Jump to content
  • entries
    19
  • comments
    375
  • views
    3,656

American Vaudeville


Xiphosis

390 views

 Share

Bin Laden deserved to die. He deserved no trial, nor anything else. He invoked war to describe his struggle with the West and he was treated as a combatant; which is to say, he was shot in the head. On this point, I don't think many will disagree. But our reaction here in the U.S. last night left me with some serious disquiet, watching the crowds grow in DC, NYC and elsewhere.

The cheering and chanting didn't inspire me, it reminded me of Damascus, Tripoli, Kabul and the countless rallies since the US invasion of Afghanistan wherein crowds in cities such as those burned American flags and chanted Death to America. All the people in DC and NYC were missing were some Pakistani flags, and it would've been a scene familiar to most of us.

When it mattered, we were no better. We showed no more dignity, nothing. We stooped and we cheered as we heard that our soldiers had shot an unarmed man. And tomorrow, if there are celebrations at the death of American soldiers, we will watch in annoyance and incomprehension.

Murder should not be greeted with celebration; regardless of who or where it's done. It should be treated with seriousness and sobriety. Osama deserved the bullet he got; murder can be justified, I'll never argue otherwise, but if you're going to do it - show a little class. Respect the gravity of what you're doing. Understand that you are destroying an immensely valuable, and to some family somewhere, beloved person forever. And pull the trigger. And let that be the end of it.

It's an animal that rejoices in the slaughter of another, and yesterday my nation shamed generations. It isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

 Share

44 Comments


Recommended Comments



I don't think your definition of murder is correct especially after your justification of the killing in your first paragraph. The killing of another person is simply homicide. Murder is unlawful killing.

I also don't agree with your comparison to rallies in the Middle East and other regions where they burn American flags and images of US leaders in effigy. Showing patriotism and proudly waving your own flag is not the same as burning another nation's flag in hatred.

All that being said, I am not among those who were dancing and chanting.

Link to comment

Uhhhhhh, an unarmed man? There was a firefight, it was a combat situation, unless I'm missing something here.

bin Laden himself was apparently unarmed.

Well written, Xiph. I echo many of those sentiments. I am glad the man is dead and he did indeed deserve to die ... but the open celebration makes me uncomfortable.

Link to comment

Indeed. A man who contributed to the death of some 3000 innocent civilians is dead, and I will not weep for him. Perhaps someday the hundreds of thousands who died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam (partial list) will see justice, too. Of course, when that happens, I'll advocate for a trial instead of a summary execution in the dead of night.

-Craig

Link to comment

Indeed. A man who contributed to the death of some 3000 innocent civilians is dead, and I will not weep for him. Perhaps someday the hundreds of thousands who died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, and Vietnam (partial list) will see justice, too. Of course, when that happens, I'll advocate for a trial instead of a summary execution in the dead of night.-Craig

Indeed.

Link to comment

Agreed; I can understand the spontaneous celebration to a point -- his death is a catharsis that the US has really needed for some time to psychologically begin moving past a decade of living in fear of another attack, and the singing of 'America the Beautiful' in Times Square was moving -- but when it shifts from remembrance into "let's get drunk and burn some furniture", it not only portrays those celebrating in a bad light, it cheapens the very real feelings of relief and closure that many had.

You don't throw a kegger if the murderer of a family member is convicted (at least I hope that people don't), and neither should people be acting as if their favourite team won the Super Bowl when someone like bin Laden is killed.

Link to comment

Oh man, Craig reminded me; Obama saying 'Justice' had been done was pretty annoying too. Justice is something you get with judges and juries, not Navy SEALs. They had every right to put a bullet in him, but to call it Justice grates.

Link to comment

Since when have we been better then them? Just because we pretend to be doesn't mean we are so I'm not even going to say I was shocked by the crowds of people. I just hope he suffered.

Link to comment

Since when have we been better then them? Just because we pretend to be doesn't mean we are so I'm not even going to say I was shocked by the crowds of people. I just hope he suffered.

Just because we weren't yesterday doesn't mean we can't, and shouldn't be, today.

/sounds like sappy thing Liberal Arts professor would say

//still true

Link to comment

In all honesty, I think most of the celebration wasn't so much about him being dead as it was about him being taken. If we got him alive, the scene probably would have been the same.

Link to comment
Bin Laden deserved to die. He deserved no trial, nor anything else. He invoked war to describe his struggle with the West and he was treated as a combatant; which is to say, he was shot in the head.

1) Erm excuse me Bin Laden may of deserved to die but he also deserved a trial not to get murderd (which he was by being shot dead while unarmed) so he should of got put on trial for the indirect murder of 3000+ innocent people.

2) This wasnt a war but a global fight to crack down on terrorist organisations.

3) Because this was not a war (wars consist of two or more states/countries declaring war on each other... there is no such thing as "war on terror" and Bush was an idiot to suggest it, maybe to "rally" the population) so Osama Bin Laden was not an enemy combatant.

Link to comment

Why does an enemy combatant deserve a trial in war? Utter nonsense. Are we to try and capture alive every enemy combatant during war and take them home for a trial before our courts?

Secondly, I may be the only one here who feels this way, but there is a massive difference between celebrating the death of a man who planned and financed the deaths of thousands of innocents and celebrating the murder of those innocents by bin Laden as occurred throughout the Islamic world.

The moral equivalence applied by people these days is breathtaking.

And, The Rebel, if I'm not mistaken, bin Laden himself declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. So, you can hide behind your semantics all you like but bin Laden made the call and now he gets the consequences.

Had bin Laden been taken alive it would have triggered abductions and executions of Westerners throughout the Middle East to try and extort bin Laden's freedom. Not to mention giving him a pulpit to preach from as he dragged his case through the courts for years.

I'm sure you'd be fine with that as it is more about you feeling good about yourself than the cold, hard reality that your feel-good nonsense would bring.

Link to comment

The Rebel, if I'm not mistaken, bin Laden himself declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. So, you can hide behind your semantics all you like but bin Laden made the call and now he gets the consequences.

If i remember correctly Bin Laden declared a jihad or "holy war" (which the west term it as) against the US, now only those that head of/or lead a religion can declare holy wars.

Look at history find one war which involved a country/state declaring war on a group of civilians/terrorists? there is none apart from this one what Bush catchphased this global crack down on terrorism as.

I'm arguing the wrongly used term of war here, because if fighting a terrorist organisation was classed as a war then the british would of flattened the Republic of Ireland over 40 years ago for habouring terrorists, since it isnt classed as war it didnt happen.

But ok if you're so convinced that this really is a war then the Geneva convention applies and those special forces that shot an unarmed "combatant" dead should be tried for war crimes.

You cant have it both ways Tyga its either a global crack down on terrorist organistions where they should be arrested where possible and put on trial for crimes or its a war where international rules of warfare have to be followed.

Link to comment

Siding with Tyga on this one (I know right?). The Al Qaeda terrorist network is at war with the United States and the Western world as a whole. Bin Laden is their leader. While most people should be given trials when possible, Bin Laden is an exception. For a number of different reasons, it was better to shoot him dead then bury him at sea. Any trial would have been a huge security risk and a big target for terrorist attacks. The trial would have been completely lopsided so any Bin Laden admirers out there might be inspired to take up arms against the United States because of the 'injustice'. It is just simple in every way to say he resisted and shoot him dead.

Link to comment

If i remember correctly Bin Laden declared a jihad or "holy war" (which the west term it as) against the US, now only those that head of/or lead a religion can declare holy wars.

Look at history find one war which involved a country/state declaring war on a group of civilians/terrorists? there is none apart from this one what Bush catchphased this global crack down on terrorism as.

I'm arguing the wrongly used term of war here, because if fighting a terrorist organisation was classed as a war then the british would of flattened the Republic of Ireland over 40 years ago for habouring terrorists, since it isnt classed as war it didnt happen.

But ok if you're so convinced that this really is a war then the Geneva convention applies and those special forces that shot an unarmed "combatant" dead should be tried for war crimes.

You cant have it both ways Tyga its either a global crack down on terrorist organistions where they should be arrested where possible and put on trial for crimes or its a war where international rules of warfare have to be followed.

You are so mired in semantics because the reality of the world does not fit with your mindset.

bin Laden declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter two knobs of goat crap whether he had the religious authority to do it, he did it. He also planned and funded attacks on US citizens to follow that declaration up.

The Geneva Convention, as far as I'm aware, only applies to wars between sovereign states. Al Qaeda is not a sovereign state but is still a body that has declared war on the US outside of the Geneva Convention. There are various other aspects of the Geneva Convention that put Al Qaeda outside of it but that example alone is sufficient to knock that argument on the head.

bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group that declared openly and followed through their declaration of war on the US. The US was not obliged to take him prisoner, nor put him on trial. They were within their rights to kill him where they found him, which they did.

Your attempts to apply two options in such a black and white manner shows you really are not interested in thinking about the situation. You hate the US and have made that clear to me on a few occasions so will believe anything that will back that mindset. To do that, you have to argue semantics and apply moral equivalence.

By your words any soverign state who is attacked by a group that is not a sovereign state has no right nor power to defend itself and/or kill those attacking it.

As for examples of sovereign states attacking terrorist groups. Israel has attacked Hezbollah and Hamas in reaction those groups' declarations of war against Israel. If I recall correctly, you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself either.

Link to comment

He deserved the same "justice" he gave his victims.

He was probably treated with much more dignity than many of his victims. I can't recall any of the people who were beheaded by his goons having their body treated according to Christian or Jewish religious traditions. Unless leaving the headless corpse in a street somewhere is the Christian and Jewish tradition. <_<

Link to comment

They were within their rights to kill him where they found him, which they did.Your attempts to apply two options in such a black and white manner shows you really are not interested in thinking about the situation. You hate the US and have made that clear to me on a few occasions so will believe anything that will back that mindset. To do that, you have to argue semantics and apply moral equivalence.By your words any soverign state who is attacked by a group that is not a sovereign state has no right nor power to defend itself and/or kill those attacking it.As for examples of sovereign states attacking terrorist groups. Israel has attacked Hezbollah and Hamas in reaction those groups; declarations of war against Israel. If I recall correctly, you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself either.

I dont particularly hate anyone, though i am English where we're meant to hate everyone including ourselves, i just disagree with the term in which war has been used it would of made sense if Bush used the phrase "war on Al-Qaeda" instead of "war on terror" which doesnt make sense historically or an other way either logically as every war creates terror. I also dont know where ive ever had a conversation with you where i stated i hate america, i might disagree with certain things they do but that doesnt constitute hate, ive even been there several times in the past :blink:

Now you're twisting what ive said, every country/state has a right to defend itself from attack and i havent said anything that states otherwise, Afghanistan etc was the result of the terrorist attack... do you see me arguing about that? No

Ah you brought up the Israel debate, i wasnt arguing that they couldnt defend themselves from attack, my main focus in that topic was the use of illegal weapons used by Israel, the bombing of civilian targets and UN buildings and blocking food aid being sent... Nowhere did i state they shouldnt be allowed to defend themselves from the rocket attacks. Also the Gaza Strip and Israel are both countries so yes it is a war by standards.

Like it or not there are international rules of warfare.

Link to comment

As previously stated there is a big difference between waving your own flag, and showing pride in your nation in finally getting closure on horrific events from over 10 years ago, and burning another nations flag in hate.

Osama got the same rights he gave those on September 11...and heck even more, as the SEAL team gave him the opportunity to live and stand trial. Instead he reached for a weapon. That is an act of aggression and I do not fault the SEALs for using deadly force on him based on history.

I will close this post by merely saying it is a time for us to remain vigilant, not forget the mistakes of the past and never forget the tragedy of September 11. Many people were lost and many women and children grew up without parents, siblings, sons and daughters. This is nothing more than a very important mark of closure for them.

God Bless the men and women serving and protecting us everyday. Thank you for your commitment and dedication.

Link to comment

It is psychological man, you always celebrate a victory, and this was a victory over terror. Osama was more than a man, he was a symbol, a symbol of America's weaknesses, America's vulnerabilities. So we killed the !@#$%*.

Link to comment

Who is the authority in Islam to declare holy war? They have no Muslim pope or anything like that. The Shi'ites have a limited hierarchy but as far as Sunnis go there is hardly any structure. Some people looked to Bin Laden as a religious leader so he therefore had the authority in their minds to do what he did.

I'm pretty sure Bush isn't the first person to declare war on something that isn't another state. What about the war on crime, war on drugs, etc. It's a figure of speech. He didn't convene congress and send an official declaration of war to all terrorists everywhere.

Also, from what has been said by the media, Bin Laden was unarmed but he was resisting. What would you have done if you were one of the Seals dropped deep into a potentially hostile city, already lost one of your helicopters, you're inside this fortified compound with god knows how many potential enemies and you've already had to take out a Bin Laden's son/other supporters to get this far and now the man himself is fighting back? Saddam was taken alive because he immediately surrendered upon being found. That was not the case here. Besides, this was supposed to be a discussion about excessive celebration not an argument over America's foreign policy.

Link to comment

Besides, this was supposed to be a discussion about excessive celebration not an argument over America's foreign policy.

Because when someone so hated gets killed/murderd/executed/imprisoned etc, people celebrate and the hate gets replaced with joy... Funny really, enjoy another term of leadership with Obama :awesome:

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...