Osama Bin Laden Killed

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but in that definition there is no reason to distinguish between active and passive resistance, because there would be no difference between passive resistance and doing nothing, you just get resistance.

I'd agree, there is an argument to be made that the distinction is meaningless, however, I'm not sure I agree with it. I think there is some value to distinguishing between action that sets out to dismantle the ability of power to work (such as the recent protests where people shut down banks by cashing fake cheques) and passively trying to prevent the people in power from being able to do what they want (such as sit ins, Ghandi, etc)

the problem is the words have several meanings, not that these aren't meaningful distinctions, imho.

Again, that's what I was trying to communicate. Active and Passive Resistance mean different something else than "being active" or "being passive".

Originally posted by Liberator
****ing brilliant.

Ah, and, protesting is useless. For the most part, protests are ignored. It is only through active resistance that anything will actually start changing.

I pretty much agree with this.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but in that definition there is no reason to distinguish between active and passive resistance, because there would be no difference between passive resistance and doing nothing, you just get resistance.

I'd agree, there is an argument to be made that the distinction is meaningless, however, I'm not sure I agree with it. I think there is some value to distinguishing between action that sets out to dismantle the ability of power to work (such as the recent protests where people shut down banks by cashing fake cheques) and passively trying to prevent the people in power from being able to do what they want (such as sit ins, Ghandi, etc)

the problem is the words have several meanings, not that these aren't meaningful distinctions, imho.

The only time the distinction is necessary (the word game semantics, that is) is when it applies to the interpretations of laws. If there exists a law that says: "you can only passively protest, but not actively protest." Then very specific examples of passive protesting and active protesting must be given for those labels.

Other than that, the labels are almost silly to make extreme distinctions since it can vary from person to person.

I consider protesting to be things like writing letters to a corporation for something you disagree with. Is it passive? Yes. Is it active? Yes.

Now, we can pretty much agree that beating the shit out of a several abusive cops would be active protest...but even then, we could argue that it's not protest, at all.

.

And, my thoughts on the Liberator comment about active resistance: I somewhat agree. However, I think that just intelligent "activity" is the best form of change creator.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, that's what I was trying to communicate. Active and Passive Resistance mean different something else than "being active" or "being passive".

oh, fair enough, misread then, my bad

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only time the distinction is necessary (the word game semantics, that is) is when it applies to the interpretations of laws. If there exists a law that says: "you can only passively protest, but not actively protest." Then very specific examples of passive protesting and active protesting must be given for those labels.

Other than that, the labels are almost silly to make extreme distinctions since it can vary from person to person.

I consider protesting to be things like writing letters to a corporation for something you disagree with. Is it passive? Yes. Is it active? Yes.

Now, we can pretty much agree that beating the shit out of a several abusive cops would be active protest...but even then, we could argue that it's not protest, at all.

.

And, my thoughts on the Liberator comment about active resistance: I somewhat agree. However, I think that just intelligent "activity" is the best form of change creator.

I suppose we disagree then, but ya, I don't have the stomach for semantics in this much depth

Originally posted by inimalist
I suppose we disagree then, but ya, I don't have the stomach for semantics in this much depth

Nor do I. I hate word games.

I would like to back-pedal on a point, however: in political science, it may be prudent to make distinctions to which the academic community universally agrees. That should really settle the debate and it has been settled. It's just that...with symbolic thought, we can actually quickly reshape the way a word has meaning. Even at the academic level, one professor may find it necessary to distinguish those words away from his or her colleagues to make a good point.

But, yeah, I hate word semantics. I always have. Remember our anthropic discussion...I loathed it...especially because I would make a good point and then make another anthropic point, several times which made my actual points seem muddied.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor do I. I hate word games.

I would like to back-pedal on a point, however: in political science, it may be prudent to make distinctions to which the academic community universally agrees. That should really settle the debate and it has been settled. It's just that...with symbolic thought, we can actually quickly reshape the way a word has meaning. Even at the academic level, one professor may find it necessary to distinguish those words away from his or her colleagues to make a good point.

But, yeah, I hate word semantics. I always have. Remember our anthropic discussion...I loathed it...especially because I would make a good point and then make another anthropic point, several times which made my actual points seem muddied.

well like, that sort of hits the nail on the head. The problem isn't that someone has interpreted a linguistic symbol in the wrong way, but rather that it is possible for words to be interpreted in many ways.

and ya, you have a way better memory for previous discussions than I do... not that I don't find stuff meaningful, just that everything seems to mash into "stuff I know" without any concept of the source.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
[B]Well to me those quotes didn't really sound like people who would have liked to have taken Bin Laden alive and put him on trial for the crimes he's been accused of.

That sounds to me like people who are happy that a mass murderer is dead. What's wrong with that? Last time I checked, Gbaggo surrendered, which is why he was arrested. Osama did not surrender. He was an enemy soldier in the middle of a war. You're creating a comparison that doesn't exist.

Furthermore, do you really think that the Africans are happy that Gbago is on trial and may end up walking as a free man, despite all the crimes he committed against humanity? Naive.

Why am i missing something? Or are you just purposely being annoying as usual.

Well, considering that Ush has been monitoring this thread, and considering that I've been a member here for 5 years, if I was being "purposefully" annoying I probably would have gotten in trouble by now. You're just too sensitive regarding people not buying into your conspiracy theories, I think.

Originally posted by inimalist
...

"active resistance" is a type of protest, again, provided we don't use the restricted definition of the term that, for some reason, would only include sign carrying.

so yes, the Taliban's use of suicide bombers against NATO forces is a form of their protest against NATO policy. maybe this isn't the way the term is used most often in the media, [b]but it is the way I used it, and in fact, I have clarified this at least twice. [/B]

Okay, we just have different ideas of what a word means because I wouldn't say protest and resistance were the same thing.

I'm not even going to bother with my Ghandi error, I think everyone understood what I was trying to say and it's a really pointless discussion.

Now, back onto the topic of Osama, I can't find anything about the son, I'll ask again, does anyone know anything about this fella?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That sounds to me like people who are happy that a mass murderer is dead. What's wrong with that? Last time I checked, Gbaggo surrendered, which is why he was arrested. Osama did not surrender. He was an enemy soldier in the middle of a war. You're creating a comparison that doesn't exist.

Right I think you missed the whole conversation. I said he should be taken alive and go on trial like all war criminals, war criminals with much worse crimes than what Bin Laden is accused of.

Inimalist said yes no one is arguing that, we all would have liked to see him taken alive and go on trial. I posted those comments that showed a lot of people had no problem with Bin Laden just being executed.

And no I cant for the life of me appreciate how you can all cheer and be so happy over another death. Were all the tens of thousands killed in Afghanistan not good enough for you?? Were the hundereds of thousands killed in Iraq not good enough for you either? Is that not mass murder on a much bigger scale to 9/11?? Whose going to be held responsible for that I wonder???...

Oh and Osama was unarmed so in no position to resist being captured.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Furthermore, do you really think that the Africans are happy that Gbago is on trial and may end up walking as a free man, despite all the crimes he committed against humanity? Naive.

Hey I never said I agreed with the sentence. I agree with the process! Thats more important than peoples feelings or thirst for blood. If your going to go by that then believe you me there are millions of people around the muslim world who are not "happy" about Bush and Blair walking as free men without any sentence whatsoever!

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, considering that Ush has been monitoring this thread, and considering that I've been a member here for 5 years, if I was being "purposefully" annoying I probably would have gotten in trouble by now. You're just too sensitive regarding people not buying into your conspiracy theories, I think.

No I meant how you would harass me on the Star Wars threads as well, I thought you were probably just "Purposefully" having a go at my comment without having read and understood the context of the conversation.

But now I see you just did not like what I was saying because you were happy to see a man ACCUSED of mass murder executed without trial. And no thats not a conspiracy. He was just called the one ALLEGEDLY behind 9/11 two nights ago on BBC newsnight. He's not a mass murderer until found guilty in a court of law.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201151911729325484.html

Haven't watched the tapes yet but they sound interesting to hear.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Inimalist

the "i" isn't capitalized

inimalist

Originally posted by inimalist
the "i" isn't capitalized

[b]inimalist [/B]

Well it was actually the start of a new sentence so had to be capitalized 😛

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well it was actually the start of a new sentence so had to be capitalized 😛

not really

the "i" is the second letter of the word, which is never capitalized at the start of a new sentence

Thoughts on the helicopter "left behind" by the SEALS?

Well...they kind of didn't leave a "helicopter" behind, at all. They blew it up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...they kind of didn't leave a "helicopter" behind, at all. They blew it up.

Cause they were like "AMERICA...**** YEAH!!!"

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I know this, but why did they leave it behind?

It crashed. The speculation is that the new helicopter (apparently its a secret stealth helo, no one recognizes the pieces left behind) behaved differently than that pilot thought and he hit the wall of the compound as they entered.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It crashed. The speculation is that the new helicopter (apparently its a secret stealth helo, no one recognizes the pieces left behind) behaved differently than that pilot thought and he hit the wall of the compound as they entered.

The other explanation was the hovering and heat caused a vortex ring state.