There is no right in this there is simply two wrongs. Both sides are as bad as each other, both are fighting for there beliefs there freedom there people. But its the people that are sent in to kill taking orders from the top, its the people that have lost there freedom and its the people who can't follow there beliefs as they aren't allowed to. There is no victory only defeat, there is no winners only losers and when it comes down to it there is no justice for anyone.

To put it more bluntly than Entropymancer:

I believe the killing of Adolph Hitler addressed quite a lot of short and long term issues. Although you may argue that capturing him alive would have accomplished the same thing, I think the risks involved in capturing someone like that alive are far too great.

Corpus callosum wrote:
[quote]Al Qaeda has never claimed to represent any country per se./quote]

No, but your emphasis is on "per se", as was mine: they claim to represent all sunni muslims, and by inference, all arab countries. In reality, they are responsible for sectarian violence in the arab world in an effort to eradicate the shia and other muslim denominations, and are enemies of Lybia, the muftis of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Egypt to name a few.

Ewok wrote:
[quote]Both sides are as bad as each other, both are fighting for there beliefs there freedom there people./quote]

The problem with this comparison, Ewok, is that Al Qaeda have no "people", and are not fighting for "freedom", but for control, and are using their "beliefs" to bolster support for the random and persistent killing of people, including many muslims, all over the world (not to mention illegal, as I have pointed out in other posts). They are a militant islamic group with an extraordinarily wealthy (and now dead) leader, who represent only themselves, but throw on the yoke of the arab world to create the impression of ideological support, but the reality is what I briefly outlined above.

You could argue that the west is guilty of most of these things as well, as I suspect most would argue here. I agree there is a case to be argued, but the fight that needs to be fought is against the laws that are in place, and agreed upon by all participating nations, that allow them to do this. Al Qaeda follow no international laws, eschew all international military protocol (as ironic as that term is), and have made no effort to enter any sort of dialogue with any nation, to my knowledge. They are not open for discussion, which is a principle trait of a true terrorist organization. They are a renegade group that has set themselves against the world to cleanse the middle east of jews christians, westerners and even all non-sunni muslims!

So yes, I am glad someone with this widespread tyrannical, megalomaniacal and genocidal agenda is dead. The rest of the world, IMO, should be too. Many lives were saved with his demise. What the long term repercussions are, positive or negative, is anyone's guess at this point. So with an uncertain future with him alive or dead, I will happily choose short term safety and an ocean grave for mr. Bin Laden, and applaud those who put him there.

JBArk

Jbark, you rely on the supposition that somehow bin laden was THE person offering risk to you and your family, and that with him gone this risk is not there, or seriously diminished, as if without his orders nothing happens. This is bad logic imo, because obviously extremist is not ending with bin laden's death, and there is no evidence that attacks are less likely without him. In fact I've seen often enough several reports and pictures that showed exactly otherwise: Angry protesters holding signs saying "you kill bin laden, more bin ladens will come", or organizations claiming there will be revenge, etc.. What if you are in fact now in more danger because of the revenge they are planning? Or just so I dont involve you or your family in this supposition, what if I get killed by some bomb that is planted as a revenge?

For christs sake there was even a mention of an atomic bomb that they have hidden in europe that was exactly for the case that bin laden was captured or killed, and are planning transportation to USA ? I mean, who knows what of that is true, but all I know is that the feeling which gives rise to extremist (and hence the danger associated) is not going away with his death, it might just be multiplied.

I have seen this happen upclose with gangs in Brazil, killing even the most violent drug dealers will not scratch the surface of the problem, a new leader will come in and the anger feeling just increases. There is no way this helps with security imo.

I guess you know already what im gonna say that I think should be done: Get the western armies out of afghanistan iraq and whatnot, use all the money they invested in that horrible death-industry and invest in schools and educations, create a help fund for the victims of wars, invest in sustainable development, feed every hungry children in the world. That will most certainly diminish the risks of terrorism and all sorts of other problems for our children and grandchildren, but also for us. Just imagine if that came through, what a beautiful message would be sent to the world, I think it would re-convert some potential extremists right away . Call me idealist, I dont care, I will live by my ideals till the day im gone. All these wars are unjustifiable and they violate international laws and human rights. And you didnt answer me about torture, so do ends justify means? Are we throwing human rights declaration away when we see fit (only in the case western countries do it of course...)?

and not to bring some more fire into the discussion but why the hell hasnt anything been done about operation cast lead from israel army in Gaza? And what about Blackwater's dirty doings ? And what about guantanamo?... Fact is thousands upon thousands of innocent people have been killed, tortured or severely disrupted by western countries in all these dirty wars and I get confused as hell to think that somehow nexians think its "protecting us". I mean, really????

As for the photoshop thing, you can photoshop a picture but what about a video of bin laden next to a newspaper, comenting on the recent articles and showing that he is really alive after the day he was supposedly killed? I mean come on you must see that its quite easy to prove one is alive, if one wants?

Sorry if this isnt very organized post and a bit mixed up, I guess maybe I should relax, but its hard to when I feel the socialy sanctioned immense collective pain that is being justified and defended here (I know you dont want innocent people to die but if you know that bin laden could only have been found through the tortures of guantanamo and other secret prisons, violation of human rights and dirty wars which created him in the first place, then to say you think killing him is right will inevitably mean you are accepting all that has lead into it, no?)

http://www.prisonradio.o...atOsamasKillingMeans.mp3

What Osama's Killing Means - Radio Essay by Mumia Abu-Jamal

This echoes my sentiment almost perfectly...

Actually, I'm not interested in this topic AT ALL. The idea of discussing whether a killing was "good" is a torturous moral enterprise that has no useful conclusion.

But I will discuss statism enough to say that it is clearly wrong and immoral; to which I'll add: 1) bin Laden's actions were against a state (an action which itself has moral problems, because states are abstractions, and are not PEOPLE--and it was people who were attacked), 2) The US, as a state, has initiated COUNTLESS immoral actions and murders, and generated countless RECKLESS statist actions and deaths. It's not necessary to hash over details of specific situations, when the BASIS of the situations (the US as a state, and the arrogance and brutality that the US as a state has focused on the rest of the world) is clearly immoral and hurtful to millions.

Which doesn't change the fact (which confuses many people) that, as states go, the US was probably the BEST ONE (among very poor ones--religious/hereditary monarchies) around the time it was created.

If one wants a scorecard, bin Laden was a scumbag who killed many; Bush is a scumbag who killed MORE--and just because it was his response to the first scumbag doesn't change anything AT ALL for the people who died.

I find it odd that people who must feel the boot of statism directly in their face (for the state's fascistic practice of putting people in cages for trying to expand their consciousnesses by the use of plant materials) are interested in trying to find actions of the state (involving murder!) to support and praise. I think they're missing the bigger picture of the evils of statism, and the almost constant bad actions of the US in particular. Trying to support the idea that the US did a "good thing" by killing bin Laden is like saying bin Laden had some good things about him because he was fastidious about keeping his fingernails clean.

The guy Im feeling particularly sorry for right now is the US soldier who is a prisoner of the Taliban; I wonder if Obama can look this guys family in the face right now.

It surprises me how alot of people have bought so much of the BS about Al Qaeda; it is an organisation which doesnt adhere to 'International Law' but why should it? It emanates from countries where the leaders are clearly puppets of the USA and its not as if Al Qaeda didnt seek to lobby and influence the powers that be in their respective countries peacefully-particularly Saudi Arabia- and the vociferous nature of OBLs protests against allowing US bases in Saudi Arabia 'for a limited time' (quote Bush Snrs government) is what led to his expulsion and loss of citizenship as a result of US pressure.And history showed clearly the US had no intentions to leave and only did so after 9/11.And the evidence that the reason for their bases there ie Saddam planning on invading Saudi after Kuwait has been shown to be a manifest untruth.

If the US citizens believe they are now 'safer' having executed a figure-head with no active input into AQs operations for a good few years then they continue to deceive themselves.But if it cheers them up briefly, before realising they are now despised more widely than before, financially bankrupt and embroiled in a war they cannot win then so be it.But tomorrow this weeks events will become old news and the woes of the US will remain.This seeking of a symbolic victory is pretty much akin to the symbolism of Al Qaedas attacks on the USAs military, economic and political most prestigious symbols (Pentagon, WTCs and probably the White House); the loss of all the civilians thus becomes 'collateral damage'.

Until the citizens of the US wake up to what their governments do in their name and the multiple effects this has on other nations politically, militarily and economically, then they will remain in the eyes of the Radicals as legitimate targets.'Government of the people, by the people and for the people' lumps the citizens and the powers that be in the US all together in their eyes and the rights and wrongs of this stance can be debated ad finitum.

[quote=jbark]
Ewok wrote:
That's my point tho, Al Qaeda say they are fighting for there "people" "freedom" "beliefs". Just as America say's it is but neither side are they just use it as a means to justify there actions.

I find this a hopelessly relativistic stance. If i would start killing people randomly for no apparent reason and i make it clear to everyone that i will keep doing this and that i will never surrender voluntarily, how can you say that the cops who shoot at me to stop me where equally bad as i was? If that is realy your opinion than you actually say that uninhibited violence and carnage is OK, because whatever would be done to stop it would be equally bad AKA it doesn't matter, resistance is futile, we might as well hand over the keys of our nuclear bombs to drugdealers and obscure end-of-the-world cults, everything goes and everything is both right and wrong at the same time, why protect yourself, your family or anything else of value, better just surrender right away to the most violent of men.....

I also condemn western foreign policy's, but you have to be realistic: the west is not in control of this planet and doesn't carry the sole responsability for all unfairness and unjustice in the world. The arab region and the rest of the islamic world have a major responsability for all the injustice that takes place within it's borders as well: the history of the arabic world is equally filled with colonial imperialism, slavery and opression, the arab spring shows how difficult the situation in many islamic nations realy is. Be realistic: is there anything a foreign government could do that would make everything right over there in syria, libya, saudi-arabia, yemen, bahrein, etc.? Is there anyway to keep your hands clean, whitout simply ending all relations, closing embassy's and tearing up a tall solid wall behind the west and the islamic world?

Most of all: what is the purpose of all the violence of al-qaida? you cannot in all seriousness call them freedomfighters. True freedom fighters don't fight just for their own freedom, they only resort to violence when all peacefull means of reaching their goals are made impossible, they don't want to use violence, they try not to make civilian casualties but try to hit strategic goals, whenever the opportunity arises to reach an agreement with the enemy in a peacefull manner that would end the oppression they fight against they will grab it, and they don't just seek power only to abuse it and opress people once they have it.

The palestinians have a strong case for resorting to violence, and everybody who would decide to join or support them has a strong case as well, as long as they obey the rules mentioned above. You could call arafat and the PLO freedom-fighters, hamas qualify's far less and al-qaida doesn't qualify at all.

People who seek only for their own martyrdom are not true freedomfighters nor martyrs: they don't die for a cause, they die for their own glory. That's something entirely different.

Al-qaida is nothing but a group of psychopath's who hide behind their so-called ideology, just to be able to live out all their sick desires for power over other human beings and their sick lust for violence.

This is a well known social phenomenon: psychopath's gather in groups to disguise their moral and social handicap's and seek ways to exercise power over others.

The west is not an evil world dominating regime, it is a bunch of countries, ran by incoherent groups of people, some of wich are psychopath's as well, and like other nations, driven by economic's that are rid of any sense of right and wrong and therefore any decency.
That's realy sad and i'm the first one to admit that, but it most certainly is not 1-an excuse to commit mass murder, 2-a ground for condemning acts of self-defence of western nations.
Self defence is a fundamental moral right. And a basic right of every nation.

I don't think the west has been very effective in defending itself. Invading iraq most certainly wasn't driven by self-defence at all and has only made the world less safe.

But fighting terrorism with all possible means, including violence if all other options (like the one endlessness mentions) fail is a legitimate goal at all times. The same principle that give the PLO the right to call itself freedom-fighters, also gives the west the right to protect itself against terrorism.

No matter whether you live in pakistan or america, whether you hate the west or whether you love it, if you allow every human being the right to protect himself, then you have to allow the west the right to protect itself against terrorists and you have to allow palestinians the right to use all means available to fight their opressor.

If you don't allow everybody the same rights to protect themselves in the first place, simply out of hate against a peticular group of people (westerners/jews/muslims/palestinians, etc) your not reasonable and open to fair discussion to begin with and you therefore won't be able to settle whatever disagreements you may have, and therefore will not have a say in whatever means your enemy may use against you or not use, at all.

I'm not saying violence isn't justified at times, if someone did anything to my son I wouldn't hesitate to do something about I but wouldn't attack just anyone for it just person(s) involved. But after 9/11 America started going for anyone and use 9/11 as a excuse they took it past a attack on America and started major wars it was never to catch or kill Osama just 10 years of destroying peoples lives. Fair enough if all they did was hunt down Al Queda but they did more.

As for
"If i would start killing people randomly for no apparent reason and i make it clear to everyone that i will keep doing this and that i will never surrender voluntarily, how can you say that the cops who shoot at me to stop me where equally bad as i was?

No the cops should shoot you, but should they shoot everyone encase they were apart of it?

I have a couple of questions.

1) Would everyone feel safer if he was still alive?

2) You've all heard the saying that "an eye for an eye renders everyone blind" right? Well any other way would render only good people blind and evil people with both eyes. turning the other check is one thing. Allowing the lives of 3,000 innocent people to taken in vain is immoral in my opinion. Osama got exactly what he deserved. BTW I don't want to wast my tax dollars keeping him alive in an orange jumpsuit in federal prison. I do however wish they had brought his body to the US so many people could see it and confirm it....but we all know that Osama isn't really dead until Donald Trump sees the long form death certificate...or is that certificate of death..

Personally I think it's wrong to celebrate the death of any human, but this man was the mastermind behind the largest terrorists attack in history....by modern definitions of the word terror attack. It's ok to feel relief that justice has finally been served IMHO.

So I am glad he's dead but i'm certainly not celebrating the fact. And yes I do feel a little bit safer, but only because all the kids that idolize him will never grow up with the financial resources to do what Osama did.

Just my humble thoughts...


Peace

I wouldn't feel safer, I wouldn't feel any more at risk...I'm assuming, despite this hypothetical, we are addressing things as they stand today? Given that; why should I feel safer because they killed a man who has no operational ties to al qaeda? Why should I feel safer that they killed a man who is not actively leading or partaking in violent terrorist actions? I feel as safe as I did the afternoon before he was killed...NOTHING (imo) changed between 24 hours prior to his death and 24 hours after his death (except for the amount of time we and the newsmedia circus have spent on this topic). In a week, I will probably be able to say, with the exception of media coverage; nothing is different with respect to my safety than it was two weeks ago.

To bring up the Hitler metaphor again...I WOULD have felt safer with Hitler dead, as he was actually the dictator of an entire fascist regime; actively in control of the propaganda and the military forces (including the executioners). Imo, Hitler was an active threat when he was killed; bin Laden was not.



How does this not make those lives lost in vain? What have we truly gained for all of those lost lives through this action? Revenge? Retribution? I don't see it. Additionally, even if I choose to accept that line of reasoning...what about all of the innocent lives we have taken in the pursuit of this man? Are they not in vain too? And if they are in vain, by your logic, their loved ones must now come after the US to assure they didn't lose their lives in vain...seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

As to tax dollars...so let me get this straight...you have an issue with spending your tax dollars keeping him alive in a jumpsuit??? What about the trillions of tax dollars we have spent over the last 10 years [under the guise of] pursuing him? What about the $43 million the US Gov't under the Bush administration GAVE to the Taliban 4 months prior to 9/11?

I dunno, I've been listening to a lot of conversations around my college town recently and I have to say:

I'M SHOCKED ...honestly...I didn't realize I was this radical, this completely out there...this event and the spectacle surrounding it have done so much to open my eyes to the picture of the american socio-political landscape that I'm almost reeling in my surprise. I figured I was in a marginalized 10-15% of the population...not <5%

You shouldn't be shocked. I think you make the difference of opinion sound larger than it is. No-one here is a friend of bin-laden, no-one (i suppose) would want anybody to get away with mass-murder. It's just a question of how badly do you want him cought i suppose.

From what you say, i conclude that you WOULD feel safer if al-qaida operatives where caught or at least actively searched for. I expect the american government is trying to do that as well, but unknown people who where about to kill 3000 civilians are just less suited for a big media hype. I mean, the re-election campaign has started and barack obama is not counting on a simmilar enthousiasm for his economic achievements over the past few years.

lol..I dont know why anyone thinks one single man can be responciple alone for this sort of thing..the death of one man isn't what is going to save us.

Al-qaida is an idea. Ideas are much larger things than single men. The real problem is adressing the root of these ideas.

First let me say, on a somewhat unrelated note, but relevant given what I'm about to say, that I have the UTMOST respect and revere for our service men/women. That being said:

I, personally, do not feel safer as we actively search for/catch al qaida operatives. The reason being that the statistics just don't support it. You have a larger chance of drowning in your bathtub than being involved in an act of terrorism. 9/11 was a truly tragic and horrendous day in American and World history. However imo, that in no way, shape or form affects the reality that statistically, say this past year, more people have died from drinking or smoking or driving or crossing the street than have from terrorism...

so honestly I can't say that spending incredibly disproportionate amounts of money to hunt down a relatively small threat (that can/could be avoided by handling international political relations in an appropriate and above-board manner, i.e. not arming "freedom fighters", installing puppet governments, looting resources, etc.) makes me feel safer.

This is especially true to my mind when the hunting down of such small factions creates not only unjust laws and actions at home against american citizens (PATRIOT ACT, et al.) but also causes the deaths of countless civilians as well as the needless deaths/injuries of many of our own troops (Like the 1st recon marines spearheading the Iraqi invasion in unarmored humvees, or any of the US corporation-manufactured ordnance that has been used against our own troops)! Then there's always the potential for every kill (innocent or militant) to mobilize a friend, relative, or loved one to join the fight against the American oppressors; it's an endless cycle of violence if we buy into the rhetoric that is so casually slung around.

Agreed...and he may ride this bump somewhat to victory...or the republicans may fail to find a candidate who can even pass the laugh-test, or he may lose to The Donald, but to my mind it doesn't really matter. If you look at the history of 20th/21st century American politics, we have a Right-wing/conservative ratchet for a government. That is to say, our presidents have gotten more and more conservative/right wing, due to each administration, generally passing more conservative bills/laws/what have you and building on those that came before them

Whenever we do get a "liberal" in office every once in a while, they tend to be the Clintons and the Obama's; relatively moderate Democrats who tend to prevent the system from sliding further right, but don't really do much to move us in the other direction. This is why if you look at American politics, you see the people whose political ideologies stand still, actually move to the left, relatively.

This is widely evidenced throughout the political landscape, for instance; what is now considered the mainstream conservative movement would have been considered the radical right a couple decades ago, the tea party is considered extremist, but still politically viable (I mean...they got candidates elected :roll whereas a decade ago they would have been considered wacko nutjobs and before that they would have been laughed out of any legitimate political debate, and the people like Bobby Jindal offer rebuttals to the President in political gibberish.

Ultimately, the american political system is sunk...there are too many special interest groups...too many lobbyists...too many rich Good Ole Boys in office, oh yea, and corporations are officially people. You mentioned the economic achievements (or lack thereof) and this is tied up in it, to my mind. We have banks that are still not paying taxes, Wachovia was recently found guilty of laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in cartel money, investment firms are still posting million dollar bonuses.

The head of the UN office on drugs and crime said proceeds from drugs and crime were the only liquid investment capital available to banks on the brink of collapse. And the government was aware of it and did nothing...because they were paid handsomely to do so (we saw the same thing with healthcare). Everyone's got their hands in the pot, same as before. This is what capitalism breeds; $$$ over everything. I see no hope within the system...recently a lot of the old school Black revolutionary movement (and new-school digestion of old theories) has been speaking very strongly to me and making a lot of sense. This event, to my mind, highlighted how unaware the average person is to what is going on and what has gone on within and around the rise and maintenance of the US as hegemon.

Murky waters indeed.

Appeasement fails when the majority of the worlds leaders fail to both abide by the conditions of said appeasement, and simultaneously denounce nationalistic ideals when faced - directly or indirectly - with a grave threat to basic human rights. The extent of a single strangers attempt to help irrationality down from the ledge is trumped by the roars of a thousand voices screaming for it to back off.

Similarly, if just one or two countries attempted appeasement to avoid world war, alone they certainly could not come to terms that the rest of the world could also agree on. Hitler didn't like the diplomatic efforts to some extent, and the deal breaker were spy agencies confirming suspicions of Germany's plans to continue invading other countries. But I do understand the point at hand, and thusly the question: What does one do when rationality fails, and nothing remains but hate/anger?

What do we consider fair for the lives of every thing on this planet, and when can we revoke someones human right to live? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it to be at least seemingly impossible for all living things to co-exist on Earth; considering how many humans there are, and our most basic of consumption rates, (Bread, water, shelter) 9 billion people is enough to continually disrupt certain ecosystems, no matter how eco-friendly we try to be.

But we can say that every human has the right to live, so what happens when you willingly, forcibly take that right away from a fellow human? What becomes of you? You are not dead until other humans decide otherwise. I think the unemotional truth of the matter is, when it comes to the "greater good", it's acceptable to do bad. Sadly, the recent types of bad tried to bring the fastest outcome, without directly addressing any core psychological issues that all humans seem to have developed with anger, distrust or hatred. Because huge advancement in medicine has occurred in the recent century, and for once we can explain everything we do, and maybe better learn to control these emotions. God gave us complicated controls for these bodies, and no one made a proper manual.

So killing for the sake of the "greater good" is accepted, but no matter what, it is a bad thing to do? So then those you just killed come to kill you because of your reaction to their actions? To be clear, it's impossible to kill off an idea (People still believe the Earth is round, and because of our physical perception on this dimension, some people always will). Hitler is dead, just as Bin Laden may be, but both the Nazi and al-Qaeda organizations will always remain. This can only cause a relatively quick spiral out of control.

I believe Endlessness stated, that kind of attitude will inevitably lead to more death generations down the road.

Solutions? More specific: How can we address the issues we have of our mistrust of each others ability to act rationally? We need all governments to be on board for radical investments in changes that are appeasable to all.

Maybe a one world army? As N.A.T.O is a collaborative project between many countries armed forces and thus not a single fighting force vying for Earths rights - and all inhabitants -, it does not count.

This is totally true, but what I think you are missing is that Bin Laden was the finance behind it all. no Bin Laden no major backer....unless other countries are involved which they could be.




So what should we just ignore all criminal activity? Never pursue an injustice? I mean come on where do we draw the line with idealism? BTW I agree with a lot of what you say, I just want to push you to see to what length you've thought your views through... What should the USA of have done after 9/11? It seems as though you think we'd all be safer in a world were terrorists were free to act and not be persecuted by law authorities or militaries. Surely that's not what your suggesting, but then how do you separate your logic from that end point?

BTW I don't agree with a lot of what goes on with our military and I don't agree with the length we went to pursue Bin Laden, but I am glad that justice was served.....

I hear you jd...I don't disagree that he was an evil man who caused much pain/suffering in the world and I am not sad to see him go.



By no means do I think we should have done nothing after 9/11. Here's what I think (and I know I'm not alone in this, as I believe Mumia echoed similar sentiment in his radio essay, so forgive me if it is a tad conspiracy-ish):

I think we could have gotten bin Laden within the first 6 months of the war
I think doing so would have led to a massive (and, potentially more-warranted) celebration, or at least release/expulsion of the violent sentiments many hold with regards to 9/11.
I think this would have meant that there would have been little to no public support for invading Iraq
I think this would have been against the Bush Administration's agenda

I mean...we were in touch with the man (or at the very least, his his organization) with some regularity in the months/years prior to 9/11(and that's what we have public knowledge of, who knows what's currently classified)...we have a defense budget bigger than how many nations' GDPs? We have the most advanced recon-technology/weaponry and it took us a decade to find the man sitting in a suburban mansion in Pakistan? I dunno...it just doesn't add up to me...I see it as, he was no longer relevant except as a symbol, he had outlived his usefulness now that we're fully entrenched in the middle east and it served as a good morale booster/red-herring for the media to run wild with.

Just my musings

what does 911 have to do with any of this?..er wait..who?..911?? What was that all again?..I would love an explaination by now..I think we all would.

9/11 conspiracy theories debunked: http://www.popularmechan...gy/military/news/1227842 - Moving on.