137 replies to this topic

[Moosh]

So it kinda just occurred to me: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The deed is done. And yet we're arguing over whether or not he deserved to die...don't we have better things to be discussing? Pic very much related.

[Plissken]

It's healthy to question decisions or talk about current events. Just because it is now in the past doesn't mean we should all just move on. Speculation is just something we do as humans, stop trying to end it. Also, I hate how the word argument is ALWAYS thrown over debates that aren't in the debate forum at pure, if it's getting out of hand the staff will deal with it.

[Sheik]

You know, what's really sad about the whole matter is that I think we missed a chance here. This was a chance to show the world that we (the western world, the international community) give these kind of persons fair trial. Not at an Parkistani or American court but at the international court. Because everybody deserves fair trial.
To those that argue it was too risky to get Bin Laden alive: Don't give me that. You'd think that the members of a special unit, that 80% of the trainees fail, would be capable of captureing one man. They were armed to the theeth, Bin Laden's men most likely weren't. And their number was vastly greater anyways.
Also, I wonder how the American government justifies these actions. They can't say that they've applied war law because there was no war against AQ. AQ is no state, it's a organisation of private persons. You can't declare war upon private persons, it's not possible. (Which renders the whole war against terror deal pointless, by the way. There can't be such a thing, that's a fact.) You can't just walk into someone's country and kill a person there. That's a crime. It's against the (positive) law (and against natural law, too).
Another thing that's sad about this is, that it started Barack Obama's election campaign. How perverted to use the murder of a human as a mean of re-election. He even went to ground zero and everything. I mean, the heck? Back when he was elected, I had some hope in the man. I was actually hoping that the democrats would lead America better than the republicans did, but it's pretty much the same sad mess. :/
(Also, what's kind of perverted is this: Angela Merkel (the "president" of Germany so to speak) stated that she was "happy" about Bin Laden's death. That's something to say. She apologized by now, but still. What an ugly thing to say.)

[Anthus]

I don't think Osama could have been 'rehabilitated' to think another way as opposed to being killed. That sounds a little Clockwork Orange to me. War is not pretty, and messed up things happen. Kinda sucks about the helicopter though.

EDIT: On a lighter note,
http://www.youtube.c...bes&feature=aso

Edited by Anthus, 06 May 2011 - 01:19 PM.

[Sheik]

But there was no "war". The only wars that took place recently that are worth mentioning in this context are the Iraque war and the war in Afghanistan. The actions against AQ and Bin Laden are NOT war actions by definition.
And I don't think he could've rehabilitated either. He could've been locked away until his last day, though.

[NoeL]

Only the most kind hearted person could forgive a horrible monster like him and I can say that most of us aren't very kind hearted.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be, or that murder is acceptable when enough people want to do it.

I agree we need to convince people not to commit future crimes, but not focusing on past crimes is like telling people they don't need to take responsibility for their actions, this is already happening in our own legal system... The security guard at the movies gets pissed at me when I slide down the stair rail, because I might fall and then sue. But if I did sue, like many do in similar situations, I would be suing someone else for something which was entirely my own doing.

... I don't understand how a security guard discouraging you from doing something in the future = punishing for the past. What the security guard is doing is an example of what I'm advocating, not you

I do believe in an eye for an eye. If you're going to face jail time for stealing, or face getting your hand lopped off, which one will deter you more? The truth is, once someone comes out of jail, they rarely change. However, if you have a stub where your hand used to be, that's always going to remind you of what you did, and hopefully of how it was wrong.

You're absolutely right... hey, I just thought of something! Which would deter you more - losing a hand, or losing your head? We should just make EVERY crime punishable by death - that way crime will be a thing of the past! Brilliant! [/sarcasm]

You really haven't thought this through, have you. Will it deter crime? Absolutely. Will it turn a happy and productive society into terrified mice, watching every single step they take, never daring to try anything risky, never pushing the status quo, and dying from stress at 45? Of course.

We've all done stupid things in the past that we regret, but permanently maiming someone for those mistakes is revolting. Negative punishment is a good (though cruel) way to condition behaviour, but it's not the only way. What's a better way of making your kid do his homework - threatening to beat him, or offering him a cookie? Assuming both approaches get the job done, the difference is whether the child is scared and resentful towards you, or happy and grateful.

This is what we should be aiming for on a national and international scale. The "punish the crime" system is a relic of the past - we're smart enough to develop a better system (from memory reward-based discipline studies have shown to be more successful too). We need to shy away from punishing bad behaviour and focus more on rewarding good behaviour.

Another thing that's sad about this is, that it started Barack Obama's election campaign. How perverted to use the murder of a human as a mean of re-election. He even went to ground zero and everything. I mean, the heck? Back when he was elected, I had some hope in the man. I was actually hoping that the democrats would lead America better than the republicans did, but it's pretty much the same sad mess. :/

Lay off the Fox News - the republicans are going to criticise him no matter what he does. If he didn't go to ground zero they would have bashed him for being insensitive to the families that lost loved ones there. It's a bit of a stretch to claim Obama's only motivation for killing Bin Laden was for the political advantage.

[Radien]

Actually, not Obama managed to kill Bin Laden but the government under his leadership (and he's no monarch either - rather a representive) was resposible for the military actions that took place that led to Bin Laden's death. Just like Bush didn't start a war but rather the government under his leadership was responsible for military actions that took place that started a war. Not single people rule your countries but rather goverments, parties (republicans or democrats that is in America, right?). Why do you refuse to make that difference? Because it's easier to blame it on single indiiduals?
On a more acstract level, they've carried out the will of the people, actually (though I doubt that in our post-democratic times/societies). To take this some further, it was actually you (your will, the will of the majority) that killed Bin Laden or started a war (which is of course mostly not true, but that's like democracies work, should actually make one wonder...).

President Obama was responsible for the final decision on whether to bomb the location or to send in the Navy Seals. He decided to send the Navy Seals. This was risky, but very successful. No, Obama was not right there in Pakistan carrying a gun, of course. The military deserve to be credited for coming home victorious, but President Obama was responsible for the final decision of what to do.

Similarly, President Bush was mostly responsible for the initial decision to send troops into Iraq. This is how it is supposed to work in America: the President makes the early decision to send troops. Then, Congress is responsible for deciding whether to declare war.

Yes, our system has problems. Congress never declared war against Iraq or Afghanistan, but U.S. forces are still there today. We had this same problem in the Vietnam War, which was never "declared" a war (even though it definitely was). This is partially due to the strange and changing nature of many modern conflicts.

But even with the system's problems, we can still know what the President is responsible for. Also, it is very important for the President to listen to the military and interpret it into a decision. The U.S. military is very organized, so it is usually optimistic about what it can accomplish. Sometimes the President needs to be less optimistic and more realistic.

So it kinda just occurred to me: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The deed is done. And yet we're arguing over whether or not he deserved to die...don't we have better things to be discussing? Pic very much related.

Heh, hindsight indeed.

The question of whether he deserved to die is a valid one... or at least, it was four years ago. Back then, all of the Presidential candidates agreed that we needed to find and kill Bin Laden... and back then, nobody asked whether he deserved it. Right now is a silly time to be asking that question, because the military had been working hard to figure out how to kill him for a very long time. If it mattered to us whether he was brought in alive, that should have been part of the discussion before the military was told what to do.

[Mitchfork]

Something else to add to explaining the President's role in this operation, and in military actions in general: in America, the President also acts as the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces of the nation. While his powers in a legislative context are those of a representative and limited, his powers in a military context are very great. As the Commander in Chief, the President can (and has, at multiple times in history) take strategic control of the armed forces; he's not forced to by any means, but in this situation, as the facts have shown, Obama did call the shot that took bin Laden down.

You know, what's really sad about the whole matter is that I think we missed a chance here. This was a chance to show the world that we (the western world, the international community) give these kind of persons fair trial. Not at an Parkistani or American court but at the international court. Because everybody deserves fair trial.
To those that argue it was too risky to get Bin Laden alive: Don't give me that. You'd think that the members of a special unit, that 80% of the trainees fail, would be capable of captureing one man. They were armed to the theeth, Bin Laden's men most likely weren't. And their number was vastly greater anyways.

Yes, the military could have probably apprehended bin Laden alive; according to official reports, there was only one armed resistor, and the way that bin Laden was killed (purportedly two bullets, one to the head and one to the chest) is pretty consistent with a shoot-to-kill technique. Keep this in mind though; there have been several failed attempts on Osama bin Laden, and the failure of the Clinton and Bush (mainly Bush) administrations to apprehend, kill, or even locate bin Laden have been harshly criticized. I think it's likely that the government simply wanted to leave nothing to chance.

Notice that I am not offering justification, only explanation. What is absolutely morally right is not always the best or even a feasible option. Whether that applies to this instance or not, I'll leave for another time.

Let me ask you this (and I'm not trying to trap you in some silly hypothetical (because this is only hypothetical and totally meaningless in this discussion), I just want to know so that I understand your stance better): if it had been impossible to take bin Laden alive, but we knew he was in the compound, would you have supported his death?

Another thing that's sad about this is, that it started Barack Obama's election campaign. How perverted to use the murder of a human as a mean of re-election. He even went to ground zero and everything. I mean, the heck? Back when he was elected, I had some hope in the man. I was actually hoping that the democrats would lead America better than the republicans did, but it's pretty much the same sad mess. :/
(Also, what's kind of perverted is this: Angela Merkel (the "president" of Germany so to speak) stated that she was "happy" about Bin Laden's death. That's something to say. She apologized by now, but still. What an ugly thing to say.)

Well, I guess you could say that Obama is in a "damned if you do, damned it you don't" sort of situation. He has gone on record before as saying that killing Osama bin Laden will be a main military goal of his administration, so you can't say that you were blindsided by this. When people say that they are happy about his death, there is a bit of reading between the lines that has to be done; most people are happy about the results of his death, but not necessarily the death itself. I am happy that al-Qaeda is weakened by the loss of their champion. I am happy that the victims of terrorist attacks around the globe have some degree of closure. I am happy that this may be the event that leads to a mass retraction of troops from the Middle East (although it could just as easily go the other way...).

The question of whether he deserved to die is a valid one... or at least, it was four years ago. Back then, all of the Presidential candidates agreed that we needed to find and kill Bin Laden... and back then, nobody asked whether he deserved it. Right now is a silly time to be asking that question, because the military had been working hard to figure out how to kill him for a very long time. If it mattered to us whether he was brought in alive, that should have been part of the discussion before the military was told what to do.

Absolutely. If you put out a "dead or alive" poster, you can't balk when you get a body at your doorstep.

EDIT: Keep in mind that I'm not trying to steer this into a "is killing ever warranted" debate, although if people would like I think that it would make a great debate room topic.

[lucas92]

I think that killing Osama Bin Laden was not necessary at all. It is just an another political tactic that will make Obama look like an hero in the next elections. I'm not supporting what Osama Bin Laden has accomplished at all.. I just don't think that the USA is in good position to know what is ethically good or not. :S

Seriously, his death is only a victory for the american army. It's a loss for the whole population because Al Qaeda will want its revenge and consequently terrorism will grow in activity in the next few months...

[sigtau]

Remember high school drama?

Imagine that, but on a political (perhaps warlike) scale.

Welcome to reality.

[Radien]

Seriously, his death is only a victory for the american army. It's a loss for the whole population because Al Qaeda will want its revenge and consequently terrorism will grow in activity in the next few months...

Revenge? They were already quite clear about wanting to kill us. For the last decade they've spent most of their time trying to figure out how to do so. These people were quite clearly beyond negotiation. If there is a spike in terrorist attacks, it is nothing more than them being slightly more reckless in order to make us feel like if we had held back, it would have placated them. Sorry, bad news: it wouldn't have.

Remember high school drama?

Imagine that, but on a political (perhaps warlike) scale.

Welcome to reality.

Not gonna embed it, but I figured this would be appropriate....

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jrxI_euTX4A

[Sheik]

Let me ask you this (and I'm not trying to trap you in some silly hypothetical (because this is only hypothetical and totally meaningless in this discussion), I just want to know so that I understand your stance better): if it had been impossible to take bin Laden alive, but we knew he was in the compound, would you have supported his death?

The idea of his death, Ebola? The idea of his murder rather. No, Ebola, I would never support the idea of murder. Regardless who's the target. Now about the line with the "compound", let me quote another line to make a point:

Absolutely. If you put out a "dead or alive" poster, you can't balk when you get a body at your doorstep.

How on earth did Parkistan become America's doorstep? My geography is just about avarage, but that much I know: Parkistan is not American ground.
I think it's fundamentally wrong that American soldiers could invade just about any country on the globe without even considering wether they have the right to do so. Now you could ask the question wether the US had the right to send their troops after Bin Laden, who was in Parkistan. The answer would be no. Why? Because to make it legal, you have to argue with war law. As far as I'm aware, the US is not in any war with Parkistan currently. Thus they have no right to send their troops to Parkistan to shoot down some individual in this country. If you want to argue that the US declared war against "terrorism", Al-Qaede or Osama Bin Laden, than I have to tell you again: It's not possible. A state can only declare war against another state. Al-Qaede and Bin Laden are organisations of private person /private persons and not states. You can not declare war against these (private persons). The international (and national) law is not fit to do such. Thus the actions were illegal. Now, another question that might occour could be this: Who was responsible for getting Bin Laden instead of the US? Well, that's obvious. The government of the country which the individual resides in. In this case this would have been Parkistan. The criminal was staying on Parkistani ground, it was Parkistan's responsibilty to capture the criminal. (And than, if they had caught him, he was not to be brought in front of an Parkistani court or the American court either. He was to be brought in front of the international court because his crimes were such against humanity on international scale.)

If there's one thing I truely dislike about American politics it's that for miraculous reasons, the US has the understanding of itself that they are world's police. They are not.

Edited by Sheik91, 08 May 2011 - 12:14 PM.

[Mitchfork]

The idea of his death, Ebola? The idea of his murder rather. No, Ebola, I would never support the idea of murder. Regardless who's the target.

Okay.

How on earth did Parkistan become America's doorstep? My geography is just about avarage, but that much I know: Parkistan is not American ground.

Relax, I wasn't saying that at all. I was just making a point of Americans who had supported military action to kill Osama and are now saying that it's not what they wanted. I wasn't saying anything about Pakistan.

[Sheik]

Oh, just in case I sound somewhat heated up here: it's mostly just "rhetoric" so to speak. I am kind of scandalized about the whole matter, but I'm still fairly "relaxed", as in, I hold no personal gruge against any of you. Better if I make that clear, maybe.

[William]

I actually just read an article by the Inquirer, which stated that Bin Laden was high on heroine and begged and pleaded for mercy before finally being killed. Where does the Inquirer come up with this stuff? Do they just spend all day trying to make up the most fantastic stories possible?