guideline (see Exodus 21:23-25) in a literal fashion. At first glance, it seems that, if a person's tooth or eye were lost in a scuffle or accident, the one who caused the loss to happen would be required to forfeit his own tooth or eye. Though some may have demanded this in times past, it is clearly not God's intent for the law. Instead, it is a principle, given in concrete, understandable terms, that damage is to be justly compensated.

According to commentator Adam Clarke, the Jews of Christ's day abused this law to extract every last penny from another, and in the majority of cases, there was no mercy shown. Human nature being what it was then, and still is now, they insisted that the one who caused the problem receive every bit of punishment coming to him. In short, they wanted and exacted revenge! Jesus wants us to understand that His disciples are not to act this way.

In countering the faulty understanding of this Old Testament law, Jesus teaches, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matthew 5:39). He begins by instructing us not to escalate the situation by stubborn resistance or, worse still, by perpetrating an additional offense. Elsewhere, Paul writes, "Repay no one evil for evil" (Romans 12:17). If offended, do not offend in return. If injured, do not inflict an injury in payment. In other words, retaliation is not the answer.

Note that Jesus is not speaking of dangerous situations, like facing a robber with murderous intent or a rapist on a dark street. On His mind are circumstances of daily life that are insulting, bothersome, or even mildly injurious, but not life-threatening. The Interpreter's Bible comments on the latter half of the verse: "A blow with the back of the hand to the right cheek was an insult, thus the palm of the hand was now poised to bring a blow to the left cheek." The blow is struck contemptuously rather than homicidally.

In a situation like this, the first thing that comes to most minds is revenge. Jesus desires that, rather than avenging oneself and acting with the same attitude of hatred as the aggressor, we reflect our calling and suppress the urge to seek vengeance. We should even be willing to take a second slap, this one from the other's open hand, without retaliation. Such pacifism usually pours cold water on the situation, avoiding further tit-for-tat retribution.

Step Three. Understanding Revenge and how God wishes us to act instead.

See here.

Step Four. Understanding Justice.

See here.

Conclusion.

1. An eye for an eye was not a literal expresssion but a metaphorical way of saying the justice is given commensurate with the sin.

2. Sin is not just these violent crimes of the world but also includes the evil thoughts of our minds.

3. Thus it is our thoughts that need to be considered when deliberating whether our reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death is right or wrong.

4. The long reading in Step Three provides insight in to the ideal Christian response.

5. The long reading in Step One provides insight in to the Christian notion of sin and how this deviates from the worldly laws. Thus very often the “righteous” man who thinks he does not sin because he has disobeyed no worldly laws will indeed have sinned from a Christian perspective when his unGodly responses, lack of forgiveness or uwillingness to restore relationship and his motivations are considered from this Christian perspective.

6. The Christian is expected to be meek. Meekness is not as Lindsay has described it. or thinks it is - not from a Christian perspective at all. The reading in Step Three is a clear and (I think) beautiful exposition describing the divine-like strength of meekness.

And for you, Michael

With regard to your questions to Richard, Michael, can I answer these (on the basis that Richard's remark did not sound as though he were likely to!) and say that there is actually method in what you see as his madness, and I have attempted to explain this to you below, very briefly, as follows:-

1. The Christian does indeed, and is obliged to, leave justice to God - and this applies, in particular, with regard to the "lesser" sins we commit against one another. In these cases we are not expected to throw fuel on the fire but accept the sin and restore the relationship as best we can as soon as we can with forgiveness and love and without even an admonishment if we can restrain ourselves! on the basis that the person knows he has done wrong and is thankful for hte kind response thus leading to greater levels of trust and love...

However, the Christian has two further things to consider when the sins are not of that sort.

First, he is obliged to respect the laws of the land (and there is reason for this).

Second, the arbiter of justice, or judge, if she is also Christian, must exercise her judgement bearing in mind at all times not only any relevant statutory or common law , but also the nature of grace, love and justice which is in effect the legal discretion that is granted to any judge, and weigh this against the criminal's acts of wrongdoing, his responses in both thought and action to his actions afterwards and whether any semblance of restitution was made or repentance given at any time thereafter (or not) - thereby applying a mix of worldly legal precedent and a divine sense of grace, if you like, in exercising her final judgement.

2. Retribution for the offense vs the attitude towards the sinner are entirely separate things from a Christian's viewpoint; and he can separate the two in practice also so not just theoretical. (Love the sinner, hate the sin.) I think this distinction may have confused your understanding of Richard's words, perhaps.

3. Although there is always the question as to whether a sinner's life should be taken by man or left until he dies naturally leaving justice in the hands of God's judgement - either during the remainder of his lifetime or through later consequences of his actions causing justice in some way to either his family or maybe something positive happens to the person he wronged as a result of his act...etc etc...and there is great scope here!

But it is definitely the case that if death were considered and judged to be the appropriate and commensurate measure of justice, from a Christian's point of view, it would ONLY be this way if the person deciding this had considered that God's will would be best served in so doing. (see what was written above and also the Step Three reading about this attitude in a much broader way , and the mind/attitude required of a judge.)

It is this principle, I think, that Richard relies on when he moves from prison to death - what he is saying, I believe, is that the first step is to consider that the wrongdoer be spared until such time as due consideration and all the relevant facts are brought to the attention of the judge for her consideration as stated above. His movement then to declare that death was appropriate, was simply an expression of his agreement that justice in the eyes of God (and the law) was met and made conmmensurate with his acts of wrongdoing, by taking away OBL's life.

4. Retribution is a considered and commensurate act of justice which is carried out with a judge's best endeavours to interpret whatthe law of the land, and if Christian, what would also be the will of God in these circumstances. The legal discretion to overturn any precedent is probably a reflection of this.

Revenge, by contrast, is a wholly human and worldly/sinful response to an act of wrongdoing. The "justice" is administered with little or no regard to the spirit and laws of God, and harshly so with regard to the law of the land and cares not whether the "justice" is commensurate. The judgement is carried out also, by contrast, with an hateful and spiteful attitude/s (i.e., without love) and which attitude is, of course, a sin in itself if you read the reading of Step One.

Clear now?

Do you think the original instruction (eye for eye etc.) was telling people to be evil?

Yes.

There's a nice little post by Moeller down below which true to your fashion you haven't addressed.

It's rubbish.

Is it evil to poke someone's eye out with a stick?
Not if it is justified - it's the same with killing or taking someone's money off them.

Do you think the original instruction (eye for eye etc.) was telling people to be evil?

There's a nice little post by Moeller down below which true to your fashion you haven't addressed. Since you always find yourself dumb-founded when accused of poor faith and side-stepping it may do you well to address his post

Is it evil to poke someone's eye out with a stick?

Yes.

If someone told damaging lies about you and your response was to tell damaging lies about them - that would be repaying evil for evil.

But if someone poked my eye out with a stick and my response was to poke his eye out with a stick—that would be justice?

I meant my exegesis of Mark 12.
Your understanding is the same as my understanding so it must be correct.

What is repaying evil for evil, if not eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, etc.?
If someone told damaging lies about you and your response was to tell damaging lies about them - that would be repaying evil for evil.
While it might be better to just forgive the person - exposing the lies and seeking punishment or compensation for damages would not be repaying evil for evil.

I don't understand what your perspective is of the scriptures you quoted.

I meant my exegesis of Mark 12.

Justice is eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life... Repaying evil for evil is not justice.

What is repaying evil for evil, if not eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, etc.?

Richard -
How's my Biblical exegesis?
I don't understand what your perspective is of the scriptures you quoted.

My perspective on the topic...

Justice is eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life.
Revenge may mean going beyond justice.
Repaying evil for evil is not justice.
Justice is not evil.
Bin Laden received justice.

Proverbs 11:10
... when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.

I didn't celebrate but I don't think there is anything wrong with others celebrating Bin Laden's death.

I don't think we should necessarily presume mercy on behalf of the victims of injustices.

Does Revenge Serve an Evolutionary Purpose?

Why all the celebration after the killing of Osama bin Laden? A psychologist who studies evolution and human behavior explains the complex desire for vengeance.

Goode: "Notice how Michael's questions mutate faster than stories from the White House. And they multiply."

Well yes, by necessity. Your mutating answers raised more questions than they answered--to the extent you've bothered to answer them at all. You just keep on committing the question begging fallacy.

Let's recap:

1. Feed and quench the thirst of your enemy. You used this Bible quote to justify the quote saying bin Laden deserved a trial. Yet, this quote has nothing to do with retribution, and in fact states the opposite (i.e. feed and quench the thirst of your enemy), and further states that revenge is reserved for God. You have yet to rectify this inconsistency--i.e. your stipulation that OBL should be imprisoned and this Bible quote. Will you?

2. Instead of answering that question, you moved on to a new Bible quote regarding Love thy neighbor as thyself. This quote itself again does not support retribution. You merely expanded it with your own novel interpretation to single out bin Laden from the rest of your neighbors in an attempt to justify retribution against OBL. However, this begs the question as to why bin Laden should be singled out from the rest of your neighbors and thus deserving of retribution? You've yet to answer that question. Will you?

3. In answer to Kaspar, you say "under the circumstances" he deserved death. Say what? That's a neat trick--moving from supporting the quote about a trial to now supporting death. In any event, to support this assertion you say he was already imprisoned, thus somehow you now approve of death. This begs the question of what moral premise allows you to move from prison to death. Actually, it begs the question on how you've moved from feeding and quenching the thirst of your enemy (eg. bin Laden) to his death. See point 1.

Besides, you have a problem with definitions. OBL was NOT imprisoned. The essential feature of prison is being confined to a space against one's will. He was there by choice and free to leave at any point, which makes your point moot on top of everything else.

4. Lastly, you answer the the revenge/retribution question by first saying you do not know the distinction between the two, but they are two separate things. Use logic much? If you don't recognize the distinction, on what basis can you claim they are separate? How do you conceptually distinguish one from the other?

Apparently, from the example you give, it is not based on the action taken, but one's emotional response to the action (eg. no "gloating" in the David Bain case). This is clearly fallacious, however, as somebody could "gloat" (eg. the Islamists during the attack of 9/11) after an initial use of force, not a retaliatory use of force. This is not the common definition of revenge. My purpose in asking for the distinction was separate, but it is clear that your distinction doesn't even fall within the common definition for revenge. How about trying a dictionary?

Don't blame me for asking multiple new questions. Those questions are in response to your ever-changing positon and inconsistencies.

Are you going to attempt to rectify any of the points above, or are you just going to leave us with your ungrounded, illogical, and constantly-adapting position/mess?

What a lovely garden!

Retributive justice and revenge... What do you think is the distinction?

I'm not sure.

Consider the David Bain case. After Bain was convicted and sentenced in 1995, there were no newspaper headlines that screamed "Crown takes revenge on Bain". No one gloated that the deaths of Robin, Margaret, Arawa, Laniet and Stephen had been "avenged". Yet it was beyond reasonable doubt that retributive justice had been done.

Retributive justice and revenge are two different things.

How's my Biblical exegesis?

I'll be happy to point out your contradiction after you answer the questions originally asked, as i have no intention of being distracted by your meanderings and diversions from the essential issue.

Meanderings and diversions? Diversions from what? The topic of this thread is Osama bin Laden ("the Filth"), his assassination ("Got the Filth!!") and responses to news of his death ("The only good Muslim who takes it all seriously is a dead one."). That's what I'm talking about.

Michael asks

Why stop at a trial for OBL? Why not... send him care packages with food and beverage? I'll be anxiously awaiting Goode's answer.

I explained that I would extend such care to bin Laden, and had already provided a justification for doing so. Then Michael asks

I'm still anxiously awaiting your answer... So again I ask, why stop with a trial and prison? Why not let him go free as a bird and supply him with all his necessaries? Where are you drawing the line and based on what premise? While you're at it, please explain the difference between retributive justice and revenge, and why killing OBL fits in the latter and not the former.

Again, I explained why. ("Love your neighbour as yourself.") Then Michael asks

You still haven't answered the question on where you draw the line on retribution, why prison over death? Nor have you distinguished between retributive justice and revenge, which brings up another interesting question. According to your first quote, God is permitted to unleash his wrath and seek revenge. Considering how you've looked disapprovingly on "revenge" (that you've not yet defined), are we to infer that you regard God as "beyond disgusting"?

Notice how Michael's questions mutate faster than stories from the White House. And they multiply. If I answer them selectively, will they evolve?

Just remember. This is Barack "I'm so worried about world opinion" Obama.

"The U.N.'s independent investigator on extrajudicial killings calls on the United States to reveal more details of the raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistan hideaway. South African law professor Christof Heyns says Washington "should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards". He added: "It will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden."

"Bin Laden supporters around the world are using Friday prayers to vent their anger against the killing. In the Philippines riot police had to break up a planned march on the US embassy in Manila."

"Friday prayers brings hundreds of people onto the streets of Quetta in Pakistan to pay "homage" to Osama bin Laden and call for holy war against America. Addressing the rally, the oddly named Abdul Qadir Looni, tells the crowd:

Osama's services for Muslims will be remembered forever. He challenged the greatest Satan and usurper like America and awakened Muslims across the globe. This gathering pays tribute to him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Curt-
+1

It also occurred to me that [bin Laden] had something in common with Linz—didn't like to go out in case he met people.

Has it occurred to you that bin Laden had something in common with you, something a bit more fundamental?

"Of course, 'meanderings and diversions' are Baade's stock-in-trade. You won't get straight or serious answers. But I know you know that and won't be holding your breath."

Indeed. And he once again holds true to form.

the teacher was enjoying the exchange. Nothing about feeling shamed afterwards.

Yes, you're right. This particular antagonist didn't make a fool of himself. Instead, he was persuaded that Jesus was right, and said as much. Mission subverted.

Perhaps no one else dared ask Jesus any more questions for fear that they, too, would be persuaded that he was right.

Anyway, you can read the whole chapter here. Hell, why not read the entire Gospel of Mark? It's a good book in more ways than one. ("Its swift narrative portrays Jesus as a heroic man of action...").

Jesus ran rings around his antagonists, revealing them to be hypocrites and fools. Which is why, in the end, no one dared ask him any more questions.

The piece you quoted said the teacher was enjoying the exchange. Nothing about feeling shamed afterwards.

But seriously why dare they not ask him more questions?

Good question.

My understanding is that the audience was hostile. It consisted of Pharisees (priests), Sadducees (politicians), Herodians (used camel salesmen) and teachers of the law (bureaucrats). They were there specifically to try to get Jesus to say something that would provide an excuse to have him arrested.

For example, the Pharisees had asked, "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?" To which Jesus famously replied, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Jesus ran rings around his antagonists, revealing them to be hypocrites and fools. Which is why, in the end, no one dared ask him any more questions.

Let's not feed the troll; here's some other jokes:

I bet Bin Laden regrets allowing his iPhone app to "use his current location".

Mrs. Bin Laden just updated her Facebook status to single.

At least he got to see the royal wedding before he went out.

So Osama Bin Laden is dead... Amazing what the Americans can do when the Playstation Network is down.

BREAKING: Osama been killed by an elite killing force ... in other news Chuck Norris just returned home from his trip to Pakistan.

Courtesy: http://www.strategypage.com/hu...

Or we could find the bastard and lovingly shoot him and then lovingly dump his body at sea.

I didn't want to say it but, under the circumstances... yes.

It occurred to me that he was already in prison. Self-confined to a grotty, low-rent compound surrounded by 18-foot high concrete walls topped with razor wire. No phone and no internet access.

It also occurred to me that he had something in common with Linz—didn't like to go out in case he met people.

Hone Harawira praises Bin Laden (so too does Pita Sharples, by the looks of it) in the NBR.

Via aussiemuslims.com:

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/f...

'Love your neighbour as yourself' obliges us to put a stop to Osama bin Laden terrorising the neighbourhood. If necessary, by lovingly placing him in a prison cell.

Or we could find the bastard and lovingly shoot him and then lovingly dump his body at sea. Which is what America did.. Isn't that lovely.

...hangs over Obama like a bad smell.

Remember how Carter organized a daring operation to rescue the hostages that went badly wrong?

Well, Obama succeeded where Carter failed in that capacity.

However it is incredible to see Obama now snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe he will prove to another Carter, after all?
............................................................................................................

How the White House changed its story

Osama bin Laden was armed and died in a firefight after resisting

A senior Pentagon official told reporters on Monday in a background briefing that the American team engaged in a firefight and Bin Laden did resist, giving the strong impression he was armed and may have been shooting.

"He was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in," said John Brennan, White House security adviser. "And whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don't know … The president put a premium on making sure that our personnel were protected and we were not going to give Bin Laden or any of his cohorts the opportunity to carry out lethal fire on our forces. He was engaged and he was killed in the process.

"The concern was that Bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation. Indeed he did. It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight."

How the story changed
Carney said on camera at a White House briefing on Tuesday that Bin Laden had not been armed. "On the first floor of Bin Laden's building, two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire," he said. "Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation – operation rather, and, indeed, he did resist. In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden's – a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."

When pressed on the nature of Bin Laden's resistance, Carney said: "I think resistance does not require a firearm." He declined to elaborate on what other form it had taken.

Al-Arabiya, a Middle East news channel, reported that it had been told by a Pakistani security that Bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter told Pakistani investigators the US forces captured her father alive but shot him dead in front of family members. An official of the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency, told the Guardian she saw her father killed but did not suggest he had been captured at that point.

Osama Bin Laden used women as human shields, including his wife who was killed in the process

Brennan said on Monday: "There was family at that compound and there was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Bin Laden from the incoming fire."

He added: "I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years."

A journalist asked if the woman was his wife. Brennan replied: "That's my understanding. It was one of them … She served as a shield … when there was the opportunity to get to Bin Laden she was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield – whether or not Bin Laden or the son, or whatever, put her there, or she put herself there."

The story was partially backed up by an off the record Pentagon briefing at which reporters were told by a senior defence official that Bin Laden and some other male combatants "certainly did use women as shields".

But the official said the woman who was with Bin Laden was injured and not killed. The woman who ended up being killed had been used as a shield by "a military age male" who was firing from behind her, they said.

How the story changed
The president's spokesman on Tuesday corrected Brennan, saying: "In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden's – a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed."

Bin Laden had been 'living high on the hog'

Defence officials briefed reporters on Monday that Bin Laden's compound was worth $1m and was in stark contrast to the "much more dire conditions" endured by his "terrorist colleagues" and speculated on what they might be thinking "when they see that their leader was living, relatively speaking, high on the hog".

How the story changed
Local estimates suggest the house is worth $250,000. Footage from inside the compound shows little sign of luxury. Cooking equipment was shown on the floor, the decor seemed shabby, medicines were left on a shelf with no cabinet and the pantry seemed rudimentary. The paint was peeling outside the building and there was no sign of airconditioning.

Bin Laden's son Khalid was killed in the raid

Brennan told reporters: "Bin Laden died, the two al-Qaida facilitators – the brothers, who were the courier and his brother in the compound; Bin Laden's son Khalid; and the woman, presumed to be his wife, who was shielding Bin Laden."

How the story changed
The name of the son was changed to Hamza in the transcript.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and senior White House officials watched the raid unfold live on monitors

Brennan said on Monday: "We were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target… we were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation. I'm not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was – it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis."

How the story changed
Carney said on Tuesday the updates were "minute-by-minute" and "they were looking at and listening to those updates". CIA director Leon Panetta told PBS on Tuesday: "Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn't know just exactly what was going on."

Osama bin Laden is a "neighbor" as well. Do you really love yourself so little that you would place yourself in a prison cell? Interesting.

You still haven't answered the question on where you draw the line on retribution, why prison over death?

Nor have you distinguished between retributive justice and revenge, which brings up another interesting question. According to your first quote, God is permitted to unleash his wrath and seek revenge. Considering how you've looked disapprovingly on "revenge" (that you've not yet defined), are we to infer that you regard God as "beyond disgusting"?

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

After threatening to kill the teacher, no one dares ask Jesus another question.

Some loving God!

But seriously why dare they not ask him more questions?

Surely a positive exchange should make these people want to know more.

Isn't Jesus happy to be questioned? Isn't Jesus supposed to be open and loving and all that?

Not stiff necked, defensive and aloof.

Goode God!

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Your Biblical quote does not state to seek any form of retribution--that is apparently reserved for God. On the contrary, it says to feed and quench the thirst of the enemy. Hence, you are violating the moral precept that you lovingly quote by placing him in a prison cell.

So again I ask, why stop with a trial and prison? Why not let him go free as a bird and supply him with all his necessaries? Where are you drawing the line and based on what premise?

'Love your neighbour as yourself' obliges us to put a stop to Osama bin Laden terrorising the neighbourhood. If necessary, by lovingly placing him in a prison cell.

... to see you in action, Michael. You are the intellectual equivalent of the Navy Seals. Bravo!

Of course, "meanderings and diversions" are Baade's stock-in-trade. You won't get straight or serious answers. But I know you know that and won't be holding your breath.

Your Biblical quote does not state to seek any form of retribution--that is apparently reserved for God. On the contrary, it says to feed and quench the thirst of the enemy. Hence, you are violating the moral precept that you lovingly quote by placing him in a prison cell.

So again I ask, why stop with a trial and prison? Why not let him go free as a bird and supply him with all his necessaries? Where are you drawing the line and based on what premise?

While you're at it, please explain the difference between retributive justice and revenge, and why killing OBL fits in the latter and not the former.

Thanks.

PS. I'll be happy to point out your contradiction after you answer the questions originally asked, as i have no intention of being distracted by your meanderings and diversions from the essential issue. Besides, the answer should be obvious to anybody who considers what is presupposed by the concept 'argument'. Hint: it's not faith.

Richard -
Retributive justice and revenge are two different things.

What do you think is the distinction?

One has to wonder what Goode's reaction would be if he found out the cancer he had was eradicated. Would he not celebrate?

Sure, I'd celebrate.

I'd lean forward on the operating table, watching intently as the excision of my tumour takes place. (Or I'd lie back and watch pictures relayed to a television screen from a camera attached to the surgeon's knife.)

I'd wait a couple of days, then throw the excised tumour in a ditch somewhere. But first, I'd parade it in front of the world media.

Then I'd make an announcement on SOLO. I'd jeer maniacally, "We KASSed the fucker!"

Instead of killing OBL, why not send him care packages with food and beverage?

That's exactly what I'd do. Send him care packages with food and beverage. On a tray, through the slot in his prison cell door.

Goode has said before that the choices for ethics are faith, delusion, and nihilism. Forget the self-contradiction in trying to make an argument for that

Where's the contradiction? I'll be anxiously awaiting Moeller's answer.

I am often struck by the fact that he manages to combine all three.

I eschew delusion and nihilism. Where did you get the cancerous idea that I embrace all three? Must have metastasised from the primary.

There is something fundamentally wrong with those who do not take satisfaction in retributive justice for those who commit evil acts

Retributive justice and revenge are two different things.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/engl...

ISLAMABAD, May 2 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Urdu TV channel Geo News quoted Pakistani intelligence officials as saying that the world's most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden was killed in a search operation launched by the Pakistani forces after a Pakistani army helicopter was shot down in the wee hours of Monday in Abbotabad, a mountainous town located some 60 kilometers north of Pakistan's capital city of Islamabad.

Local media reported that after the dead body of Bin Laden was recovered, two U.S. helicopter flew to the site and carried away the dead body of Bin Laden.

(continued at above link)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Freedom of the press in the People's Republic of China!

According to China's state-run, official news agency, Xinhua, it was the Pakistanis who conducted the operation against Osama bin Laden, with the U.S. playing the role of undertaker, whisking away the body in a helicopter.

I suppose that China's motivation for this piece of internal disinformation is to not admit to its own people that the U.S. military -- in particular, its elite Special Ops forces like the Navy SEALs -- can assassinate a target flawlessly in about 40 minutes.

Beyond repulsive.

What happened to that younger priest who used to be a regular on Fox? In fact I think he was on their payroll.

Goode managed to make a guest appearance on The O'Reilly Factor.

Well, Leon Panetta confirmed what Peter King said earlier, i.e. that enhanced interrogation yielded intelligence that led to the capture of OBL. We'll see what pains the left goes to deny or diminish this fact.

On a separate note, apparently OBL was unarmed but still provided "resistance"--whatever that means. What happened to Miranda warnings and the right to a lawyer for enemy combatants?

I guess these details don't bother the Cult of Obama as long as the episode improves his chances for reelection. And will stumbling over reality encourage Obama to change course? Fat chance.

... that Baade, often at pains to insist it's not a Goblian, but merely a Goblinite, here invokes some of the most repulsive of all Goblian texts (and the competition is pretty stiff).

Jeezy, elsewhere described by Baade as the greatest moral teacher who ever lived, said: " ... do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."

After 9/11, America should have invited OBL to take down the Empire State Building as well. How could we have missed that?! Oh, that's right, we were consumed by our "beyond-disgusting" desire for justice.

Then again, Baade says none of us can help what we think or do; there is no free will. That being so, I wonder how it justifies calling anyone disgusting or beyond disgusting, just for doing/thinking something he/she can't help doing/thinking?

I give President Obama credit for acting on his own initiative by taking out OBL without informing the Pakistanis. However, he was at his graceless and solipsistic best during his speech on Sunday. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out, there was no "we" in removing the Taliban. That was done on Bush's watch, which Obama is now trying to undo. And yet, there was no "we" in killing OBL, only "I" from Obama? Hmmmm.

Although there have been conflicting reports, Congressman Peter King alleges that some pieces to the courier story came from waterboarding KSM. A practice that Obama abandoned. Other reports have pieces coming from rendition in Europe, which Obama dismantled. Another story has the key tipoff coming from wiretapping Osama's main courier. Another practice Obama said he would abandon, but hasn't.

Let us also not forget that after 9/11, and previously in the '93 WTC bombing, there was virtually no intelligence on the groud regarding jihadi groups--at home and abroad. Let us not forget that this was due in large part between the wall of separation Clinton put in place between the various intelligence agencies. Let us not forget how often the left undermines the intelligence agencies, in addition to wild conspiracies about the CIA. Let us not forget the left's repeated attempts to cut funding to the military and undermine black-ops groups like Seal Team 6.

With that being said, during this whole episode I found myself thinking about Rand's strike against the collectivists who only concern themselves with redistributing wealth, and seek to destroy the cause, i.e. capitalism. To paraphrase Rand: How did the goods get here? Somehow.

As I sat watching Obama's graceless speech, a similar statement occurred to me: How was he able to receive the intelligence and able to execute the plan? Somehow. A complete blankout of those policies that made his self-congratulation possible.

One has to wonder what Goode's reaction would be if he found out the cancer he had was eradicated. Would he not celebrate? Yet, he admonishes those who celebrate a human cancer being dropped to the bottom of the ocean?

Why stop at a trial for OBL? Why not take the morality of his Bible quote more seriously? Instead of killing OBL, why not send him care packages with food and beverage? I'll be anxiously awaiting Goode's answer.

I think Goode has said before that the choices for ethics are faith, delusion, and nihilism. Forget the self-contradiction in trying to make an argument for that, I am often struck by the fact that he manages to combine all three.

There is something fundamentally wrong with those who do not take satisfaction in retributive justice for those who commit evil acts, as the basis of justice is being treated in accordance with one's actions. On the flip-side, it is often fascinating that those who seek to dampen such a response also dampen praise for the good and their actions.

A coincidence? I think not.

At any rate, it was a great day in America. That feeling of efficacy and victory should be relished, and should act as a symbol of what should be the norm -- excellence and exceptionalism. Thank you to the intelligence agencies, the military, and the special ops that made it possible.

...brought a lump to my throat when I saw it on the news.

I never imagined I could ever have such a response to Obama, but it happened.

Hell, I would even vote for him if the election were today and I was an American.

By the time of the election I will probably have sobered up though.

Wasn't exactly this footage, it was much shorter, but you get the idea.

"The US President watched events unfold sitting in the White House Situation Room, thousands of miles away from the al-Qaeda leader's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The pictures were reportedly relayed to the White House via a video camera fixed to the helmet of a US Navy Seal.

In one picture released by the White House, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits near the president, her hand covering her mouth. Mr Obama is leaning forward in his chair in the same photograph, watching intently as the raid takes place."

Barack Obama watched US special forces' raid in 'real time'

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Foreign Secretary Hilary Clinton, along with with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House

And we saw pictures of him watching it on the telly!

Of course, this is Obama talking and we can believe everything that comes out of his mouth, right? Americans can trust Obama – right?

Obama tells us he had the intelligence on this since August last year, then why wait this long before striking?

A few days after releasing his (alleged) birth certificate, Bin Laden, the (scarecrow) face of terror, is shot dead in his bed-room, whilst Obama and fellow voyeurs are photographed watching the event on a big screen. It’s like “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”

As for special effect, note how superbly that Hillary was covering her mouth in apparent shock and horror.

What was blatantly missing from the photograph was the bucket of popcorn discretely hidden under the table!

So, Bin Laden was allegedly shot in the head? Well, since this is not the first time that Osama Bin Laden’s death has been reported, how about actually verifying this death?

Why was this man (alleged to be Osama) simply tossed overboard, with no forensics or autopsy? Evidence is gone forever.

As Obama wallows in the self glorification of vanquishing the (so called enemy) – namely a “Terror”. Moreover a mass murderer of thousands of American people: The Obama administration treats Osama’s body with the utmost of Islamic respect. Certainly not in the same way as Islamists have treated American soldiers whose bodies were dragged through the streets and burned. Subsequently, Osama deserved respect in death, over and above these peasant Americans.

10 years, thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars spent and Obama gets moment of glory. Does the fact that his current poll ratings have never been so dire, have any significance to this?

Now, we are now all told to expect repercussions and no doubt we will receive them, but the million dollar question is “from whom” and the real reason will be “why”

AND how is this going to be reflected in the defence budget?

Charlie sums this up beautifully with reference and comparison to George Orwell’s 1984

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Quite so, Richard.

Should have sat him down for a cuppa and a lamington.
That would have learned him.

As I said, parade his body in front of the media and clear the whole thing up.
....................................................................................

Sea burial of Osama bin Laden breaks sharia law, say Muslim scholars

"Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was quickly criticised by Muslim scholars who claimed it had breached sharia law and warned that it may provoke calls for revenge attacks against US targets.

Others used the sea burial question to question whether he was dead at all, with doubts fuelled by the absence of authentic photographs of his corpse.

US officials said tests using DNA from several of Bin Laden's family members had provided "virtual certainty" that it was his body. A woman believed to be one of Bin Laden's wives identified the al-Qaida leader, and he was visually identified by members of the US raiding party, the Pentagon said. Burying him on land could have led to his grave becoming a focus of contention and pilgrimage as well as posing tough questions about where he should be laid to rest.

"Finding a country willing to accept the remains of the world's most wanted terrorist would have been difficult," a US official said. "So the US decided to bury him at sea." The burial reportedly took place from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea.

Senior US officials told news agencies that his body was disposed of in accordance with Islamic tradition, which involves ritual washing, shrouding and burial within 24 hours.

The 24-hour rule has not always been applied in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator Saddam – were embalmed and held for 11 days after they were killed by US forces. Their bodies were later shown to media, provoking some angry responses.

It remains unclear if the US will release photos of Bin Laden's remains, but dispelling any doubts that he is dead is likely to be a major impetus – particularly in an age when conspiracy theories can be powerfully manipulated on the web...

Already, doubt is spreading in Pakistan. Many people do not want to believe that Bin Laden is really dead, even though an al-Qaida spokesman, in vowing vengeance against America, called him a martyr, offering no challenge to the US account of his death.

In the immediate aftermath, people in Abbottabad expressed widespread disbelief that Bin Laden had died or ever lived among them.

"I'm not ready to buy Bin Laden was here," said Haris Rasheed, 22, who works in a fast food restaurant. "How come no one knew he was here and why did they bury him so quickly? This is all fake, a drama, and a crude one."

Kamal Khan, 25, who is unemployed, said the official story "looks fishy".

In terms of the basic requirements for Muslim burials, standard practice involves placing the body in a grave with the head pointed toward the holy city of Mecca. Burial at sea is rare in Islam, though Muslim websites say it is permitted in certain circumstances. One is during a long voyage where the body may decompose and pose a health hazard to a ship's passengers, an exception noted on Monday by Tunisian scholar Ahmed al-Gharbi. Another is if there is a risk of enemies digging up a and grave and exhuming or mutilating the body.

Dr Saud al-Fanisan, former dean of the faculty of sharia law in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said that if a body was buried at sea it should be protected from fish. In the words of alislam.org, the body should be lowered into the water "in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet".

Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai's grand mufti, said of Bin Laden's burial: "They can say they buried him at sea, but they cannot say they did it according to Islam. Sea burials are permissible for Muslims in extraordinary circumstances. This is not one of them."

Where are the virgins?

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Beyond disgusting.

There's nothing disgusting about Russel Norman's reaction.

What is beyond disgusting, however, is the maniacal jeering I've come to expect on this website, e.g.,

I would like to see... his face covered in blood.

They should have waited two days and thown his rotting body in a ditch somewhere.

and elsewhere, e.g.,

Spray his body in pigs blood, and feed him to the swine.

'But Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said it would have been better to take bin Laden alive so he could face trial.

He would not say if he welcomed the death of bin Laden.

"Basically there's been an assassination, and I'm not going to go around supporting assassinations. It really isn't very becoming for the greatest democracy in the world to go around assassinating people, no matter how bad they are.

"It would have been better had there actually been proper accountability, which there could have been with a trial. [But] I don't know if that was possible [to take him alive]."'

~NZ Herald

Beyond disgusting.

Osama's last meal was sushi.

Oh, wait, got that backwards.

Sushi's last meal was Osama.

Osama bin Laden's body buried at sea

"Earlier an administration official said of the corpse: "We are ensuring that it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition.

They cut off his hands?