Osama bin Laden Killed

[bmacwilliam]

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

Well, a nice start would be to be able to criticize Islam, or Allah forbid - even maybe draw a cartoon or two without censorship and a fear of getting brutally murdered.

Bob

[Martin Radwin]

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

Well, a nice start would be to be able to criticize Islam, or Allah forbid - even maybe draw a cartoon or two without censorship and a fear of getting brutally murdered.

Bob

Of course it would be a nice start. And, of course, the threats of violence and actual murders of people drawing cartoons of Mohammad or otherwise mocking Islam are both evil and stupid.

My comment was a facetious reply to Infidel's ludicrous suggestion that we could somehow destroy the faith in Allah of the world's population of Muslims. Here's the reality. Religious belief declines very slowly, over multiple generations and hundreds of years. Here in the United States, at least 90% of the population are Christians, Jews, or Muslims. And we are among the most technologically advanced, educated societies that has ever existed in the world. I would guess that the rate of religious belief among Europeans is slightly lower than in the United States but still very high. The rate of religious belief in the U.S. has been decling over the last hundred years, but very slowly. Given this reality, how long would you expect it to take for there to be a significant reduction in religious belief in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen?

Like it or not, we are going to have to live in a world populated by hundreds of millions of Muslims for a long, long, long, long time. Islam is not going away. There will probably be significant numbers of Muslims a thousand years from now. There is no enlightenment fairy that's going to come along and convert all of these hundreds of millions of Muslims into enlightenment atheistic thinkers. And if there were such a fairy, he/she would have to make a stop here in the United States as well to disabuse the majority of Americans of their religious belief.

So, we're just going to have to learn to live in peace with our Muslim neighbors. Utopian fantasies about destroying their religious faith are not going to help to achieve this goal.

Martin

[Richard Wiig]

You're right, Ba'al. We'll never be safe as long as there's a single Jihadi Out There. So the obvious solution is to make up a list of every single Jihadi in the entire world.

The obvious solution is to destroy their faith in Allah.

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

Martin

There are many ways to go about accomplishing this feat, but it can be summed up as leaving Islam to its own devices. One simple thing that would go a long way towards people losing faith would be to stop all aid to the Islamic world. Another would be to stop worrying about Muslim sensitivities and treat them as if they're capable of living as rational adults able to handle the release of photos. There are but two, and they don't even involve dropping any bombs.

[BaalChatzaf]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

Here is a case in point: There have been several attempts to eliminate Judaism as a religious practice and several attempts to liquidate the Jews. All have failed. Judaism has persisted in some form since the time of Abraham some 3400 years ago. As long as Jews are alive, so will the religious practice persist.

Over the last 2200 years going back to the time of Atiochus and the Selucide rulers (successors to Alexander the Great) there have been energetic attempts to eliminate Judaism. Some by violence and some by subversion in the form of selling attractive Greek philosophical tropes to Jews (particularly in Alexandria). It just does not work.

I expect getting rid of Islam will be even more difficult.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jerry Biggers]

But since, instead, your solution is to destroy their faith in Allah, I guess I should ask just how exactly you propose that we accomplish this feat?

Well, a nice start would be to be able to criticize Islam, or Allah forbid - even maybe draw a cartoon or two without censorship and a fear of getting brutally murdered.

Bob

Of course it would be a nice start. And, of course, the threats of violence and actual murders of people drawing cartoons of Mohammad or otherwise mocking Islam are both evil and stupid.

My comment was a facetious reply to Infidel's ludicrous suggestion that we could somehow destroy the faith in Allah of the world's population of Muslims. Here's the reality. Religious belief declines very slowly, over multiple generations and hundreds of years. Here in the United States, at least 90% of the population are Christians, Jews, or Muslims. And we are among the most technologically advanced, educated societies that has ever existed in the world. I would guess that the rate of religious belief among Europeans is slightly lower than in the United States but still very high. The rate of religious belief in the U.S. has been decling over the last hundred years, but very slowly. Given this reality, how long would you expect it to take for there to be a significant reduction in religious belief in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen?

Like it or not, we are going to have to live in a world populated by hundreds of millions of Muslims for a long, long, long, long time. Islam is not going away. There will probably be significant numbers of Muslims a thousand years from now. There is no enlightenment fairy that's going to come along and convert all of these hundreds of millions of Muslims into enlightenment atheistic thinkers. And if there were such a fairy, he/she would have to make a stop here in the United States as well to disabuse the majority of Americans of their religious belief.

So, we're just going to have to learn to live in peace with our Muslim neighbors. Utopian fantasies about destroying their religious faith are not going to help to achieve this goal.

Martin

Estimating adherence to a particular religion (or "irreligion") is a notoriously difficult exercise. Official pollsters have attempted to sample the populations of various countries, but their definitions of religion, belief in a God, agnosticism, and atheism have not been consistent, not to mention unreliable sampling methodologies. But, nevertheless, here are a few published estimates:

from wikipedia, "irreligion by country," a figure of 1.1 billion (16%) is given as the number worldwide that is "irreligious." Their source is www.adherents.com

The Gallup poll, asking the question, "Is religion important in your life?," found that that the country with the lowest religious belief was ... (are you ready?)....Afghanistan. So much for the reliability of Gallop's methodology.

In another Wikipedia article, "List of religious populations," Japan was the least religious, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Macao(?), Czech Republic, Hong Kong (?), France, Norway, Estonia, Netherlands, Finland, U.K., S. Korea, Germany, and so on. The U.S. is listed as 6% (includes agnostic as well as atheist).

As I said, these figures may be next to useless. For one thing, some types of Buddhism do not really believe in a "God" (in the Judeo-Christian or Islamic sense). Philosophical Taoism (or Daoism) does not believe in a God or afterlife (see for example, Deng Ming-Dao, Scholar Warrior: An Introduction to the Tao in Everyday Life, 1990, pp 177-180). BTW, he is rather scornful of religious daoists who believe in a panopoly of spirits.

Anyway, yes, Islam is going to be around for a long time. It will probably take as long as it took Europe to lose much of its christianity. Or longer. We shall just have to be tolerant of them(but that, of course, is a two-way street). Tolerance of Islam in general, does not mean that we should not resist militant Wahabi-type extreme Muslims.

The vast majority of Moslems just want to live in peace. Those that don't, may require more effective methods to convince them. And I don't mean carpet-bombing the Mideast with arabic translations of Atlas Shrugged.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[9thdoctor]

Anyway, yes, Islam is going to be around for a long time. It will probably take as long as it took Europe to lose much of its christianity.

The ruin of Paganism, in the age of Theodosius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular superstition, and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in the history of the human mind.

Edward Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

, Chapter 28

Of course that was one nasty process. Nevertheless, it has happened before, and could be quicker than you expect.

[Richard Wiig]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

You don't need to kill it. It will do quite well at killing itself. Let each religion stand or fall on its own strengths and weaknesses. Islam is extremely weak and only stays standing because people feed it. Not releasing the photo's of Bin Laden is one prime example of that.

[Jerry Biggers]

Anyway, yes, Islam is going to be around for a long time. It will probably take as long as it took Europe to lose much of its christianity.

The ruin of Paganism, in the age of Theodosius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular superstition, and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in the history of the human mind.

Edward Gibbon,

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

, Chapter 28

Of course that was one nasty process. Nevertheless, it has happened before, and could be quicker than you expect.

A cogent observation by Gibbon.That was indeed a nasty process. I read somewhere that not a sigle sacred text of the predominant pagan religion, Mithraism, has survived. I believe Gibbon blamed the Emperor Constantine for causing the suppression of paganism. Of course, Gibbon was not around when the communists tried their best to exterminate the influence of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions in Russia and eastern europe. Or the even more brutal tactics of Mao in China against Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, and other religions. After (most of) the communist regimes collapsed, these religions again flourished - almost as if they had never been suppressed by the communist states.

Some other instances of attempts to violently suppress religious faiths were not mentioned by Gibbon (I think, but I have not read all of his works, so he may have addressed some of the following):

The suppression of Christianity and other religions by Moslems after they conquered all of north Africa and the middle east (and carried on later by the Ottoman Turks). These have been largely successful (the Arabs more than the Turks, although the Armenian christians would probably disagree with that observation!) in suppressing non-Moslem faiths.

Still another example would be the suppression (damn near total destruction) of the native religions of Mexico (e.g., Aztec, Toltec) and the Incas in Peru.

And according to "native Americans" (I prefer the term, "earlier Americans, as there were no strictly native Americans), the English and subsequent U.S. governments tried their best to exterminate "native" culture, religion (and the people) of North America.

In all of these cases, the attempt to supress or exterminate a native religion was carried on by force of arms (i.e. by agents of the State). And barring the use of force (which has not proved effective in most cases, excepting the above examples), I cannot envision a process where Islam would be voluntarily abandoned by the population in large numbers in the territories where they are currently predominant.

[Selene]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

You don't need to kill it. It will do quite well at killing itself. Let each religion stand or fall on its own strengths and weaknesses. Islam is extremely weak and only stays standing because people feed it. Not releasing the photo's of Bin Laden is one prime example of that.

Looks like it is being overfed than...

"Islam According to Guinness World Records (a generally reliable and unbiased source), “Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had escalated to around 1.2 billion by 2000, meaning that around one in five people follow Islam. Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity” (Guinness World Records 2003, pg 102)

Globally, the World Christian Database estimates the growth of Islam by percentage at 1.40% for 2010-2020 due to high birthrates in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.^[26] A comprehensive demographic study finds that there are 1.6 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of the estimated 2009 world population.^[27]"

Christianity is growing, same source, at 1.38 %

The Wiki page is instructive and interesting on this issue Here.

They note in the opening paragraph that:

"There are several different religions claiming to be the "fastest growing religion". Such claims vary because of different definitions of "fastest growing", and whether the claim is worldwide or based on regional increases. There are also many unreliable claims and rumors, especially for conversion rates, that often spread as urban legends.

Most increase in the population of any religious denomination is simply due to births. Still, the world's largest religions that are showing increases that outrun birth-rate include Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

There is often little coverage of the "No religious denomination" category (which includes deists, agnostics, atheists, and theists) although some evidence suggests they are growing rapidly. In the U.S.^[1] the so-called "Nones" are the fastest growing religious status."

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

You don't need to kill it. It will do quite well at killing itself. Let each religion stand or fall on its own strengths and weaknesses. Islam is extremely weak and only stays standing because people feed it. Not releasing the photo's of Bin Laden is one prime example of that.

Christianity has not killed itself. Judaism has not killed itself. Islam not only has not killed it self, but has become more foul and dangerous with the passage of time. The Hindu religion is still going strong. Budhism is quite alive and well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

You don't need to kill it. It will do quite well at killing itself. Let each religion stand or fall on its own strengths and weaknesses. Islam is extremely weak and only stays standing because people feed it. Not releasing the photo's of Bin Laden is one prime example of that.

I agree you don't need to try to kill it. What I believe we (meaning the West) DO need to do is to steadfastly, openly, and emphatically refuse to let any Islamic practice or law creep into secular society. Importantly we cannot be afraid to be "steadfast, open and emphatic" in criticizing Islam and its stupidity, and as we've seen in many instances this is NOT the case unfortunately.

Bob

Edited May 6, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Selene]

Killing a religion, especially one that has been around a long time is extremely difficult.

You don't need to kill it. It will do quite well at killing itself. Let each religion stand or fall on its own strengths and weaknesses. Islam is extremely weak and only stays standing because people feed it. Not releasing the photo's of Bin Laden is one prime example of that.

I agree you don't need to try to kill it. What I believe we (meaning the West) DO need to do is to steadfastly, openly, and emphatically refuse to let any Islamic practice or law creep into secular society. Importantly we cannot be afraid to be "steadfast, open and emphatic" in criticizing Islam and its stupidity, and as we've seen in many instances this is NOT the case unfortunately.

Bob

Here I find I am in agreement with you. In terms of Domestic Relations Law, religious aspects of marriage can be incorporated into Stipulations or Judgments, e.g., an annulment from the Catholic Church, a get in Jewish law.

For example, in New York get laws:

"1983 Get Law : Domestic Relations Law §253

• 1992 Get Law : DRL §236 (bee)(5)(h) and DRL §236 (bee)(6)(d)

In 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson was applauded by feminists for ordering an Orthodox Jewish man to pay his ex-wife $500-a-week for life, because the man refused to grant her a get.^[4]"

"bee" above equals the second letter of the alphabet.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

I believe Gibbon blamed the Emperor Constantine for causing the suppression of paganism.

Actually no, it was Constantius and Theodosius, the latter being influence by influential Bishops (now saints) such as Ambrose. Pagan temples were first ordered closed in the 340’s. After the Battle of the Frigidus in the 390’s there weren’t any more notable attempts at pagan revivals. So it took about 2 generations. This points to a lack of enthusiasm about the pagan religions, Christians of course grew their numbers during persecutions, but Christians are taught to revere martyrs (sounds familiar?).

[Peter]

If Barrack Obama is trailing on Oct. 1st 2012 he will release photos of Osama, according to our local grapevine, a gripe column in the Times.

Peter

[Guyau]

.

Elan Journo, writes on May 2: Killing of Bin Laden.

See also.

[Richard Wiig]

Christianity has not killed itself. Judaism has not killed itself. Islam not only has not killed it self, but has become more foul and dangerous with the passage of time. The Hindu religion is still going strong. Budhism is quite alive and well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Christianity and Judaism have certain strengths that Islam doesn't. If Islam was strong it wouldn't need to use fear of the initiation of force to kow people into submission. If it wasn't for oil and foreign aid, and now the wonders of the internet and easy travel, Islam would have been a spent force long ago.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I read the links and there is something bothering me in spades.

I keep hearing people talk about killing bin Laden as an act of justice. For instance, Journo wrote:

The killing of Bin Laden is a tremendous act of justice — for the victims of 9/11, for all Americans. An overdue act of justice...

There is great danger here--one where we can go around the globe dispensing "justice" as we define it and redefine it to suit other conveniences.

Kelley was more precise, but first a quibble with his view. He claims that the true enemy is "nihilism" I disagree. I believe bullying has more far more weight. But setting that aside, here is what he wrote:

The United States and its allies must cease the policy of trying to counter terrorism by negotiation. Negotiation is an exercise of reason that civilized people use to resolve their differences. We are not dealing with civilized people.

Notice he did not use the term "justice."

Justice is a concept of civilized people and he rejects terrorists as civilized.

I acknowledge that I am extending his statement to a place he may not have, but I believe precision and need for clarity warrant it.

Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.

Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

If you pretend it was an act of justice, you do two things:

1. You weaken the concept of war, and

2. You augment the concept of justice to the point where bullies can use it to intimidate others just like they use religion.

Osama bin Laden was at war with the USA when he first attacked and he was still at war when our soldiers went in and killed him.

We were participating in a de facto war. We were not punishing him according to a scale of different punishments based on his "crimes." We killed him because he attacked us and killed our citizens. We killed an enemy. And we sent a message to the world: Do not mess with us. That's a big honking no no with a hell of a nasty reaction attached to it.

That's not justice. That's showing people that we have a bigger club than they do.

I see nothing wrong with this, too. When an enemy attacks you viciously, you kill him. Especially if he doesn't stop. That's what you're supposed to do. Then you can get back to some kind of system where the word "justice" means something other than a bromide for macho declarations.

I see great danger in muddying the waters here.

War is one thing. Justice is another. There's a small overlap, I agree, but the fundamental principle in this case is that we killed our enemy, not that we brought a criminal to justice. So I suppose the precise manner of saying this is that we killed an active enemy in a de facto war, and, as a result, an eye for an eye form of justice happened. But that's not why we did it. We did it to get rid of him for once and for all--and only after that, worry about where justice fits in.

It scares me that Obama is calling this justice. It scares me even more that so many people are agreeing with him.

I foresee a great amount of injustice that will be perpetrated--by the USA and by others--under this hellish conceptual bait-and-switch.

I dearly hope I am wrong.

Michael

[anthony]

Stephen,

I read the links and there is something bothering me in spades.

I keep hearing people talk about killing bin Laden as an act of justice. For instance, Journo wrote:

The killing of Bin Laden is a tremendous act of justice — for the victims of 9/11, for all Americans. An overdue act of justice...

There is great danger here--one where we can go around the globe dispensing "justice" as we define it and redefine it to suit other conveniences.

Kelley was more precise, but first a quibble with his view. He claims that the true enemy is "nihilism" I disagree. I believe bullying has more far more weight. But setting that aside, here is what he wrote:

The United States and its allies must cease the policy of trying to counter terrorism by negotiation. Negotiation is an exercise of reason that civilized people use to resolve their differences. We are not dealing with civilized people.

Notice he did not use the term "justice."

Justice is a concept of civilized people and he rejects terrorists as civilized.

I acknowledge that I am extending his statement to a place he may not have, but I believe precision and need for clarity warrant it.

Justice demands a trial and defense in a court of law.

Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

If you pretend it was an act of justice, you do two things:

1. You weaken the concept of war, and

2. You augment the concept of justice to the point where bullies can use it to intimidate others just like they use religion.

Osama bin Laden was at war with the USA when he first attacked and he was still at war when our soldiers went in and killed him.

We were participating in a de facto war. We were not punishing him according to a scale of different punishments based on his "crimes." We killed him because he attacked us and killed our citizens. We killed an enemy. And we sent a message to the world: Do not mess with us. That's a big honking no no with a hell of a nasty reaction attached to it.

That's not justice. That's showing people that we have a bigger club than they do.

I see nothing wrong with this, too. When an enemy attacks you viciously, you kill him. Especially if he doesn't stop. That's what you're supposed to do. Then you can get back to some kind of system where the word "justice" means something other than a bromide for macho declarations.

I see great danger in muddying the waters here.

War is one thing. Justice is another. There's a small overlap, I agree, but the fundamental principle in this case is that we killed our enemy, not that we brought a criminal to justice. So I suppose the precise manner of saying this is that we killed an active enemy in a de facto war, and, as a result, an eye for an eye form of justice happened. But that's not why we did it. We did it to get rid of him for once and for all--and only after that, worry about where justice fits in.

It scares me that Obama is calling this justice. It scares me even more that so many people are agreeing with him.

I foresee a great amount of injustice that will be perpetrated--by the USA and by others--under this hellish conceptual bait-and-switch.

I dearly hope I am wrong.

Michael

Michael,

You raised an important issue, and I agree with your concern.

I think when we mis-define words such as in: "It was 'just' that ObL got his 'just' rewards", we are allowing in a dangerous precedent.

Anyone with the superior force, can then claim that 'justice' was served, when they commit an arbitrary act of vengeance.

Justice is suspended temporarily in war - although a given war may be a 'just' one. All that counts is winning that war quickly (within certain moral parameters).

"Muddying the waters", indeed.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Killing Osama bin Laden was not an act of justice.

It was an act of war.

I understand that, but even in war, shooting instead of capturing an unarmed soldier is tough to defend.

I have no problem with liquifying the scumbag if there was even a hint of a thought of a weapon, but the thought of an execution is disturbing. I wasn't there so I have to reserve judgment, but I think they should have taken the high road and captured and tried him - even just as a statement of moral superiority if capture was feasible.

If you pretend it was an act of justice, you do two things:

1. You weaken the concept of war, and

2. You augment the concept of justice to the point where bullies can use it to intimidate others just like they use religion.

Osama bin Laden was at war with the USA when he first attacked and he was still at war when our soldiers went in and killed him.

We were participating in a de facto war. We were not punishing him according to a scale of different punishments based on his "crimes." We killed him because he attacked us and killed our citizens. We killed an enemy. And we sent a message to the world: Do not mess with us. That's a big honking no no with a hell of a nasty reaction attached to it.

That's not justice. That's showing people that we have a bigger club than they do.

I see nothing wrong with this, too. When an enemy attacks you viciously, you kill him. Especially if he doesn't stop. That's what you're supposed to do. Then you can get back to some kind of system where the word "justice" means something other than a bromide for macho declarations.

I see great danger in muddying the waters here.

War is one thing. Justice is another. There's a small overlap, I agree, but the fundamental principle in this case is that we killed our enemy, not that we brought a criminal to justice. So I suppose the precise manner of saying this is that we killed an active enemy in a de facto war, and, as a result, an eye for an eye form of justice happened. But that's not why we did it. We did it to get rid of him for once and for all--and only after that, worry about where justice fits in.

It scares me that Obama is calling this justice. It scares me even more that so many people are agreeing with him.

I foresee a great amount of injustice that will be perpetrated--by the USA and by others--under this hellish conceptual bait-and-switch.

I dearly hope I am wrong.

Michael

Again, even in war some things are still wrong.

[BaalChatzaf]

Again, even in war some things are still wrong.

There is only one thing that can be wrong: losing.

One does whatever it takes to win.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Again, even in war some things are still wrong.

There is only one thing that can be wrong: losing.

One does whatever it takes to win.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So if killing all the Jewish folks in Israel would "win it for us," that would be ok with you?

[bmacwilliam]

Again, even in war some things are still wrong.

There is only one thing that can be wrong: losing.

One does whatever it takes to win.

Ba'al Chatzaf

OK, but are there still things that might be wrong after the battle is over and you're not in any physical danger anymore?

Bob

[Guyau]

Michael,

I understand your reservations about calling the killing of bin Laden justice. One definition of justice in my dictionary is “the administration and procedure of law.” That is close to that for which you suggest using the term justice. Another common meaning of the term, however, is justice as in “getting his just desserts.”

I think that Bush’s “bring justice to our enemies” was code for kill them. I agree that was not the right phrase. It does muddy what is going on.

I imagine you agree to characterization of this killing as a rightful killing?

I think that rightfulness, and retributive justice too, apply to relations between states and between states and other organizations with the power of violence. That parties will disagree as to which actions were justified will not make rightness (moral and game-theoretic) of organizational act an empty concept.

Bob Mac,

As you see, I am partly in agreement with you. However, I do not think we were under any moral or strategic obligation to refrain from simply assassinating bin Laden, armed or unarmed. We have good and public evidence that he did the deed. We know he did it. We wanted him dead for it. (By we I know I exclude some of our citizens, but the rest of us—the vast majority—wanted done what was done, and we were right to want it.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

While Preparing Invasion – Time 2001

"I think we'll end up paralyzing a big chunk of Afghanistan with air strikes, and then move rapidly to do a decisive takedown," a U.S. Army general tells Time. If that is the game, a nighttime blizzard of cruise missiles and bombs would be followed by U.S. commandos—probably including elements of the 82nd Airborne, backed by élite Army Rangers and Delta Force members—all trying to capture or kill bin Laden. "[bush] won't be taken seriously if he tries to do it all from the air," says an Army officer of his Commander in Chief. "We can do a lot of things with our jets and missiles, but we can't find a specific person. You need boots on the ground to do that."

Getting boots to the right place is easier said than done. For one thing, such an operation doesn't play to the strengths of the U.S. military; 12 years ago, it took 24,000 troops 14 days to find Manuel Noriega in the relatively benign environment of Panama. "We're good at hitting big, immovable things," says an Air Force general. "We don't do so well when they move around and they're small." Both are true of bin Laden. "He is the hardest man ever to get to," says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland. To avoid being spotted by satellites, bin Laden and his associates use human couriers to relay messages, who sometimes travel on foot rather than in cars. He has been extra careful since Chechen secessionist leader Dzhokar Dudayev was blown up by a Russian rocket while using a satellite phone. Though the CIA has often been criticized for its failure to infiltrate Islamic fundamentalist groups, Ranstorp is more forgiving. "The U.S. has expended as much energy and time as it feasibly could to get close to bin Laden. But he's very well versed in counterintelligence and in how to protect himself."

And even if the special forces get to him, what then? This isn't a case, in the sort of language loved by military folks, in which you just cut off the head of the snake and let the body wither.

2001 – Relishing the Deed

2009 – Gen McChrystal

2011 –

Officials described the reaction of the special operators when they were told a number of weeks ago that they had been chosen to train for the mission.

“They were told, ‘We think we found Osama bin Laden, and your job is to kill him,’” an official recalled.

The SEALs started to cheer.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

It's a matter of focus or priority, not all-or-nothing. Like I said, there is a part where war and justice overlap--not to mention simple decency as a human being.

But look at war from an existential angle. When war breaks out, the primary concern of the attacked party is survival. After that, it is to get the belligerent side to stop.

You can do both by beating the attacker, but there are also other ways like hiding, moving far, far away, etc. None of that applies to bin Laden, though. That dude killed unsuspecting civilians, was actively killing and had every intention of killing some more.

If he had come out of hiding and surrendered to some authority, like a UN force or something, then we could talk about justice as the priority instead of war. But not while he was hiding out and commanding attacks on civilians.

Bob Mac thinks we should have taken some kind of "high road," in other words turned war with a terrorist into a police matter where the criminal has rights. I think that would be useful if there were some propaganda benefit towards other terrorists, but not simply based on what feels right or wrong. And not with the primary enemy.

In fact, though, I argue that Obama directed that we do take the "high road." Bombing the smithereens out of the compound and killing everyone in it was an easy option. The way the operation unfolded, only the target was executed with a few other kills during a shootout.

I agree that I can't be sure it was an execution, but I don't mind if it was. I would mind if a criminal here in the USA were executed by the police, but, as an American and potential target of bin Laden's murderous plans--which included my family and everyone I love, I don't recognize his right to life, due process, or anything else human. He set those terms, he lived by them, he fought by them, and he died by them.

Bob K has expressed earlier the wish to kill large quantities of people. In war, that's usually not necessary. If you take out the command, the military structure falls apart, unless a really talented leader arises from the ranks. In the history books I have read, this is not often.

After the enemy command is taken out and the troops are scattered, then we can start leaning the balance toward justice and away from war thinking as a standard, since the goodness and basic decency of most human beings (on the level I am talking about here) is an observable fact. A terrorist organization complicates this a bit because of the covert nature of them, but the principle is the same. Even terrorist groups have a chain of command.

My attitude is similar to George Washington's. When he captured enemy British soldiers or colonials fighting on the British side, he would often march them to the enemy line and let them cross over with a pledge to lay down their arms. Not always, but enough to show that he acted according to decency when he could. But in general, as a military commander and during war,

Washington mixed harsh punishment with clemency according to military aims as a priority, not according to a sense of justice. (Once again, justice and war overlap, but they are different concepts and one was predominant in Washington's performance.) This vision extended to the disciplinary measures of his own troops.

I believe he would have authorized assassination attempts of enemy commanders if he thought they would end a war. I don't believe he would have done so--ever--after hostilities had ceased.

At any rate, I am uneasy with all this talk about justice with bin Laden. I simply don't trust our leaders to mean justice when they say it to the public on emerging from the back rooms where thick foreign policy plots and plans are hatched. If they can anchor the concept of justice--instead of war--to the assassination of a terrorist in the public's mind, they have a propaganda tool for selling a whole lot of dirty rotten monkey-business to the public--starting with one world government.

Oddly enough, this touches on my uneasiness of moving the military trials of Gitmo terrorist prisoners to NYC in civilian courts, all in the name of "justice."

Don't forget that when Obama says "justice," he usually means "social justice." And when I hear that, I start thinking about police state with redistribution of wealth.

Bush, as I understand it, meant crony capitalism when he blurred justice and war.

War is a proper concept, as is justice. I don't like the blurring I currently see with their meanings by our fearless leaders.

Michael

EDIT: To specifically address your comment about "rightfulness, and retributive justice," I hold this should be the priority after a war, not during it. During a war, your main concern has to be to get the other side to stop fighting. If you don't they will kill you. At root, it's as simple as that. In that kind of metaphysical condition, I don't see much room for morality as a primary concern. You have to be alive to practice morality.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hmmmm..

I'll admit, when I initially heard the news I was rather happy that he was dead.. However, whilst I didn't like bin Laden nor what he stood for I find it greatly concerning to hear now that he was unarmed at the time of his death. I believe that this requires a full investigation of the facts because if he was no real threat, then surely the value of capturing him would be better for the intelligence and moral victory..

If he was no real threat and was killed then no doubt he was murdered which is a crime.. If that is the case then we should admit it and give restitution to his family and apologize for our actions.

Otherwise, we're almost as bad or maybe even just as bad as the terrorists themselves..

We're supposed to be better than that.. That's what we say right? In a democracy there aren't arbitrary killings, there aren't kangaroo courts, every person has the right to a fair trail..

That is what is supposed to make us better than them.. Well, at least I thought it did..

Now I'm just not so sure..

Maybe it was just too convenient to just kill him and tie off loose ends..

Or did he know something that the US Government didn't want him speaking about in a trial..

I find this all very concerning..