Bin Laden is alive and well

[Tjol]

All I'm hearing is "they did something bad, so we should do something bad back to them."

--A

All I'm saying is that if someone does something bad, there's a consequence for it.

[Khazduk]

All I'm hearing is "they did something bad, so we should do something bad back to them."

--A

All I'm saying is that if someone does something bad, there's a consequence for it.

And that's what laws are for.

(But if only things were as simple as that...)

A few random thoughts (I've just been trying to browse through the threads on this subject, been away for a while):

I'm not sure I agree that you can't "desecrate" a dead body. Comparing it to a side of beef implies that there is no emotion attached to that action. Clearly there would be in this case.

But the "desecration" would not be primarily directed towards the dead person (who is probably on his/her way to the paradise or hell of their liking, or reentering samsara or whatever). Intentionally or unintentionally, it would most likely be perceived as desecration by those with a personal "positive" connection (in this case family and friends of OBL - GWB being one of them? , talibans, AQ recruits, wahhabists etc.) to the person - while it would be perceived as revenge or vindication by those with a personal "negative" connection (who probably constitute a far greater number, given the number of enemies he managed to create for himself).

Desecrating a dead body is clearly an act of passion. (The deterring effect like the medieval nailing of heads and hands to the city walls is not an issue here, I'll bet my pants on that.) And, as has been stated above, actions will have consequences. Acting on this passion will, in turn, have its consequences. What these will be, or if it's gonna be worth it or not, well... no idea. But acting from an emotion is, naturally, human. It is also human to try to use reason and think things through. Some would say (correctly or incorrectly) that it is what separates us from animals.
---

Clearly OBL was a criminal. A criminal individual. In my mind individuals can't declare wars (or, he can declare it, of course, but that doesn't make it a war. I don't become Napoleon by sticking a hand inside my jacket.) International law is clear on this point too. Criminals should be brought to justice.

And if the proper, legal punishment for his crimes is death, then he should be executed. (Although I live in Sweden, where capital punishment has been out of use for about a century, I still believe that a death sentence might be the only way out sometimes - but maybe too easy a way out for the offender. It's a real cop out imho.)

If he was resisting arrest (or whatever the proper term would be) and was killed in that process, then so be it. In that case, he did "have it coming". If he wasn't resisting and still was killed, in a house with people whose only crime might have been being related to him, then a crime has been committed by the US forces and/or the one who gave the order to kill. There is no other way around it.

UNLESS you decide that anyone can declare war anytime on anything, and decide that "in war, bad stuff happens, nothing to do about it". There is a highway to anarchy for you, most certainly. Or a return to balance of terror and assured destruction, not just mutually but globally. You'll need to keep everyone shit scared all the time. Because they wouldn't want you declaring war on them.

---

I'm really not trying to justify any of OBL's actions. If I've written anything that might imply that, I apologize for my clumsiness. Though I am trying to say that there is a very thin line to tread here. And sometimes there is no 100% perfect solution. Ideally, someone like OBL should really stand trial for his crimes. It would expose him and his stupid shit for what it is, just like all totalitarian regimes and/or religions.

Easy solution: ban religion, ban weapons, ban idiots!

Edit: spleling

[Vain]

I think an eye for an eye is a great thing...so yes, you do something bad, we do something more badass until you give up. nothing like unbearable consequences. The japanese found that out after Pearl Harbour.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

One point I have not heard anyone say is this: as long as bin Laden was alive there was a mysterious, shadowy boogeyman out there somewhere who could strike at any minute, therefore we have to have ridiculous infringements on liberty like TSA patdowns and the Patriot Act.

Now that he is dead, there is no more boogeyman, so there shouldn't be any need for the government to try and foster fear in the public. What this means is that things like patdowns and the Patriot Act need to go--those are more dangerous threats to liberty and freedom than Mr. bin Laden ever was.

[Rawedge Rim]

One point I have not heard anyone say is this: as long as bin Laden was alive there was a mysterious, shadowy boogeyman out there somewhere who could strike at any minute, therefore we have to have ridiculous infringements on liberty like TSA patdowns and the Patriot Act.

Now that he is dead, there is no more boogeyman, so there shouldn't be any need for the government to try and foster fear in the public. What this means is that things like patdowns and the Patriot Act need to go--those are more dangerous threats to liberty and freedom than Mr. bin Laden ever was.

I agree that there are parts of the Patriot Act that should be deleted, or certainly revised.

OTOH, what are you gonna say when a plane is hijacked, and the relatives of those who died are in a courtroom sueing the crap out of Uncle Sam and the Airline for no making sure that terrorist weren't on the plane. Oh well?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Relative killed by a terrorist...grandfather killed by drunk driver...both are instances of losing an innocent loved one due to someone else's deadly choices. I managed to get over it so they will, as well.

I am not unsympathetic to their loss; however, I don't consider their loss to be "greater" or "more tragic" simply because of the circumstances.

[finn]

I think an eye for an eye is a great thing...so yes, you do something bad, we do something more badass until you give up. nothing like unbearable consequences. The japanese found that out after Pearl Harbour.

Any other aspects of Sharia Law grab your fancy? How about attitudes to women?

[Avatar]

One point I have not heard anyone say is this: as long as bin Laden was alive there was a mysterious, shadowy boogeyman out there somewhere who could strike at any minute, therefore we have to have ridiculous infringements on liberty like TSA patdowns and the Patriot Act.

Now that he is dead, there is no more boogeyman, so there shouldn't be any need for the government to try and foster fear in the public. What this means is that things like patdowns and the Patriot Act need to go--those are more dangerous threats to liberty and freedom than Mr. bin Laden ever was.

Hahahahaha. Hahahaha.

Sorry, there's no way the government is going to stop any of that just because he's dead. Surely you don't think this was all driven just by people doing what he told them? Nothing has changed. Except the boogeyman doesn't have a name or a face anymore.

This is never going to end. It's like the war on drugs. You can't win, and you won't give up.

Me, I'm reminded of what the IRA told Margaret Thatcher. "You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once."

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Sorry, there's no way the government is going to stop any of that just because he's dead. Surely you don't think this was all driven just by people doing what he told them? Nothing has changed. Except the boogeyman doesn't have a name or a face anymore.

Of course I don't really think that--no one ever gives up power willingly.

[Avatar]

Yep...so...the end result of OBL's attack on your freedoms is...less freedoms?

--A

[Khazduk]

Although there seems to be a Nietzschean or two around here, it seems to fall to one who doesn't agree very much with him in general to remind you of what he said about battling with beasts and looking into the abyss.

So, naturally you are right, Av. If you agree to the general premise that there can be a "war on terror", then it follows that there can be a "war on freedom". Both equally valid from either viewpoint.

A part of me can understand - though not at all sympathize - with the US reactions to 9/11. It was a horrendous attack and even more so since it was so unexpected (for the general public) and because they are used to having two oceans protecting them from the rest of the world.

But their reaction is more that of a scared child than a thought-through strategy on how to make the world a better and safer place. And as far as nations go, it's really no surprise since the US in this aspect truly are children. Or maybe adolescents by now, making them even more unpredictable.

Having said that, the rest of the world isn't a lot better. We all should have learned by now.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yep...so...the end result of OBL's attack on your freedoms is...less freedoms?

--A

Now you are starting to catch on to the twisted logic that governments use. They have to force us all to fly or ride trains naked in order to be free.

[finn]

I made a point in one of the other threads about this. It is our leaders and their reactions to, or manipulation of, events put into motion by more often than not the threat of terrorism. The idea is that we are on one side and terrorists are on the other. But in truth it is us on one side, the terrorist on the other and the politicians using this adversity as a way of squeezing the life out of us, making us more docile and compliant through laws and authorititive measures and withdrawal of liberties.

I seriously wonder whose side they are on: the answer of course is their ever their own. But the terrorists do far more to ease their burden that they do to ease ours.

[Avatar]

Yep...so...the end result of OBL's attack on your freedoms is...less freedoms?

--A

Now you are starting to catch on to the twisted logic that governments use. They have to force us all to fly or ride trains naked in order to be free.

So you're not really free after all. Or at least, you're free only within limits that are defined and (arbitrarily) imposed by your government.

--A