Celebrate or Not: Bin Laden's Death - Thoughts?

[Ryan_m_b]

Unless you put your life in line to capture somebody, be part of that operation or the respective the chain of command, you get nothing to say critically at the military. You can express your disagreement at the next elections, if you really consider it a big political blunder. It's easy to be critical from an armchair in front of your computer while others are fighting to keep you safe(r) in some god forgotten place in Karakorum range.

If you read everything I posted you would realize I was not criticizing the outcome but expressing my desire for a different one. The fact that I was not involved in the operation means that I reserve criticism and I have said that. I was not being "critical from an armchair whilst others keep me safe". Perhaps you should make sure you are understanding what somebody else is saying before you jump to criticize them.

 

[micromass]

Too bad that your mercy is wasted. Wasted on beings who would not blink twice to have you killed.

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

 

[JaredJames]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

Incredibly well said.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

I'll echo JaredJames, brilliantly put!

 

[cobalt124]

The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

This is what I've been avoiding saying really. When I didn't feel that mercy, or the sadness of somebodys death, it was damaging me. Thats just me though.

 

[DanP]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them.

Somebody who ? That is the question :P

The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html"

 

[rootX]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

I have said this many times earlier, no one is different. You are comparing people who never seen anything worst than not getting a dessert for their dinner to people who never been to schools and seen dinner only on fortunate days.

 

[cobalt124]

Somebody who ? That is the question

I don't make that distinction. Again, that's just me.

 

[DanP]

I have said this many times earlier, no one is different. You are comparing people who never seen anything worst than not getting a dessert for their dinner to people who never been to schools and seen dinner only on fortunate days.

This mercy towards the criminals who kill your kinsmen is just yet another attribute present in some humans. It is not IMO inherently good or bad. But IMO statements like "t is this mercy that makes us different from such people" are IMO just a manifestation of an holier-than-thou
bias.

 

[micromass]

I have said this many times earlier, no one is different. You are comparing people who never seen anything worst than not getting a dessert for their dinner to people who never been to schools and seen dinner only on fortunate days.

Not everybody who is unfortunate and never go to school turns into a mass murderer. And some people, who were incredibly lucky, did turn out to be monsters. What makes somebody a mass murder, I don't know: indoctrination, genetics, maybe other causes??

All I want to say is that I feel happy to feel compassion to other human beings, and for some reason, some people don't feel that compassion. I do think there's a difference...

 

[DanP]

I don't make that distinction. Again, that's just me.

IMO this is just a story of sheep,wolves and sheepdogs . This is why I posted Col. Grossman's link. The sheep will always feel mercy towards the wolf who slaughtered it's sisters. It's its nature.

 

[DanP]

I do think there's a difference...

There is a difference indeed. But do you honestly call yourself better than the ones who do not feel this mercy towards a killer? Superior in any way ? To profess , and I paraphrase, that "this mercy makes you different from a terrorist" is IMO a form of hinting that those which do not care oare not any different from a terrorist. Is this fair ? Do you really believe this ?

Are you sure it's not just a self-serving bias or a form of a cognitive dissonance resolved by justifying your more merciful nature as better, more human, then the nature of the others who don't care a killer was shot ?

 

[micromass]

IMO this is just a story of sheep,wolves and sheepdogs . This is why I posted Col. Grossman's link. The sheep will always feel mercy towards the wolf who slaughtered it's sisters. It's its nature.

You need to realize that there are no wolves out there. The wolves are just other people who are looking out for their own people and believes. What is a wolf in one peoples eye, becomes a sheepdog in anothers. Once you understand that every person just tries to live his life with the tools given to them and that every person feels pain, misery, friendship, there is no other way IMO to feel compassionate for him.

Not all people are thesame, but I do think that all deserve compassion...

 

[DanP]

You need to realize that there are no wolves out there.

Do tell this to the families of the nearly 3000 victims of 9/11. To the families of the hundreds of victims of 2004 Madrid train bombings. To the decapitated journalists/contractors/whatever. To the men killed and to the women raped on streets.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

quoted from On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

Once you understand that every person just tries to live his life with the tools given to them and that every person feels pain, misery, friendship, there is no other way IMO to feel compassionate for him.

I get you. Google "Eugene Armstrong". See what tools some use :P I agree that every person feels misery , friendship whatever. However some would also kill you in a blink of an eye. Rape your women, behead the sons of your country. Do the math, please. It is denial IMO, to focus on partial attributes of others. Look at the whole picture. Oh, the poor be-header, he also has friends, feels miserably sometimes and also has a mother who will cry for him :P

Besides, you cleverly avoided my question. Do you consider yourself better than your fellow humans who happen to not feel mercy for killers ?

 

[micromass]

Besides, you cleverly avoided my question. Do you consider yourself better than your fellow humans who happen to not feel mercy for killers ?

No I don't feel better than anybody. I tought this was quite clear from my response.

 

[cobalt124]

"t is this mercy that makes us different from such people" are IMO just a manifestation of an holier-than-thou bias.

Are you sure it's not just a self-serving bias or a form of a cognitive dissonance resolved by justifying your more merciful nature as better, more human, then the nature of the others who don't care a killer was shot ?

I know you are not asking me directly, but I feel the need to answer this. For me it was simply the difference between how I felt "not caring a killer was shot", and how I felt expressing compassion and mercy. I'm afraid "holier than thou" and "your more merciful nature as better" don't come into it, it's more to do with being able to look at myself in the mirror and live with who I see.

 

[DanP]

I know you are not asking me directly, but I feel the need to answer this. For me it was simply the difference between how I felt "not caring a killer was shot", and how I felt expressing compassion and mercy. I'm afraid "holier than thou" and "your more merciful nature as better" don't come into it, it's more to do with being able to look at myself in the mirror and live with who I see.

You realize that this attitude can be the result of a cognitive dissonance, or a powerful self-serving bias ?

 

[cobalt124]

You realize that this attitude can be the result of a cognitive dissonance, or a powerful self-serving bias ?

I just prefer who I am with the latter over who I was with the former.

 

[russ_watters]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

[separate post]

You need to realize that there are no wolves out there. The wolves are just other people who are looking out for their own people and believes. What is a wolf in one peoples eye, becomes a sheepdog in anothers

I knew eventually this thread would lead us to moral equivalence between celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and celebrating the death of the man who was most responsible for their deaths.

They are not equivalent. Not even close. One deserved to die while the 3000 did not.

 

[DR13]

I knew eventually this thread would lead us to moral equivalence between celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and celebrating the death of the man who was most responsible for their deaths.

They are not equivalent. Not even close. One deserved to die while the 3000 did not.

Agreed.

 

[ideasrule]

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

This seems like a piece of propaganda a politician makes up before declaring war, or a paragraph from a children's cartoon about good vs. evil. If only the real world could be cleanly divided into such clear categories!

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions. We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences. We also neglect to critically examine the factors behind that person's evil views in an effort to prevent those factors from surfacing in others.

Let's critically examine Osama. He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East. We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for. The 1948 civil war that started due to the United Nations forcibly partitioning Arab territory had 10,000+ casualties. The 1982 Lebanon invasion that Osama used to justify his terrorism had 30,000 Arab casualties, about 10,000 of which were civilians. Others have already mentioned the Iraq War, which caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These numbers alone dwarf the 3000 killed in 9/11. We haven't even begun considering Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, which make bin Laden's anger at the West much more justifiable.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden, but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

 

[DR13]

This seems like a piece of propaganda a politician makes up before declaring war, or a paragraph from a children's cartoon about good vs. evil. If only the real world could be cleanly divided into such clear categories!

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions. We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences. We also neglect to critically examine the factors behind that person's evil views in an effort to prevent those factors from surfacing in others.

Let's critically examine Osama. He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East. We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for. The 1948 civil war that started due to the United Nations forcibly partitioning Arab territory had 10,000+ casualties. The 1982 Lebanon invasion that Osama used to justify his terrorism had 30,000 Arab casualties, about 10,000 of which were civilians. Others have already mentioned the Iraq War, which caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These numbers alone dwarf the 3000 killed in 9/11. We haven't even begun considering Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden, but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

On a side note: Please don't bring up Israel. If you want to debate that then start a new thread and I will see you there.

 

[Proton Soup]

People I know seem fairly polarized between whether or not it's acceptable to celebrate bin Laden's death. Any thoughts?

when Ted Bundy was executed, some of the police here celebrated at one of the local BBQ joints with a Bundycue.

personally, i think it's creepy and uncalled for.

 

[jobyts]

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

On a side note: Please don't bring up Israel. If you want to debate that then start a new thread and I will see you there.

What do you think the reason Al Queda turned against US? Why they were not against, say Norway?

 

[DR13]

What do you think the reason Al Queda turned against US? Why they were not against, say Norway?

Because he doesn't like western culture. What is your point? If you don't like something, then ram a plane into it?

 

[micromass]

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

Hmm, yes, but that is the Western point-of-view. Osama didn't see it that way. He saw americans killing his people, invading his countries and support oppressive regimes. And what he wanted to do was to try to stop all of this, and he saw no other way than to send planes in a building filled with people. He was a man filled with hate and delusions, but I don't necessairly think that makes him "evil".

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

And for the record: I don't want to give criticism to the US and support for the Bin Ladens, at all. I just don't want to be too quick in calling people evil or good, because by that same standards, everybody would be evil...

 

[russ_watters]

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions.

I most certainly do not have the same emotions as Bin Laden.

We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences.

So what? Poor upbringing does not decrease the level of evil. We are defined by our actions, not our potential. This is a red herring argument.

He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East.

You need to read his manifesto more closely. You're not correct. You're making-up excuses for him.

We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Not true. There is a world of difference betwen killing civilians accidentally and targeting civilians.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for.

Source? The attack easily could have killed 10x more than it did. I would have expected he was disappointed so many people got out before the buildings collapsed.

...which make bin Laden's anger at the West much more justifiable.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden...

These two statements contradict each other.

but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

Oh, now I get it - that whole post was "delusional religious nut" logic?

Why in the world would we want to analyze this using "delusional religious nut" logic? I'm not interested in "delusional religious nut" logic or morality.

 

[russ_watters]

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

[setting aside the factually wrong part about no chance of a trial...]

So in your view, holding people prisoner is morally equivalent to murdering them? Where does your view of morality come from?

 

[micromass]

[setting aside the factually wrong part about no chance of a trial...]

So in your view, holding people prisoner is morally equivalent to murdering them? Where does your view of morality come from?

Don't twist my words please. I never said it was equivalent. I said it was also an "evil" act.

 

[DR13]

Hmm, yes, but that is the Western point-of-view. Osama didn't see it that way. He saw americans killing his people, invading his countries and support oppressive regimes. And what he wanted to do was to try to stop all of this, and he saw no other way than to send planes in a building filled with people. He was a man filled with hate and delusions, but I don't necessairly think that makes him "evil".

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

And for the record: I don't want to give criticism to the US and support for the Bin Ladens, at all. I just don't want to be too quick in calling people evil or good, because by that same standards, everybody would be evil...

Your last paragraph is a fair point.

However, a man filled with hate and delusions who then acts on those feelings is evil whether it be OBL or an American-born murderer. Just because he can justify it to himself does not make it right (or even ok).

 

[micromass]

However, a man filled with hate and delusions who then acts on those feelings is evil whether it be OBL or an American-born murderer. Just because he can justify it to himself does not make it right (or even ok).

I can agree with this statement. It does not make it right or ok, far from it! And anybody performing these acts has to be tried before a judge and answer for himself.

I do think Osama is an evil man, but what I want to understand is where he's coming from. What caused him to be so filled with hatred against innocent people...

 

[jobyts]

Because he doesn't like western culture. What is your point? If you don't like something, then ram a plane into it?

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

 

[DR13]

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

You seem to have an answer already in mind. Why don't you go ahead and tell us. Personally, I just think he was an islamic extremist who hated the west and wanted to see all of "infadels" burn and go to hell.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't twist my words please. I never said it was equivalent. I said it was also an "evil" act.

You said if one was evil, then the other was also evil. Why does one being evil make the other evil?

And you said some people find it more justifiable, which implies you find them equally unjustifiable.

Explain!

 

[russ_watters]

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

It's because the US is the leader of the West. Here's Osama's letter to America: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

He lists reasons why he's fighting us. The first is that we are fighting against Islam and he lists Palestine, Somalia, Chechnya, India (Kashmir), Lebanon, and Iraq. Ironically, we only actually ever had troops in three of those places and always with a coalition, but we're seen as The unifying force/support-base. We're the leader, so we get blamed for everything.

Then in the "what do we want" section, first and foremost: convert to Islam. All others flow from that. Basically, the whole tirade reduces to: 'convert to Islam or die'.

[typo fixed]