skaltezon

As a pretext for responding to something I hadn't said, because that's what you wanted to argue about.


Only if you use language in a straightforward manner. In your case, you were clearly implying she is a 'questionable' kind of person who probably doesn't merit our concern.

__________________

TheBig3

it was, but I like it to.

The main thing, I'm guessing, was to pull out of Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure why thats such a big issue for him, but considering the House of Representatives probably feels the same way, its hard to think thats all he wanted. Or would need before calling off the dogs.

Well they aren't (mostly) PhD's. These same people really did think the WTC bombing would cripple the economy. They continue to send kids who just "feel the cause" over here with no training who routinely give themselves away. They'll attack while we're on high alert and similar results will happen to the last few attempts. (Shoe, Time Square, Underwear...)

Our smartest move would be to move out now. You can't hit what you can't reach.

Yeah, like Reagan. The issue, though, is that this was a religious thing. And if these 20 year olds really did believe they were going to get 72 virgins on the otherside, and here on earth they were getting food from a dumpster, its hard to imagine their will waning. If you can imagine the poverty these young men endure, and how the promise of Jihad sounds to people in that situation, I don't think you're going to see a massive difference in violence now that OBL is gone. If anything, it will provide a concrete vision of the end result. When Top Brass takes a hit, you don't think the bottom rung will get off scott-free.

Too many people are locked away indefinitely or killed for the task to continue to be appealing. IMO, of course.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

midnight rain

No I wasn't, in both cases. I've clearly explained myself already by this point and don't really care to try and convince you otherwise, so feel free to continue to misinterpret my posts and assume the intentions of others when you have no idea what you're talking about.

TheBig3

I'd be less offended by this pissing match if it wasn't taking away lime-light from my MENSA-level posts.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Mr November

Is this thread still going? I thought we established long ago that no one really cared that Osama was dead, and that this would probably only lead to a rash of newly inspired terrorism?

Urban Hat€monger ?

Dear Navy Seals

Can you get Tony Blair next please

TA

xx

__________________

VEGANGELICA

Exactly. That was my point: both Bin Laden and the U.S. government believed/believe it is okay to achieve goals by killing innocent people.

The question I'm asking is whether there was much moral difference between the actions of the U.S. and of Bin Laden. In my opinion the answer is no.

Agreed. I read an article stating that Osama Bin Laden was unarmed when a U.S. SEAL shot him to death. The smell of execution gets stronger.

I am not alone in questioning the ethics of the U.S.'s actions, since others agree that justice should mean capturing the accused and bringing him to trial, rather than acting, as the U.S. did, as "policeman, judge, and executioner":

Dirty, please see quotes above about justice, and also tell me if justice was served when the U.S. killed a woman accused of no crime to get to a man accused of one.

Is the world *really* a better place now that Osama Bin Laden isn't breathing? Why?

I feel killing a person is NEVER an answer to a problem...especially since you can't kill an *idea* by killing a person. Kill all the terrorists in the world...and the ideas for which terrorists stand can still originate in another person's mind.

Yes, Osama Bin Laden *did* act unethically and in horrible ways, Neapolitan, but this does not, I feel, remove the onus from us to consider whether or not the U.S.'s actions were ethical...and I feel they were not.

Yes, Bin Laden's own actions put him on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. However, the U.S. is to blame for his death, because someone from the U.S. military, authorized by the U.S. President, killed Osama Bin Laden.

I agree with you completely that justice is not served, because there is NO way to EVER BRING BACK the people murdered on 9/11 under Osama Bin Laden's command. This is one reason to avoid killing people if at all possible. There is no way to reverse a killing and no way the dead can have a second chance to live. No amount of revenge killing will bring her or him back.

We are in agreement, Big3, that killing isn't the right thing to do...and I understand your point that you feel killing Bin Laden was the lesser of two wrongs...but that still doesn't make killing him RIGHT.

No, I don't feel Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. I oppose capital punishment. If Osama Bin Laden had been taken alive, placed on trial, and found guilty (as he surely would have been), I *also* would have opposed people killing him as punishment. I would have wanted him to live.

I disagree that barbarians always win if we follow the view that a human life is precious, since by *not* following that view we ourselves *become* barbarians. The only way to stop barbarians is to not act like them.

In my opinion the best (non-barbarian) solution to terrorism is the following:

(1) Try to understand the terrorists' motivations;
(2) Act defensively and do not use violent offensive actions;
(3) Focus on challenging the terrorists' motivating *idea* instead of focusing on killing the people who hold the idea;
(4) Acknowledge and admit one's own mistakes that have contributed to terrorists feeling angry;
(5) Finally, NEVER NEVER NEVER stoop to terrorists' level by using aggressive violence and accepting the killing of innocent people to achieve one's goals.

The U.S. has stooped, as it often does, to aggressive killing to try to achieve its political aims. The U.S. did this by preemptively attacking Iraq, unprovoked, leading to many thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. The U.S. did this again when it killed Al Zarqawi: "six other people were killed in the attack, including one woman and one child" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed in Bombing Raid - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com. Now, with Bin Laden, the U.S. uses violence again.

__________________

highoctane93

okay wats with respecting his religion

__________________
*Remember, 50% of people are of below average intelligence*

TheBig3

Consider the fact that twice now, the largest prison in Afghanistan has been broken into twice by Al'Qadea and had all of its occupants released. Holding him in a prison increases the rate of attacks.

I don't think we ought to fear becoming barbarians, and I do think we should question who really is innocent. I assume in the later case you meant the woman who was killed. Why, exactly, is she innocent? Was she unaware that Bin Laden had killed thousands? And whos to say that barbarism is subpar in some capacity. The implication there is that we're an uncivilized mongrel nation.

But the the real issue isn't barbarism, its the inability to be selective. I think Obama has handled things in a very professional, and respectful manner. He never made a secret of, and the US has never made a secret of wanting to take Bin Laden. Reports are coming out now that instructions were to take him alive if he gave himself up, but after a half hour of resistance, the SEAL team shot him.

Killing might be wrong. It goes against our human instincts. But it is primal to believe that, if this individual remains alive, some of us may not. All too often we see Murder as a crime, therefore all murder is a crime. But the root-reason murder is a crime is because its often considered a punishment too severe for anyone action. As a civilized society, we have created pathways for resolution, we've built a code of interaction. When this is compromised by indiscriminate murder, its in our interests to eliminate this aberration.

And thats the point. There are countless ways to address a grievance in the West, and even when conducting business with the West. It may be laborious and slow-moving, but there are ways. Death prohibits all of these things. And because of this, we view death not only as the elimination of a life, but as a direct attack on things like democracy, separation of powers, the judicial system. We see it this way because we've agreed as a society that there are plenty of ways life can be unjust. As such we've created a process for resolution. And I happen to believe its a damn good system.

But death is finite and shouldn't be so easily forgiven. Should the US have killed Bin Laden? That depends on how you look at it. But I think the Obama Administration had every interest in keeping him alive first, and killing him second, and I do think he's an individual who values fair play in these matters more than he's given credit for.

We're free to disagree. But I would like to think that if my prerogative, upon our disagreement, was to kill you over that disagreement, they would visit upon me the same fate. It is certainly, in both instances, illogical. But it does return a balance of logic to a system created to sustain civility.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Mr November

Vegangelica made some good points. I think people should make a point of reading her comments here.

Edit: So what if Osama killed thousands? How many died in Hiroshima?

I don't believe in capital punishment. If anything, taking Osama alive would have been preferable since you could avoid stirring up so much action in terrorist regions. I'd be ashamed to be an American given the way everyone is gloating - it just looks stupid.

Justice isn't retributive. Retribution isn't justice. For an event like 9/11 especially, not amount of gloating, and killing people will undo what has been done.