I'm undecided on this one, though I'm swaying towards the view that he shouldn't have been killed, instead just prevented from killing others. Was it right to kill him? What are the positives and negatives of his death?
Morally what was the right thing to do? was it a lesser of two evils?
How similar were/are the motivations of Al Qaeda and the US, they are both convinced that they religion is right are they not?
I wish this website had a "like" button for comments. I suppose I'll just have to settle for the old fashioned method: I liked your comment.
I agree (Rodney W). Whose to say that his beliefs were less true than that of hundreds of American's who condone his death and believe he will rot in hell. If neither have righteousness over the other, then our aim should be to prevent Osama from killing more people, not necessarily to kill him ourselves. We can only speculate with limited information of what would have happened if he was captured and tried, we do not know for sure it would have led to more deaths, its arguable that his murder could insight more support or hatred from sympathisers.
However, as always with American the motivation of the President should be taken into consideration. I would not blame Obama for taking a decision when it could be so beneficial for his presidency, perhaps I would do the same in his position.
I think the alternatives to "rule of law" are ugly. For example, in numerous third world countries regional warlords organize their own personal armies of thugs to enforce their own personal philosophy and morality.
The people murdered by Bizmunju will not be restored to life by any punishment we're able to administer. By imprisoning him at least three goals are accomplished, 1) He's prevented from continuing his previous behavior 2) others who might imitate him are shown that he did not get away 3) it demonstrates the difference between a lawful society as compared to one organized by terror and force.
Laws, at their best, are good intentioned and honest attempts to formulate a general rule that will apply to a wide range of situations. Since we are of limited capacity, most and perhaps all laws are imperfect. The best we can do is to change them when it becomes apparant that they are inadequate. Since change takes time, this implies that there will be a period where the existing law is unsuitable. Rational societies have means to deal with these inevitable problems, such as an appeals process and/or a high court that is empowered to "re-interpret" the law until a Legislature can create a new one.
Who wishes to live in a society where the cop with a gun is empowered to decide if he should remit a suspect to the courts or summarily execute him on the spot?
It sounds like that justification could be used for other moral grey areas as well, such as abortion doctors. If one believes they are truly killing children, it would then follow that such an action would be appropriate in that situation as well.
As far as comparing him to Hitler and/or Stalin, I'd say that is going way too far. Obviously thats personal opinion, but nothing he did compares to the scale and planning that was executed by both. I think thats giving him far too much credit.
I'm totally okay with killing Bin Laden. It's what needed to be done in the situation we were in. The question I ask is "what got us there?" To me the answer is that we force our agenda on other cultures. Bin Laden never would have gotten all the support he had if we had minded our own business and steered clear of the Israelis, kept the CIA out of Iran, etc. We went into other countries and made them do something they didn't want to do. Then they got really pissed. Go figure.
To avoid this kind of bloodshed in the future we should keep our noses clean, and if that means paying 10 bucks a gallon for gas, then so be it.