Bin Laden - Page 7

[insidevoice]

The reality here, however is that  there was not an effort to capture this man to bring him to trial.  He was unarmed.  You can not tell me that a couple dozen SEALS could not work to subdue and capture an unarmed, frail, elderly man.  

This was clearly, an assassination and the his death was not, truly necessary.  I have no doubt that the members of the military who carried this operation out were given directions to kill him.  That is very very different than the initial portrait of a man armed and using a woman as a shield.  Regardless of his atrocities in life, we have sunk to such a level that we chose to kill an unarmed man in the name of revenge.  Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets. 

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by love4bob 

I also think it is easy to say what we would/would not do if we were in charge or what should/should not have happened, but until you are actually in that position I don't think that anyone can really say... as Obama is finding out with his presidency. He said a lot about the wars while campaigning, but I think he is finding the reality a lot different.

It is our job as members of a democracy...as people who vote...to pay attention to what is going on and to form our own analysis.  It is my job as a teacher and as a historian to look at what is happening now in the light of what has happened in the past and to compare them.  I will never believe that I just can't know something because I am not in charge (because those in charge tend to obfuscate) and I will never believe that we don't have a right to all the information we can get about everything (thank you Wikileaks!).  This is supposed to be why we have the media, to provide a check (and a reality check) on those in charge...I'm not so sure they do such a great job usually.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

No, I don't think that anymore than I appreciate having such worrds put in my mouth. Bush's actions were deplorable, but he was not a terrorist. The loss of innocent life was a result not of malicious intent, but incompetence and mismanagement. A difference in intent doesn't bring dead people back to life, but it can make a difference in a court of law when responsibility and fitting punishment are being determined. Bush is not equal to Osama, and as much as I disapprove of Bush, I think you are making an inappropriately black and white comparison.

If the difference between morally justified violence and terrorism is intentionally targeting civilians, it's not too hard to find examples in US history where we intentionally targeted civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind, with somewhere between 100,000 - 200,000 civilians dead in those attacks (and it wasn't collateral damage - we targeted the entire city). We justify it by saying that we were at war; that we had to drop the bombs in order to shorten the war and save American lives, etc. Going back to the comparison between people who celebrated the 9/11 attacks and people who are celebrating OBL's death,  I imagine the people who celebrated the 9/11 attacks justified that attack in the same way we justify Hiroshima. They believed they were at war and a damaging strike had been made against the enemy.

I don't see any moral difference between the people who publicly celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the people who are publicly celebrating OBL's death, because in both cases the people are celebrating based on beliefs about why the violence was justified.

I'm really glad OBL is gone. But I don't think it is appropriate to celebrate it. We live in a complicated world and sometimes it is necessary do bad things. But we should always keep in mind that they are bad things, not something to cheer about.

Take that kid who shot up Virginia Tech....if crowds of people had gathered around his body at the scene and spit on him, kicked him, pointed and sang "hey hey hey good-bye," and danced on the quad, would we think that was appropriate? Would we not have expected the authorities to step in and say, "Hey, we don't do that." We might understand that people were freaked out of their minds and reacted badly in the moment, but we don't condone that.

This.

Edited by Thao - 5/3/11 at 1:33pm

[Subhuti]

I, too, am very disturbed to hear that Bin Ladin wasn't armed.  After the years of work and all the expertise that went into this operation, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't restrain themselves from killing an unarmed man.  

Capture him, try him, and sentence him.  Don't, as much as we are all relieved to have OBL out of the picture, just go in an assassinate him! 

[moonfirefaery]

Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't. I also don't think that taking out a murderer is a bad thing. I have never approved of the Hiroshima & nagasaki bombings, but I don't think it's comparable to stopping a murderer from doing more murder.

insidevoice - This was not a revenge killing; it was a matter of national security to prevent this man specifically from doing further harm by inciting his many followers to violence again.

love4bob - I agree that it is possible to support one and not the other, and I agree that just because we have done wrong in some cases that doesn't mean we weren't right to take out bin Laden. Well-said.

[moonfirefaery]

Originally Posted by Subhuti 

I, too, am very disturbed to hear that Bin Ladin wasn't armed.  After the years of work and all the expertise that went into this operation, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't restrain themselves from killing an unarmed man.  

Capture him, try him, and sentence him.  Don't, as much as we are all relieved to have OBL out of the picture, just go in an assassinate him! 

 With all the conflicting information I won't condemn it just yet. Even if he wasn't armed, if it appeared that he was, I would understand taking him out. The goal was to get him, one way or another, without any of our men dying, and if we had any suspicion that he was armed and could harm our men, we did right by not giving hiim the chance.

[journeymom]

Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets. 

NO NO NO, we as a nation most certainly did not do that.  Do not put me in that category.  PLEASE note that the vast majority of the US's 308 million people did not dance in the streets. 

[MamaofLiam]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

The reality here, however is that  there was not an effort to capture this man to bring him to trial.  He was unarmed.  You can not tell me that a couple dozen SEALS could not work to subdue and capture an unarmed, frail, elderly man.  

This was clearly, an assassination and the his death was not, truly necessary.  I have no doubt that the members of the military who carried this operation out were given directions to kill him.  That is very very different than the initial portrait of a man armed and using a woman as a shield.  Regardless of his atrocities in life, we have sunk to such a level that we chose to kill an unarmed man in the name of revenge.  Then we, as a nation, chose to celebrate this by dancing in the streets. 

Originally Posted by journeymom 

NO NO NO, we as a nation most certainly did not do that.  Do not put me in that category.  PLEASE note that the vast majority of the US's 308 million people did not dance in the streets. 

I think insidevoice was maybe saying that its perceived that we as a nation are celebrating by dancing in the streets b/c of what is shown on media outlets. I think people from other countries could very well think that b/c that's all they see. But I totally agree with you - I do not want to be put in that category. Definitely, definitely not. It's great that you point that out. 

[Ldavis24]

Hell on ESPN they had coverage of people dancing in the streets, Ohio state kids swimming in a lake or something and people just going crazy...

Half the people on my FB were doing little war dances online about they would love to piss on his dead face...WTH is wrong with people that they say and do this stuff...It is just so...i don't know, I don't even have a word for it.

I am still bothered by what I saw on the TV with people celebrating like we had won WWII all over again. I get that it was a moral victory but as other PP's have pointed out why are we celebrating murder? What exactly about that is ok? I still just can't wrap my brain around it.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't. I also don't think that taking out a murderer is a bad thing. I have never approved of the Hiroshima & nagasaki bombings, but I don't think it's comparable to stopping a murderer from doing more murder.

You've packed an awful lot of assumptions into that sentence. Were we trying to save lives (the official version; dubious considering we had already defeated Germany and Japan was pretty weak) or were we testing out an awesome new weapon for the word to see? And how do you know the people celebrating 9/11 didn't think the attack might save the lives? I remember the celebrations mostly being centered in Palestinian territories, where a lot of lives have been lost in the ongoing conflict with Israel, which receives US support. It's not unreasonable that those celebrating may have hoped that US support for Israel would weaken as a result of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in less of their people dead. There was also a lot of resentment at the time about the deaths caused by the US-led embargo against Iraq; again, it is reasonable that they might have hoped the US would pull out of the area resulting in less dead Iraqis.

That's not how it turned out, of course. But when you say the people celebrating the 9/11 attack weren't trying to save lives, you are making huge assumptions about their intentions. Earlier, when talking about Bush's intentions re: the Iraq invasion, you said it is important to have clear proof of his intentions before judging him. But it seems you are not applying the same standard when judging the intentions of the people who celebrated 9/11. My guess is that there was probably a wide variety of intentions involved, from people who hoped that the attack would cause the US to stop facilitating things that were killing their people, to people hellbent on vengeance who felt like a big victory had been scored. From what I've seen, the people celebrating OBL's death have the same range of intentions.

I agree that stopping a murderer from doing more murder is a Good Thing. Stopping the murderer by murdering him, however,  is achieving a Good Thing through committing a Bad Thing. I think it is wrong to celebrate a Bad Thing, no matter how necessary it may have been.

Edited by Thao - 5/3/11 at 3:40pm

[monkey's mom]

So in the VA Tech situation, where taking out the shooter absolutely saved lives, do you feel a celebration of his death--complete w/ waving the school's flag, singing their school fight song and the "Goodbye song," and high-fives--would be appropriate?

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, and the people attacking and then celebrating on 9/11 weren't.

[moonfirefaery]

monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well.  I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed.  As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.

Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion. I doubt the people celebrating 9/11 thought that it would stop America from taking any more lives; I give the world more credit than to be that obtuse. Those people weren't celebrating the deaths of murderers, but of innocents, and they probably weren't thinking "Yes, we've knocked down the WTF; now no more lives will be lost to American politics!" I don't believe the people of the world, given America's history, are naive enough to believe that the 911 attacks would bring peace. Attacking America never, ever brings peace, until we've attacked back. I'm not making an assumption about their intention; I'm stating that I find it improbable that they believed this terrorist act would change our actions in the Middle East for the good. In any case, it was the murder of innocents, and what we did to Osama was not as he was not innocent in any way, shape or form. he wasn't murdered.

[Irishmommy]

Originally Posted by Arduinna 

If you can't tell the difference between cheering an act of terrorism where over 3000 people died, then there is nothing more for me to say.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Chamomile Girl]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well.  I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed.  As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.

Thao, no part of that sentence was an assumption; it was what I see, what I think, and what I approve, in other words my opinion. I doubt the people celebrating 9/11 thought that it would stop America from taking any more lives; I give the world more credit than to be that obtuse. Those people weren't celebrating the deaths of murderers, but of innocents, and they probably weren't thinking "Yes, we've knocked down the WTF; now no more lives will be lost to American politics!" I don't believe the people of the world, given America's history, are naive enough to believe that the 911 attacks would bring peace. Attacking America never, ever brings peace, until we've attacked back. I'm not making an assumption about their intention; I'm stating that I find it improbable that they believed this terrorist act would change our actions in the Middle East for the good. In any case, it was the murder of innocents, and what we did to Osama was not as he was not innocent in any way, shape or form. he wasn't murdered.

No matter how deftly you can apparently twist morality you cannot make that assertation.  He was killed in cold blood...he was unarmed.  He was murdered, no matter if you call it just or not.

Here is the problem I have with your logic.  You seem to be holding people to two different standards dependant on if you think they are "good guys" or "bad guys".  So because Osama is a bad guy the US should be allowed to take any action they want to make him dead?  Yes?  What if some other country in the world makes a determination that an American citizen is a bad guy who has caused the deaths of thousands in their country (*cough* Henry Kissinger *cough*)?  Should they be allowed to take the same liberties...to send secret military folks into the USA to kill their bad guy?  Do you see the chaos and brutality that would ensue if all countries took the same liberties as the United States?

This is a real situation and it is the reason why extradition law exists.  It should not matter how "bad" the bad guy (because who can really know...unless there is a trial).  We all need to follow international law or they risk sending a message to the rest of the world that the USA feels they should be exempt.  Which is a message that is already out there and one that already causes much bitterness and resentfulness.

Edited by Chamomile Girl - 5/3/11 at 5:26pm

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Thao, I do see a moral difference; we were trying to save lives, 

Trying to save American lives, to hell with all those non-American, non-White, non-Christian lives.

At least thats how it looks to the rest of the world.

[moonfirefaery]

Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.

[moonfirefaery]

Chamomile Girl,

A murder is an unlawful kill. The kill was lawful; therefore, it was not murder.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, because the good/bad guys terminology is yours alone.

We are at war with people that take much more liberal liberties than we do.

Irishmommy - A freedom fighter fights back against an oppressive regime by attacking the military and government, not the innocent citizens who have very little to do with the real running of the country.

[monkey's mom]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

monkey's mom: My life wasn't threatened by that particular shooter, but if it was being threatened by him, I would celebrate him no longer being a threat, yes, especially if my life had been threatened by him for ten long years, with billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent on finding him that was bankrupting our country and the whole world fearing him as well.  I feel sorrow that this young man's issues escalated to the point that he was a danger to others and needed to be taken out to prevent further casualties, same as I do for Osama, but I do celebrate that both were taken out--not as a celebration of death, but as a celebration of a threat removed.  As I've repeatedly said, I'd have been just as happy had Osama been captured instead, and I'm sore most Americans would have as well. I cheer that we had the guts to eliminate this threat, even if it meant killing him.

But he WAS killed. And, to me (and many others) that dictates a certain level of behavior that is decent and civilized--behavior that is not the same as one might respond to capture.

I was personally impacted by Bin Laden's actions. My house shook when the Pentagon was hit. I was 7 mos. pregnant, about to head into DC (Library of Congress) right past the Pentagon. My friends and neighbors were first responders. I, literally, thought I was going to die that day. I left work to go home to be with my husband because if I was going to die, it was going to be with him. My sil was in a gov't building trying to get home to her babies--we couldn't get in touch with her. We were hearing that the White House had been hit, the FAA building in NoVA had been hit, the phones didn't work, rumors were flying, traffic was insane, etc. It was the most terrifying thing I've ever experienced.

And even if that day that the person responsible had been found and killed, it still would have crossed all lines of decency to party in the streets over the news. Just like it does 10 years and trillions of dollars later.
 

[babygirlie]

If a dog bites a child we are quick to kill the dog. A man kills thousands of people and we should give him a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt?

I must say I am glad it's not me making these decisions.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery 

Yes, and it's unfortunate that they see it like that, but it's not the reality. The reality is we're not targeting religion, race, or nationality; we're targeting terrorists, which most of the world would be happier without. Most of the world seems to agree that the capture of bin Laden was good and that he was a threat to global security, according to the statements made by their leaders. No one thinks it's a good thing that they have to worry about a bomb going off in the cafe during their lunch.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of civilians (men, women and children) who were killed as a direct result of US activity fighting "terrorists".