P
pete_29
Guest
It was wrong, but I took great pleasure in hearing of that murderers death. One of my many weaknesses that I’m working to correct. 
- Status
H
hicetnunc
Guest
I have no difficulty with discussions about real-world topics. Presumably, these should be from a philosophical point of view given that this is a philosophy forum. My concern however is with with the poll asking particiants to vote approval of what was an objectively a horrific and barbaric act. This is not advancing Catholic social teaching. I believe that to be inappropriate for a Catholic forum which has the express purpose of faith building.
If you want definitive evidence of what I am speaking about, take a look at Pete’s comment above this one.
Pax
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I don’t think it trivializes anything, but you raise some good points. So with that being said, do you mind if I ask if you can think of any good non-violent ways of dealing with him?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I think that the general reaction by people would be influenced by the behaviour of the person being targeted. If little to none was known about him people would probably feel that our country has been violated. If they feel the person did something to provoke the violence they may feel it’s his own fault. Similar things have happened.
For example, consider Salman Rushdie, who wrote the novel “Satanic Verses” (which doesn’t mean what you think it does, it has special meaning in Islam). That was followed by ten years of Iran encouraging a death warrant against him, the murders and violent assaults of his publishers, the burning of a hotel in which 37 people died, a few bombings at some book stores, and so on. Some of the public opinions expressed on the entire thing are not quite what you might have thought them to be.
Documentary Here]
G
Graubo3
Guest
And to think, as defined by you as a “horrific and barbaric act” was sanctioned by a Nobel Prize winner.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
Nobel prize winners, such as Mario Llosa, have endorsed abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia. Revelation and moral guidance isn’t handed on to the church through nobel laureates.
As for Pete’s sinfulness, I’m not in a position to comment on that–his words, however, are a matter of public record since he has chosen to post them on a public forum.
Pax
R
ReapReason
Guest
Why do I sniff a hint of delusion here?If some American group crashed a plane into it and brought it down killing thousands of people,
the United States government would do all it could to bring them to justice.
We are different from them. We’re better!
G
Graubo3
Guest
I never said anything to the contrary.
Why not? You judged him rather quickly. He expressed having a pleasure in something he knows is wrong and he is working on correcting. I admire Pete’s honesty about himself. Self-awareness is a good thing. Pete can defend himself.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
G
Graubo3
Guest
And peace to you too
.
J
JohnAlexander
Guest
Do you realize that before any trial could take place Muslims around the world would riot and kill dozens, hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people in an attempt to cower the west into freeing Bin Laden?
The west might feel vindicating in giving Bin Laden a fair trial but the west is most likely not the ones who will suffer when Muslims riot.
You can’t just act in a civilized manner when you are dealing with uncivilized people.
The option was not justice or injustice to Bin Laden. The choice was questionable justice to Bin Laden, guaranteed injustice to nameless (mostly innocent) people who would get caught up in a Muslim backlash.
Bin Laden made his choices in life. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
R
ReapReason
Guest
And what makes you think they would not kill thousands of people anyway regardless of whether bin is alive or dead. And regardless of that fact, if an act is wrong, then it is wrong. To go and assassinate somebody because you think there will be less repercussions as a result is ridiculous and immoral, regardless of what they have done in the past.
Revenge killings is not a Christian virtue.
J
JohnAlexander
Guest
Bill Maher and many others simply do not understand the turn the other cheek philosophy.
It applies to individuals. Individual people are not to seek vengeance on their own. They are not to harbor ill will against their enemies. This has nothing to do with society as a whole. Society has an obligation to protect it’s members.
It applies to individuals. Individual people are not to seek vengeance on their own. They are not to harbor ill will against their enemies. This has nothing to do with society as a whole. Society has an obligation to protect it’s members.
H
hicetnunc
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts Thinkingsapien. I don’t profess to have the answers to how he could have been best dealt with, but the official statement from the Vatican press office after the killing sums up my thinking on it: the death of OBL should not be the cause of celebration, but of a deep reflecting on our own responsibilities to each other, and the moral, historical, etc, conditions that lead to that particular outcome.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101730.htm
D
djames99
Guest
One very important argument that is a barrier to the conversion of the Muslims is their belief that Christians don’t sincerely practice their religion. Dissension and schism is everywhere and so no peace is ever gained that would replace the doctrine of their own. What gives them credence finally is in the case of Bin Laden, where we could have relented to Christ’s wishes and not kill him.
It was an opportunity missed, one crucial event where we could have made our point, but power,hatred and lynch mob mania overrode any compassionate Christian sense. So they win the argument. We continue our hatred, which you can see never is satiated, and scripture warns us that will happen.
Incidentally, I believe him when he said that he never expected the towers to fall, therefore the intent of having so much damage and loss of life was not in his plan. Just another example of circumstances that got defined by the US later when such sequences of events play out and justification is demanded. They call it collateral damage.
It was an opportunity missed, one crucial event where we could have made our point, but power,hatred and lynch mob mania overrode any compassionate Christian sense. So they win the argument. We continue our hatred, which you can see never is satiated, and scripture warns us that will happen.
Incidentally, I believe him when he said that he never expected the towers to fall, therefore the intent of having so much damage and loss of life was not in his plan. Just another example of circumstances that got defined by the US later when such sequences of events play out and justification is demanded. They call it collateral damage.
A
Actaeon
Guest
I was for it, but not insofar as it was “retributive justice” for an act promulgated previously. I’m a firm believer in reconciliation as justice and against the death penalty (or killing criminals) in the vast majority of cases.
The one case where I accept the death penalty is when there is a distinct need to defend life, whereby a person’s ongoing actions show that they will continue to be a threat against the integrity of life that others have, and by their actions they must be stopped in order to protect the innocent. In that case, the act of taking a life is an act of defense against murder, and so the death of bin Laden is justified NOT because it is justice, but because it prevents a terrorist leader from being the cause of death of others.
R
ReapReason
Guest
So you don’t think terrorists deserve a humane trial and instead should be shot like animals, in otherwords.
A
Actaeon
Guest
Irrelevant: when you strike a civilian target, civilians deaths are the primary goal. The fact that more deaths were caused than intended does not make those additional deaths “collateral damage”, it merely means that the attack was more effective than planned.
In order for civilian personnel to be considered collateral damage, the object of attack must be a valid military target… meaning that it must involve a means of aiding and abbetting a war effort. So civilians who work in or live near a ball bearing factory manufacturing parts for tanks in WWII Germany might legitimately be considered collateral damage, but civilians who died in the 9/11 attacks were all primary targets, not collateral in the slightest. THAT is the difference between the US having collateral damage and the terrorists for who civilians are their target rather than their collateral… it’s not simply “justification” based on perception, it’s enshrined into the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which itself is based on international laws and treaties (such as the Geneva Convention).
His justification that he didn’t intend the towers to fall is nice hum-drum, but in no way excuses the fact that his action was a direct attack on an invalid target which directly CAUSED the towers to fall, and thus caused the death of thousands. In terms of law, the fact that he did not intend the towers to fall is utterly irrelevant to his responsibility for those deaths which resulted because the towers fell .
A
Actaeon
Guest
Did I say that? Nope.
What I said was that when a person will continue to be a threat to innocent lives that there is a valid reason to defend against that person, including if it means that you strike such that it deprives the person of life.
As to the case in point, we’re in combat operations. It would be lovely if we could round up all the insurgents and terrorists and have them tried in a court of law… but that simply isn’t the case in most circumstances, hence the reason that most deaths in wars are from combat and not from criminal sentencing afterwards.
So what I said would more accurately be interpreted thus: if there was a way that bin Laden had been arrested and brought back for trial AND could be successfully incarcerated such that he was no longer a threat to anyone (without cruelty involved in such an incarceration), then I would be strongly against his death penalty, but if he could not be incarcerated successfully and he continued to operate in resistance to incarceration while heading a terrorist organization that was bent on killing innocents, then his death was justifiable on that means.
R
ReapReason
Guest
I understand perfectly the principle of a just war. I understand there are situations where an imminent threat can only be dealt with by death.
However, a righteous kill can only occur when there is absolutely no other way of dealing with the situation. You haven’t in anyway shown that the death of Bin reflects such a situation.
To say that somebody is simply a continuing threat is not by itself grounds to invoke a merciless death. If Bin shot at soldiers after being told to stand down, then a soldier has a right to defend his life; and even then one should not think that humility does not apply. For example if there is a possibility of taking somebody down without taking their life, then a soldier ought to act accordingly.
Secondly, Bin is not the be all and end all of terrorism. Its not as if you can kill Bin and that is the end of any threat against America.
People are not entirely convinced that the events that lead up to the bombings and the falling of the twin towers was unprovoked, as if America is an innocent victim that does not participate in unjust wars, murder, genocide, propaganda, and the illegitimate occupation of countries against the will of its people.
- Status