Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on May 9, 2011 at 10:45am

Regular soldiers are killed in war all the time, yet there is more moral dilemma about killing the mastermind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jameer Logan on May 20, 2011 at 9:55pm

The reason there was such a moral dilemma about killing bin Laden was the United States is supposed to have the reputation of being the center for justice for the world. As a superpower we are expected to be above murdering someone, and instead allow for the rule of law to take over. The terrorist are expected to kill our soldiers because they are barbaric, but we are not a barbaric nation. It's kind of like when your younger sibling does something to you and you do it back, and get in trouble by parents because they said that as the older child you are supposed to set the example. Its kind of like the same situation with the United States. Now personally, I thought that the bastard bin Laden got what he deserved, but I think that we did him a favor by killing. Instead, we should have made him wish he was dead.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on May 9, 2011 at 10:59am

I think he should've been captured first for us to gain info and to prevent his martyrdom.  But, I'm glad he is dead.  Wish he could've been burned alive like so many of the 9/11 victims at the World Trade Center.  Yes, the U.S. aggravated/provoked the muslims by supporting Israel.  But, he way overdid the revenge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on May 10, 2011 at 2:11pm

I'm of the mindset that true justice involves a trial. Not just an immediate death sentence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Starscream on May 10, 2011 at 8:44pm

I believe we should have made him disappear (by killing him), but not tell anyone.  People would speculate, and the US could casually deny, but no matter how he died (and in the end, even by trial he would have anyway), he would be considered a martyr.  

 

The ones that would notice most would be Al-Qaeda and it would be satisfying to me to have them make a fuss about Bin Laden being missing and us ignore them and make fun of them for 'losing' him.  I'd love the president to have a news conference to say he believes Bin Laden is no longer a threat to anyone anymore, that his sphere of influence had been shrunk to not being able to plan the destruction of the moles in his yard; whereever he is now....with a smug smile on his face.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darlene on June 27, 2011 at 8:39am

There would never have been a trial, for purely practical reasons:

We could never afford one, and there isn't a jail in the world that would take him. Heck, countries did t even want his dead body to bury, you think anyone would want him alive?

Imagine the security issues. He'd never be allow in general population, so he'd exist in solitary. He doesn't recognize our laws, so how could he help in his own defense? You'd never find a unbiased jury; and good luck finding a lawyer capable of defending him, let alone willing to take the case.

And then come the throngs of followers, all the nut jobs who'd flock to the jail, the extra guards and security and threats and...it would be a mess.

Besides, a trial is to determine guilt. He confessed, and never stopped confessing. Consider that he plead guilt and was sentence to death, and we just skipped the appeals process...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on June 27, 2011 at 3:15pm

He actually denied responsibility for the attacks for several years, and after about half a decade he began to allude to it.. But some of the most prominent "confessions" were actually forgeries that seemed to be planted by the gov't, ie tapes found in random houses in towns he wasn't associated with, with a 'bin laden' that had different bodily proportions, spoke differently, used a different primary hand, and wore a gold ring (which is forbidden in islam) and then spoke brazenly about planning the plots, as though it were designed as a confession, not his typical justification and statements against the US.  Many, many independent translators also said that in other tapes key words were intentionally mistranslated or misconstrued, and that the end result was a translated message that didn't match the non-translated intent.  Also keep in mind that the US gov't has never actually provided any evidence against Bin Laden in regards to 9/11, even on his FBI profile only the 93' attack and others around the world are mentioned, nothing to do with the WTC.

The point of me mentioning this isn't to imply it was someone else, but to draw attention to the fact that we don't know he was involved~ the conflict in afghanistan was started when the afghani's said they would turn him over to us if we provided evidence that implicated him, and we said "too late, we're coming in to get him."

 

To me, the rest are just excuses and rationalizations of emotion~ how is it that the worlds largest economy couldn't afford a single trial?  I'm sure Guantanemo Bay would have taken him, they take anyone.  If he doesn't recognize our laws then he gets a lawyer.  I'm not sure where the idea of 'throngs of followers' comes from, since he was probably one of the most 'radioactive' people in the world~ unless you imagine hundreds of terrorists catching a flight to cuba to visit the most wanted man in the world on a military installation~ yeah, right.

 

All in all, rationalizations for why we break or own laws and morals.  If he were an american, even if he were a terrorist, I find it unlikely that he would have met the same fate.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Terrence Lee Reed on July 2, 2011 at 12:35pm

Osama was CIA, and once CIA, always CIA. Osama Bin Laden is no more responsible for 9/11 than the CIA is. The CIA and its members have no laws and no morals. If he were American CIA he would have been in a safe house in the middle of no where, someplace like Pakistan. Is he still CIA, is he really dead?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paul babcock on May 11, 2011 at 6:12am

I think it is commendable that you are considering this question, but ,imo, it was a casualty of war so yes, it probably is best that he was killed like that. Hell, as opposed to either of the other two conflicts we are involved in in the Moslem world, we didn't start this conflict. They did, when they hijacked those planes on 9-11.

I like a lot of what I read of the rest of yall. Starscreams idea makes me laugh.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on May 11, 2011 at 6:24am

When he became an international terrorist mastermind, he knew how this would probably end.  If he had tried to establish himself as a dictator in one country, he might have had better luck.  It's just too bad he didn't dispose of himself like Hitler did.  The folks killed on Sept. 11 didn't get any trial or even a chance to escape. I don't think religion had a lot to do with taking Bin Laden down.  i think he had more (probably many more) terrorist attacks planned against the US and other countries.  I think this is the main reason he was killed.  He was not going to stop no matter what. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paul babcock on May 11, 2011 at 7:42am

I don't think religion had a lot to do with taking Bin Laden down. 

No. It was however used by Al Quada as a justification for their actions. And it was used as a recruiting inducement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on May 11, 2011 at 8:13am

I think we are still in a state of war with bin laden's group, although they are not a country so the war isn't declared.  being in a state of war i think it's ok to kill him, same as it's ok to kill the other combattants.  I was against the war in iraq, there was no evidence iraq was a threat and they did not attack us.  bin ladens group killed thousands with their attacks.  so far doesn't look like he's martyred - draw a cartoon of mohammed and people riot, but there have been no riots about bin laden.  time will tell.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page