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? 

Views: 328

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

True, Al Queda is still in operation, but I would challenge the idea that Bin Laden's death did nothing. While we certainly failed to strike when it would have made the most difference, letting him live created the perception that we're impotent and that individuals can make us live in fear without reprisal.


In the long run our best bet is to stop interfering with other cultures. If we don't give them reasons to hate us, they'll take care of extremists by themselves.

Al Queda is not a culture, but the populations of muslim countries are and we need to address the reasons why they support or at least tolerate the actions of extremists. These actions aren't justified, but the resentments that allows them to thrive are. No matter how many of them we kill, this won't go away until these cultures aren't being victimized by a much larger, more powerful and richer country.

As I said earlier in the thread, I was all for killing Bin Laden. I don't think it will generate significant resentment; most would agree that he had it coming.


The resentments I spoke of were related to the U.S. interfering with the self-determination of smaller countries.

It would be very interesting in deed as these countries seem to rely on black gold for there economy. They are able to get food for their country, by trading oil. Things will definitely change when the oil runs out.
No trials for anyone who gets killed in a war.
If he was unarmed, then you're probably right. Still not feeling the guilt over it, though.
True - I'm still much more bothered by the injustices we committed that got this started. 9/11 made retaliation necessary, but we had been asking for it for a long time.

I'm sensing that the crux of our disagreement is that I think there's times when it's necessary to kill people in instances other than direct self-defense (like when the other guy is pointing a gun at you), and you don't. I admire your adherence to your beliefs, but I don't see that as practical.

I'm pro-gun control and anti-death penalty, but all of my beliefs are in the interest of an orderly and just society.

Both our solutions would serve us better than what we currently have, but unfortunately neither will ever be implemented.

I understand that what you're objecting to is hypocrisy, and that there's no shortage of it in our foreign policy. The issue is whether this specific killing was warranted, and I'm saying it was. You've got me on the issue of legality, but I believe it to be just. This guy was personally responsible for killing thousands and got killed. No, he didn't get a trial, but the president and military saw a narrow window of opportunity to accomplish the original objective of the Afghan war, and took it. Had this happened as part of the original invasion of Afghanistan few would have bothered with this question.

I like the U.S., but I'm no blind nationalist. I thought from day one that our foreign policy caused this mess in the first place.

I'll take you at your word that you're a soldier and commend you on weighing the ethics of this carefully.
There were two choices: kill him, or try to get him out. The latter leaves open the possibility of getting caught by the Pakistanis and having to turn Bin Laden over, more difficulty completing the mission, possibly putting soldiers' lives in more danger, giving him a forum at his trial for more hate rhetoric, bombings or threats of bombings with demand for his release, etc.

As far as precedent, my hope would be that people who kill others in the thousands at one fell swoop could know that they could be killed in cold blood. Maybe it's the thin end of the wedge leading to killings like this in less justifiable circumstances. I hope not.

It's worth noting though, that where there was widespread public outcry over imprisonments at Guantanamo Bay, there's been very little said in this guy's defense.

Bin Laden and the organization he founded declared war on the US , killed 3000+ people, bombed 2 of our embassies and attacked a US ship killing 17 sailors. Capturing and putting him on trial would have been a judicial 3 ring circus giving the defense an international platform to disseminate their religious and ideological bullshit.
That would be after squabbling for at least a year on where the trial was to take place – New York?- Gitmo? - Bugtussle, Alabama? All of this distraction would, of course, be accompanied by the dulcet tones of the bloviating assholes that saturate the media.
A year or more of his hirsute countenance on the tube will do nothing but give time and publicity for other like minded, hirsute, religious nuts to push him up higher on the martyr pedestal - no thanks.
He was an ultra religious, murdering lunatic – worse than a deranged serial killer. He took credit for the crimes and was actively involved in the planning of more acts of mass murder and destruction.
Despite my left wing views I have to consider it to be two bullets well used.

Dear Sir,

I notice that you have problems with hirsutiny.    What next - baldness? 

p.s.  I agree with you otherwise. 

p.p.s.  You're just jealous of el binladino's magnificent hursutness. 




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service