It really depends on perspective though. I mean, the Mongols and the Turks were still in the Medieval period and they massacred the populations of scores of towns, Muslim and Christian. If you're talking about West Europe, then yes, it was a bit more civilized with the ransoming of nobles, but its still not better than what we have today. Today we have bombs that can take out a single residence - like Quadaffi's - in a residential neighborhood, and have no collateral damage outside the target building. Compare that to a trebuchet or catapult and the potential damage that cost, or the diseased cattle they sent over the walls in sieges. I just don't think you can make a favorable comparison for OUR methods of warfare. The methods used by the Taliban - eg suicide bombs and human shields - yes, medieval may be preferable

Woo! USA! USA!

Careful with that entusiasm, Invictus...I'm told that such a display might be considered barbaric!

Perhaps a more contained, rational "I am somehwat contented in a purely logical and rational manner at the removal of the threat that Osama Bin Laden posed even though I of course realize the barabarous nature of showing any sort of jubilation at the loss of any human life because of course all life is sacred even though that would technically seem to imply that all life is then not sacred as if every life is sacred then the value of sacridity is lost."

Much more civilized, ypou know... ;)

"Today we have bombs that can take out a single residence - like Quadaffi's - in a residential neighborhood, and have no collateral damage outside the target building."

Except for those three dead kids. We also have missiles than can shoot down civilian airliners and kill 290 completely innocent people with the press of a button, all by accident of course. Whoopsy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Yeah, I'll take the trebuchet over that. Someone actually has to check their aim before they fire. And you can see the incoming rounds. And they take long enough to set up that innocent civilians have more than enough time to get out of range before they're in any danger.

Well, personally, if we're going to compare eras, Medieval to Modern...

I'll take the age where "Ring Around the Rosie" is, at worst, a really annoying song kids sing, not a description of something where, indeed, "We all fall down!"

"No, I would not. Do you really think that if the United States had reverted to a non-interventionist foreign policy any time before 1970 or so, that 9/11 still would've happened? Would Mohammed Atta and his alleged 18 cohorts have still thought striking a blow against a country that hadn't done any evil deeds in the Middle East would still have been worth dying for? I don't think so. 99.999% of people on this planet are something other than crazy, and most who are crazy aren't capable of stringing together a terrorist plot. People have to be really motivated before they decide to commit themselves to a certain death - and that motivation isn't going to happen without a serious provocation."

So what you are saying is that if we became an isolationist country, no hate crimes would happen? I'm sorry but I cannot believe that. There will always be evil in the world, and just because we decide to turn the other cheek on the world, that does not mean that evil acts will not occur.

Also, are you saying that if some group is committing genocide (like what was happening in Kosovo), we should just let it happen? We should just turn our backs on the plight of another group of people? Should we just let everyone else kill each other while we sit back and worry about ourselves, even though we have the ability to help the people in need? Does that not seem extremely selfish and irresponsible to you? How could you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people died because you let them?

Let me ask you this: If you had to kill one innocent person, in order save millions, would you not consider that an acceptable sacrifice? Or would you condemn those millions to death because you could not take that one life? Would not those deaths be your fault because of your inaction? They would all be alive if only you had done something to save their lives.

Tell me, which is the world you want to live in? The one where you just turn your back on the world and let chaos reign? Or the one where you have to make tough choices, but those choices could potentially make the world we live in a better, safer place for not just you, but for everyone who live in it?

Besides, we could play "What If" scenarios till the end of time. The fact remains that what has happened has already happened. What we must do is figure out how to deal with the world we live in today, not some fantasy land where everything fits perfectly. That is not the world we live in. We live in a world full of strife and conflict. What we need to focus on is how we can make this a better place to live in, not on how we should have done things differently. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Unfortunately I must go to sleep now. I have to say that this discussion was a pleasure and, for the most part, very intelligent. I'm glad that we were able to have a serious argument without resorting to insults.

Have a great night everyone.

Apparently they have already disposed of his body, "buried at sea" they are saying on the news. That was quick. No body now. So where is the proof?

@obi - it is generally accepted that "ring around the rosie" is not a description of the Black Death, this is a common mistake which I'm surprised learned men still make.

I hope the Navy Seals all pissed on him before the burial at sea. I also hope the Muslim military officer doing the preparation (since it must have been one of our guys doing it) did a really half-ass job.

It would have been nice to hang the corpse on the Mall and let everyone have a whack at it, but his death is still a unparalleled piece of good news.

I know your comments are emotionally provoked, but they're exactly why there are sympathisers to Osama Bin Laden's cause all over the world.

@Spyman +1 - No body, no proof, didn't happen. This was Obama's political ploy to boost his ratings and get himself re-elected next year.

"Today we have bombs that can take out a single residence - like Quadaffi's - in a residential neighborhood, and have no collateral damage outside the target building."

Except for those three dead kids.
That is no fault of the weapon - they were in the target building.

We also have missiles than can shoot down civilian airliners and kill 290 completely innocent people with the press of a button, all by accident of course. Whoopsy!
Again, no fault of the weapon.

Yeah, I'll take the trebuchet over that. Someone actually has to check their aim before they fire. And you can see the incoming rounds. And they take long enough to set up that innocent civilians have more than enough time to get out of range before they're in any danger.

You're just talking rubbish here tolstoy. If nothing else, Trebuchet warfare was part of siege warfare, meaning you couldn't get out even if you tried to, and were you to make it you'd be killed anyway. Also, I would quite happily argue that the deaths of 3 innocent children (who were probably being used as human shields) is a reasonable cost for the number of lives saved by the air strikes in general.

Until those three children are your own figle.

"I know your comments are emotionally provoked, but they're exactly why there are sympathisers to Osama Bin Laden's cause all over the world. "

That's despicable. There are many reasons radical Islamic terrorism has sympathizers, but none of them has to do with the joy of Americans that the man who masterminded the worst attack in our country's history is dead. Get your head out of your ass.


"No body, no proof, didn't happen. This was Obama's political ploy to boost his ratings and get himself re-elected next year. "

Even more despicable. Shame on you, Draugnar.

Oh come on... All of a sudden, on the Day of Rememberance we find out OBL has been killed *and* his body was buried at sea? Way too fishy for me (pun intended). Had he been killed, I would think there would have been, at a minimum, photographic evidence taken. I've seen no such evidence. But I have seen a willingness to be fast and loose with the facts on our Government's part before (not just Obama, Bush too). Not until I see evidence of the dead man (photos are fine) will I believe this actually happened. Until then, this is just a balloon boy fraud perpetuated by our government.

" is a reasonable cost for the number of lives saved by the air strikes in general."

What "lives saved"? I love how you apologists for NATO assassinations and child murdering always invent this idea of "lives being saved".

Ever consider that they can't release images right away for a legitimate reason? I'm sure the military has basically moved that whole mansion in Abbottabad to a base for analysis. Perhaps they want to make sure there's no way the remaining terrorists can even guess at what we've found out. Or perhaps he was shot in the head and the government would just be releasing a gory picture of a stump. There are so many good reasons to believe the official story here. This is a great day for America and for freedom in the world. Your attitude is repulsive.

Plus, if this were to be faked for political gain, you'd expect it to happen in October of 2012.

"Until then, this is just a balloon boy fraud perpetuated by our government."

The moon landing was a hoax too, right?

No, Putin. I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist. I'm not a truther, and I don't believe Kennedy was assassinated by the FBI. I just find this whole dumping of the body *too* convenient.

Right, to those talking about the air strikes: I'd like to clarify your views. Do you think this strike was aimed at Gadhaffi personally or a command position, and whether it matters?
The UN mandate allows action to prevent Gadhaffi attacking his citizens, and as long as you can't trust him not to do that when making his own decisions surely you should remove his command?

It is convenient. Convenient to not even have to think about radicals claiming the body is being desecrated, potentially having mobs storm a US base where the rumor is the corpse is located. Convenient to deny a these barbarians a shrine. Convenient to deny them even a time of grief between his death and the body being lost to the waves. As I said in another thread, I would have liked him to be strung up on the Mall and every American gets a whack, but this was probably the right way to go about it.

If you're not a truther you shouldn't be stupid enough to say this is fake.

I mean for Christ's sake, Draugnar. It would just take the real bin Laden sending out one video tape saying he's a alive to unravel the whole conspiracy you're constructing. Why would Obama set himself and the United States up for such a devastating revelation? If you think this is fake you're retarded.

Get real. You put his body aboard the ship, then send it out to sea. OK, now it is safe and there is none of the mob aspect you are talking about. So there is no reason to dump the body, yet it still gets dumped? No autopsy to prove it is him? No DNA evidence or fingerprints or anything?

You're retarded.

Because he was killed. Quite some time ago he was killed. This was just a convenient time to release the information, right when the President needed a boost.

You're retarded. He would do this in October 2012 if he were going to fake it, which he wouldn't because that's a retarded idea. I hope you're trolling.

fox news makes me laugh

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/msnbc.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

Sorry Draug, while the timing may have been somewhat artificial to dig obama out of a politcal hole that trump forced him into, I have to agree with Invictus, it's pretty dumb of obama to "fabricate" this sort of story, though I wouldn't put it past one of bin laden's doubles to try that stunt.