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? 

Tags: 9/11, Al, Bin, Osama, Qaeda, USA, bin, ethics, killed, laden, More…morals, murder, obama

Views: 223

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with the overall sentiment~ however, if we had been asking for it, then wasn't 9/11 their retaliation?  I expect the usual 'innocent civilians' response, and while I don't disagree or condone it in any way or fashion, the truth is that we've been killing civilians over there for decades~ and have killed tens of thousands since.  Did it make retaliation necessary? that seems to be a brutish thought process~ should it have given us pause to listen to the complaints of the tens of millions of people who hate us and re-evaluate our actions?  To find a way to help ease the pain we've caused them and try to correct any wrongs? yes, that would seem like a much more mature response.  While our national 'maturity' is no surprise to me, hitting someone harder because they hit you seems to be something that small children and drunken adolescents do~ having a conversation about it and making a plan to resolve the conflict is what adults do.

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.

No, I think you misunderstand me.  I don't have a problem with killing in self defense~ in fact, I'm a member of the ARMY, so I'm quite efficient at killing if it ever needs to be done.  What I am opposed to is hypocrisy and blind nationalism, two staples of american interaction with the rest of the world.  "do as we say, not as we do" is practically our national motto, from us starting wars in other countries because of a terrorist attack and subsequently bombing civilians repeatedly to our insistence on due process and the laws of war, yet disregarding them when we see fit, to our violation of a sovereign power to capture and kill a criminal when we know full well that we would never allow another nation to do the same on our soil, we have become disillusioned by nationalism and 'american exceptional-ism' to believe that what we do is justified because we do it, regardless of who gets hurt or maimed or killed.  The problem is that Osama bin Laden isn't the only person we've killed~ we've killed millions, and tens of thousands without proper justification.  We use the label of 'war' to justify specious actions and to villainize other human beings, with little to no regard to their perception of us.  If this needs justification, look at how many people have died because of terrorist attacks over the last 15 years, then look and see how many civilians have died in the armed conflicts overseas.

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.

ok, understood~ but isn't that question of kill or capture the focus of this?  if, as stated before (and according to reports) he was unarmed, where is the justification in killing him when we have a legal system designed for issues such as this?  is personal hatred or disgust an adequate reason to disregard our laws?  And more importantly, what precedent does this set?
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.

Getting him out?  they took his body anyways, whether it was limp because it was unconscious or limp because it was dead, he was still removed.

I seem to remember other, much more murderous and calculating individuals who declared war on the world getting trials.  I think they were held in Nuremberg.

I'm glad to see here that people justify bypassing due process because of difficulties in carrying it out properly, or because of the attention it would receive.  I'm glad we never have those problems in the States.

Jim, do I understand where you are coming from? yes.  Do I think its a justification? yes.  Do I think its valid? no.  it comes down to silencing Bin Laden's viewpoint and dealing with the media.  thats the reason we have terrorists~ it comes down to hypocrisy.  If America's viewpoint were truly justified, it wouldn't matter what Bin Laden said, the view would stand on its own.  Hell, it could even be useful to corrupt his followers.   Point is, they are mostly vaporous~ even Saddam Hussein, who was a much more 'evil' person [and responsible for killing many more of his own people] got a trial~ or is it that Americans are just that much more important?


I guess I just hope that no one on here (except for a few of my libertarian friends, J/k) ever is put in a situation where their due process is negated because its "inconvenient."


oh, and @Allen, here's a pic so you don't have to 'take it on my word.'


Ps Yes, I am that awkward looking in real life and No, I am not that blurry lol

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. 

Did you look at my picture?  Further, were the picture taken from the rear you would  notice I don't have a problem with baldness either. :>)
thats why i wondered


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service