I don't know where you got that. We're not going around killing and threatening innocent people intentionally. Stopping and killing a man who helped plan to kill 3 thousand isn't terrorism to me. It's justice. I can't see the point of letting him rot away in a jail for the rest of his life and worry that he could possibly escape. And I meant it shows the terrorists that no one is invincible.
You honestly don't think the CIA wouldn't want to interrogate Bin Laden? That the White House wouldn't have loved to put him on trial before the world?
I'm sort of indifferent to the whole thing really.
I can see the benefits of killing him as much as I can see the benefits of keeping him alive.
I guess the Americans must have killed him instead of capturing him because either they thought holding him and trialling him would draw too much attention and maybe spark aggression from the extremist (which could still happen, but then again they could be intimidated by a show of force such as this) or they must not have thought he would have much intelligence (plus he seems to have quite a few family members, maybe they thought they could get as much intel out of them...)
Its going to be a long hard fight. Eventually it will all phase out, just have to stick with it.
Gaddafi is the one to watch. Hopefully they catch him and make him an example.
"Now that we killed him hopefully their morale will be shaken" seems to be advocating the murder as a form of terrorism in itself.
The US doesn't go around threatening and killing innocent people intentionally. We aren't after the whole Middle East, just the terrorists who hope to destroy the west. Osama was their figurehead, now maybe this will show them that doing these types of things have consquences. Osama planned the attacks on 9/11 which helped cause over 3000 deaths. I wouldn't want to risk having him rot away in a jail and have a chance to escape.
terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
You honestly don't think the CIA wouldn't want to interrogate Bin Laden? That the White House wouldn't have loved to put him on trial before the world?
I doubt he'd bother giving them anything. Maybe a false lead.
I'm sure the White House would loved to have him on trial, but what's the point? He would have just said God told him to do 9/11 and he'll be rewarded in the afterlife.
I heard he had a gun so I don't think he was intending on surrendering. Plus I wouldn't want to risk losing him again while taking him somewhere.
The US doesn't go around threatening and killing innocent people intentionally. We aren't after the whole Middle East, just the terrorists who hope to destroy the west. Osama was their figurehead, now maybe this will show them that doing these types of things have consquences. Osama planned the attacks on 9/11 which helped cause over 3000 deaths. I wouldn't want to risk having him rot away in a jail and have a chance to escape.
terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
I wasn't saying that it was an act of terrorism. But the idea of shaking the enemy's morale as a justification is a support of terrorism as a form of warfare. Your definition of terrorism doesn't seem to work that well. It rules out state terrorism, and may also rule out the taliban, which I'm sure you do not wish to do.
He definitely had to pay, but by killing him, there's no way to get info out of him, and he becomes a martyr for his followers ...
And to all of you who think "yeah go team america ololol we're da best we kill people when we don't like them because we feel it's right", well, I despise you.
If we let people decide arbitrary on what is "right", then what will be next ?
It's only selfish... It's like how absolutely no one does anything about China because they're too important for the economy of the world ... but suddenly decide to "be heroes" as soon as they can with smaller countries ...
The guy totally had to pay, but death is actually not even the worst thing in the world, he just stopped living you know, he's not here to regret anything.
Unless you believe in a God, then there's no such thing as an objective right. Only a right of consensus, and then it falls to the people who consent. As for Osama, the man fought back when his compound was raided, and used a woman unrelated to him as a human shield, a coward's act. The loss of his life was nothing more than the total sum of his life. He lived by the ways of death and those same methods took his life. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's nothing more than the end sum.
"I wasn't saying that it was an act of terrorism. But the idea of shaking the enemy's morale as a justification is a support of terrorism as a form of warfare. Your definition of terrorism doesn't seem to work that well. It rules out state terrorism, and may also rule out the taliban, which I'm sure you do not wish to do. "
I meant the morale remark as a possible result of killing him and showing Bin Laden isn't invincible. I didn't mean we should have killed him just to lower the terrorists' morale and make everyone in pakistan scared. I believe we killed him for what he did on 9/11 and another possible attack. I copied the Terrorism def. from wiki. and they say its a vague term to define.
I refuse to celebrate the death of a human, even if the person deserved it... I think its sad that he was clearly a brilliant person who could have done good things in this world if he had wanted, instead he decided to create misery.
I am quite happy that maybe this will bring closure to people who lost loved ones during the 9-11 attacks.
@dood Osama bin Laden and his followers killed innocent civilians on purpose. That's terrorism. Timothy McVeigh killed innocent civilians on purpose. That's not war, that's terrorism.
Bin Laden cared very little for the value of human life, or the value of human dignity. It's not murder to have killed him. It doesn't matter if he had a screwed up childhood or what have you; He orchestrated the deaths of thousands of people, many of them not American. His organization basically declared war on us, and we tasked ourselves to capture him if possible or kill him if not. He knew this. He was hiding in a ramshackle building with no phone, no internet, and where the only allowed method of communication with the outside world was through couriers.
He knew we were looking for him. He hid. When our soldiers found him, he shot at them while using another person as a human shield. They then killed him during the shootout.
Why are you so vehemently opposed to the fact that he deserved to be captured and that when we tried he forced us to kill him? That's justice, not state terrorism.
Really. -.- He's only been dead for a day. Let people have their moment to appreciate that someone so willing to kill innocent civilians en masse is no longer a threat to society.
You pretty much explained why I'm opposed to killing him above when you said his only method of communication with the outside world was through couriers. Surely there are much MUCH bigger threats to humanity than a guy who, as far as we can tell, poses absolutely no danger.
I recognise the urge for revenge in people (look at all the people above who say he "deserved" to be killed, or who make the logical step from immoral action to murder without caution). I'd be lying if I said I too didn't want him dead. But the merits of the act are very much debatable, and it seems the only reason we think it's good is to feed our animal urge for vengeance.
I don't wish to be a party pooper, but there must be other things you find more enjoyable than the death of another man?
I don't wish to be a party pooper, but there must be other things you find more enjoyable than the death of another man?
Yes you do.
And of course there are things more enjoyable than this, but this is still fresh in our minds. It just happened yesterday!
...okay, I realize that you live in England, but imagine how you would feel if a group of people killed thousands of innocents in your country- perhaps even in your city- and you personally knew someone who died. How would you feel if this group, in the process of killing so many, also destroyed a landmark building in your city, bringing fear and sorrow to everyone around you and causing sickness to the people who live nearby and to the valiant who worked tirelessly to helped to clean up the remains of the destruction. If, in the case where you had personally witnessed it happening or knew someone who had been killed in the attack- would you then tell everyone that they're foolish for being glad he's now dead, especially right after he's dead? I'd hope not, otherwise you'd be quite heartless indeed.
I don't mean to be a troll, but having any respect for Osama bin Laden after what he's done feels akin to holding a candlelight vigil for Jeffery Dahmer.
What freaked me outs the most is where they found him, from my understanding, it was near the capital building. It was almost the SAME THING happened in the Vietnam war, only that people were hidden in trees and other various buildings which also was surrounding their capital building, and then the terroist leaped out and attacked the American soliders completely by suprise. It was the only war we ever loss if I remember correctly...
I heard about it on the news late last night and on ALL the morning radio stations. Today when I went to school some kids in my spanish class were teasing this one poor kid who was Indian, saying stuff like: "Hey Tick Tick, I heard your Dad died yeasterday!" Though they were only fooling around and appoligized shortly afterwards. It was still pretty bad though.
Im enjoying the news of Christian winning the WWE World title as well but hardly anyone on TTG likes wrestling so Osama getting what he deserves is the other thing im super happy about and everyone here knows about. Thats why I post on this topic.
And of course there are things more enjoyable than this, but this is still fresh in our minds. It just happened yesterday!
...okay, I realize that you live in England, but imagine how you would feel if a group of people killed thousands of innocents in your country- perhaps even in your city- and you personally knew someone who died. How would you feel if this group, in the process of killing so many, also destroyed a landmark building in your city, bringing fear and sorrow to everyone around you and causing sickness to the people who live nearby and to the valiant who worked tirelessly to helped to clean up the remains of the destruction. If, in the case where you had personally witnessed it happening or knew someone who had been killed in the attack- would you then tell everyone that they're foolish for being glad he's now dead, especially right after he's dead? I'd hope not, otherwise you'd be quite heartless indeed.
I don't mean to be a troll, but having any respect for Osama bin Laden after what he's done feels akin to holding a candlelight vigil for Jeffery Dahmer.
I think the closest we'd have to that would be the IRA.
And yes, if any IRA member were to be killed, I would not be at all glad. I don't consider it heartless, it's just that the old IRA bombers do not pose any threat any more. I don't understand the politics of the situation, even though it's the recent history of my own country. If an old IRA member spoke to me, I wouldn't have the foggiest where he was coming from. I'm even more detached from Bin Laden, so haven't got a chance with understanding that. If it came to pass that it was necessary for me (or people funded by me) to murder IRA members again, then even then I would not celebrate. I would regret the loss of life, even despite its necessity.
Someone above (cannot remember who) said a person is broken if they kill other people for kicks. I am saying that I do not get kicks out of killing people, and yet this makes me heartless?
And of course there are things more enjoyable than this, but this is still fresh in our minds. It just happened yesterday!
...okay, I realize that you live in England, but imagine how you would feel if a group of people killed thousands of innocents in your country- perhaps even in your city- and you personally knew someone who died. How would you feel if this group, in the process of killing so many, also destroyed a landmark building in your city, bringing fear and sorrow to everyone around you and causing sickness to the people who live nearby and to the valiant who worked tirelessly to helped to clean up the remains of the destruction. If, in the case where you had personally witnessed it happening or knew someone who had been killed in the attack- would you then tell everyone that they're foolish for being glad he's now dead, especially right after he's dead? I'd hope not, otherwise you'd be quite heartless indeed.
I don't mean to be a troll, but having any respect for Osama bin Laden after what he's done feels akin to holding a candlelight vigil for Jeffery Dahmer.
I can certainly understand why people are glad he is dead, but there is quite a large cultural barrier in place between UK*/US with regards to justice. Afterall, we abolished the death penalty, meaning that we (as a whole) believe that any loss of life is a tragedy that should be avoided. Of course their are a few who do want it re-instated (myself for instance, but only in severe cases, where evidence is absolute, i.e. multiple witnesses, CCTV footage and DNA evidence, with no doubts whatsoever), but given that there is actually no solid proof linking him to the 9/11 attacks (don't believe me? Check the FBI most wanted list. He's wanted in connection with an attack in the 90's, and as a suspect in world terror events), the ethos is a bit different over here. Something to bear in mind when you see all the "This is sick celebrating a mans death" comments.
You pretty much explained why I'm opposed to killing him above when you said his only method of communication with the outside world was through couriers. Surely there are much MUCH bigger threats to humanity than a guy who, as far as we can tell, poses absolutely no danger.
I don't understand how the use of couriers means he's not dangerous? Of course he would use couriers when any electronic form of communication has the chance to be monitored. It was a precaution against discovery on his part, not proof that he wasn't involved in anything.
Also, in class one of our teachers gave us the day off to celebrate! Which is strange considering she didnt even know until me and my friend came in saying "YAY OUR COUNTRY DID SOMETHING RIGHT!" so I have a feeling she doesnt like us.
Oh no that was more rhetoric than anything. The couriers bit was a demonstration of how he'd pretty much totally locked himself away. The lack of evidence for a threat is why I didn't consider him dangerous. Of course, something may turn up, who knows.
Also, in class one of our teachers gave us the day off to celebrate! Which is strange considering she didnt even know until me and my friend came in saying "YAY OUR COUNTRY DID SOMETHING RIGHT!" so I have a feeling she doesnt like us.
Just the one half hour class. Sheesh. What happened was she turned on the news while everyone sat around and played cards. What we would have done if we did have the day off anyway.
Also, in class one of our teachers gave us the day off to celebrate! Which is strange considering she didnt even know until me and my friend came in saying "YAY OUR COUNTRY DID SOMETHING RIGHT!" so I have a feeling she doesnt like us.
Man, where the hell do you go to school? Most of my professors didn't even call off class during 9/11.
I agree with doodinthemood, if a terrorist has to be killed then so be it, but don't have a big song and dance about it - it's a necessity not something to celebrate. I'm relieved that Bin Laden's dead but I'm not throwing a party If you start being happy about killing a terrorist it starts sounding a lot less like justice and a lot more like revenge.
Not to mention the fact that things are likely to get a lot worse now, which is a worrying thought
Just the one half hour class. Sheesh. What happened was she turned on the news while everyone sat around and played cards. What we would have done if we did have the day off anyway.
Ahhhh, that's more like it. May the US prosper evermore
Bin Laden is a inspirational cog in a very big machine. Destroying the machine is a multifaceted operation. Are there bigger threats? In the sense that there are people with guns directly involved in combat, sure. In terms of being an metaphysical or inspirational ideal, probably not, at least relevant to this threat. The fact that there are people with guns is why we're fighting in Waziristan. But it's not an either/or approach. It's also why the new approach to Afghanistan included making civilian security one of our highest priorities.
For those who doubt the impact of the loss of a charismatic leader such as bin Laden though, research the Mahdist War of the late 1800s Sudan. It's a good illustration of what happens to a spiritual/ideological movement in the wake of a leader's loss, especially when there's no clear figure than can take up the inspirational pole.
I'm with Irishmile on this one, I cannot, under any circumstance, celebrate the death of a human being, even one so malevolent as Osama. I am glad the whole Osama issue has been dealt with finally, even if it is a decade overdue.
Comments
Well, some 9/11 families pointed out otherwise:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42853787/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden
This reminds me...
GUYBRUSH: Is it over? Hello? Did we win? I guess we did. *sigh*
You honestly don't think the CIA wouldn't want to interrogate Bin Laden? That the White House wouldn't have loved to put him on trial before the world?
I can see the benefits of killing him as much as I can see the benefits of keeping him alive.
I guess the Americans must have killed him instead of capturing him because either they thought holding him and trialling him would draw too much attention and maybe spark aggression from the extremist (which could still happen, but then again they could be intimidated by a show of force such as this) or they must not have thought he would have much intelligence (plus he seems to have quite a few family members, maybe they thought they could get as much intel out of them...)
Its going to be a long hard fight. Eventually it will all phase out, just have to stick with it.
Gaddafi is the one to watch. Hopefully they catch him and make him an example.
The US doesn't go around threatening and killing innocent people intentionally. We aren't after the whole Middle East, just the terrorists who hope to destroy the west. Osama was their figurehead, now maybe this will show them that doing these types of things have consquences. Osama planned the attacks on 9/11 which helped cause over 3000 deaths. I wouldn't want to risk having him rot away in a jail and have a chance to escape.
terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.
I doubt he'd bother giving them anything. Maybe a false lead.
I'm sure the White House would loved to have him on trial, but what's the point? He would have just said God told him to do 9/11 and he'll be rewarded in the afterlife.
I heard he had a gun so I don't think he was intending on surrendering. Plus I wouldn't want to risk losing him again while taking him somewhere.
I wasn't saying that it was an act of terrorism. But the idea of shaking the enemy's morale as a justification is a support of terrorism as a form of warfare. Your definition of terrorism doesn't seem to work that well. It rules out state terrorism, and may also rule out the taliban, which I'm sure you do not wish to do.
Unless you believe in a God, then there's no such thing as an objective right. Only a right of consensus, and then it falls to the people who consent. As for Osama, the man fought back when his compound was raided, and used a woman unrelated to him as a human shield, a coward's act. The loss of his life was nothing more than the total sum of his life. He lived by the ways of death and those same methods took his life. Live by the sword, die by the sword. It's nothing more than the end sum.
It's simply a strategy of war.
I meant the morale remark as a possible result of killing him and showing Bin Laden isn't invincible. I didn't mean we should have killed him just to lower the terrorists' morale and make everyone in pakistan scared. I believe we killed him for what he did on 9/11 and another possible attack. I copied the Terrorism def. from wiki. and they say its a vague term to define.
I am quite happy that maybe this will bring closure to people who lost loved ones during the 9-11 attacks.
While I am delighted he's gone, this pretty much sums it up for me.
Bin Laden cared very little for the value of human life, or the value of human dignity. It's not murder to have killed him. It doesn't matter if he had a screwed up childhood or what have you; He orchestrated the deaths of thousands of people, many of them not American. His organization basically declared war on us, and we tasked ourselves to capture him if possible or kill him if not. He knew this. He was hiding in a ramshackle building with no phone, no internet, and where the only allowed method of communication with the outside world was through couriers.
He knew we were looking for him. He hid. When our soldiers found him, he shot at them while using another person as a human shield. They then killed him during the shootout.
Why are you so vehemently opposed to the fact that he deserved to be captured and that when we tried he forced us to kill him? That's justice, not state terrorism.
Really. -.- He's only been dead for a day. Let people have their moment to appreciate that someone so willing to kill innocent civilians en masse is no longer a threat to society.
I recognise the urge for revenge in people (look at all the people above who say he "deserved" to be killed, or who make the logical step from immoral action to murder without caution). I'd be lying if I said I too didn't want him dead. But the merits of the act are very much debatable, and it seems the only reason we think it's good is to feed our animal urge for vengeance.
I don't wish to be a party pooper, but there must be other things you find more enjoyable than the death of another man?
this.
IT'S ABOUT F
Yes you do.
And of course there are things more enjoyable than this, but this is still fresh in our minds. It just happened yesterday!
...okay, I realize that you live in England, but imagine how you would feel if a group of people killed thousands of innocents in your country- perhaps even in your city- and you personally knew someone who died. How would you feel if this group, in the process of killing so many, also destroyed a landmark building in your city, bringing fear and sorrow to everyone around you and causing sickness to the people who live nearby and to the valiant who worked tirelessly to helped to clean up the remains of the destruction. If, in the case where you had personally witnessed it happening or knew someone who had been killed in the attack- would you then tell everyone that they're foolish for being glad he's now dead, especially right after he's dead? I'd hope not, otherwise you'd be quite heartless indeed.
I don't mean to be a troll, but having any respect for Osama bin Laden after what he's done feels akin to holding a candlelight vigil for Jeffery Dahmer.
I heard about it on the news late last night and on ALL the morning radio stations. Today when I went to school some kids in my spanish class were teasing this one poor kid who was Indian, saying stuff like: "Hey Tick Tick, I heard your Dad died yeasterday!" Though they were only fooling around and appoligized shortly afterwards. It was still pretty bad though.
I think the closest we'd have to that would be the IRA.
And yes, if any IRA member were to be killed, I would not be at all glad. I don't consider it heartless, it's just that the old IRA bombers do not pose any threat any more. I don't understand the politics of the situation, even though it's the recent history of my own country. If an old IRA member spoke to me, I wouldn't have the foggiest where he was coming from. I'm even more detached from Bin Laden, so haven't got a chance with understanding that. If it came to pass that it was necessary for me (or people funded by me) to murder IRA members again, then even then I would not celebrate. I would regret the loss of life, even despite its necessity.
Someone above (cannot remember who) said a person is broken if they kill other people for kicks. I am saying that I do not get kicks out of killing people, and yet this makes me heartless?
I can certainly understand why people are glad he is dead, but there is quite a large cultural barrier in place between UK*/US with regards to justice. Afterall, we abolished the death penalty, meaning that we (as a whole) believe that any loss of life is a tragedy that should be avoided. Of course their are a few who do want it re-instated (myself for instance, but only in severe cases, where evidence is absolute, i.e. multiple witnesses, CCTV footage and DNA evidence, with no doubts whatsoever), but given that there is actually no solid proof linking him to the 9/11 attacks (don't believe me? Check the FBI most wanted list. He's wanted in connection with an attack in the 90's, and as a suspect in world terror events), the ethos is a bit different over here. Something to bear in mind when you see all the "This is sick celebrating a mans death" comments.
*and other assorted countries
I don't understand how the use of couriers means he's not dangerous? Of course he would use couriers when any electronic form of communication has the chance to be monitored. It was a precaution against discovery on his part, not proof that he wasn't involved in anything.
Also, in class one of our teachers gave us the day off to celebrate! Which is strange considering she didnt even know until me and my friend came in saying "YAY OUR COUNTRY DID SOMETHING RIGHT!" so I have a feeling she doesnt like us.
You got the day off cos Bin Laden was shot dead?
OHHHHH, SAY CAN YOU SEE...
Just the one half hour class. Sheesh. What happened was she turned on the news while everyone sat around and played cards. What we would have done if we did have the day off anyway.
Man, where the hell do you go to school? Most of my professors didn't even call off class during 9/11.
Not to mention the fact that things are likely to get a lot worse now, which is a worrying thought
Ahhhh, that's more like it. May the US prosper evermore
For those who doubt the impact of the loss of a charismatic leader such as bin Laden though, research the Mahdist War of the late 1800s Sudan. It's a good illustration of what happens to a spiritual/ideological movement in the wake of a leader's loss, especially when there's no clear figure than can take up the inspirational pole.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/provincialelitist/the-best-advertisements-starring-osama-bin-laden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqGyXq_qqUU
they can't. It take nine months to make a family guy episode. by then it would be old news