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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.