Ding Dong Osama's Dead

[Feng]

It's been about 9 and a half years and we finally got the little rascal.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Bigmouthstrikes]

This is something that America needed. I'm glad to see it for all of us.

[Blaze]

I kind of wish he had lived to see trail, but really, any trial would end in the death penalty I think.

[Miku-chan]

Not to mention the fact he would be like sadam and live as a war criminal in a UN sponsored jail still able to run his organization from the safety it provides...

[Albedo]

Some say this will embolden terrorists, I think not. They lost their leadership, there is no one to direct the smaller subsidiaries. This could lead to a period of reduced attacks, or even splintering of the whole network.

[Raleigh]

Meh, about three years or more late I think. I recall there was one of his videos that they showed on the news back a ways that in my opinion showed he had already been ousted by younger and more ambitious people in his organization and was merely kept around for symbolism. He kept looking at his 'guard' in that video too much like he was worried rather than trying to deliver a real speech. Still, it is good news assuming his death doesn't splinter them apart so much they are even harder to find or it spurs them on like he was a martyr. Another worry though is the body disposal which really was a bad choice. I would think even his Islamic enemies and detractors might be a bit offended at just dumping him in the sea.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Eh. I put in my "un-American" two cents at Fukufics. I'll just break it down to: whatever; I don't expect much (if anything) to change.

[Rowan]

The Muslims hate us because we aren't Muslim and refuse to convert. The "Moderate, Non-Radicalized" Muslims are in such a minority its a joke. And hey, guess what, if you aren't towing the party line they kill you too. There is no placating them. Killing Osama isn't going to make things worse. They don't need an excuse to kill us. They only need the barest of excuses to kill eachother.

If you remove religion its still about control. From a Social and Economic viewpoint, tightly controlled systems of thought, economy, etc. can't win in the end so long as there are free areas. That's why America won the cold war. That's why Socialists are trying so hard to radically alter America. If a Free Country is left for people and business to flee to, they will. If there are non-Muslim countries left, there are places where uncontrolled thought exists; where their power of brutal persuasion doesn't reach.


Killing Osama was something the American People needed. But it isn't going to do anything to affect the war, for good or ill.

[Selena Aninikkou]

I'm sorry to say it, because clearly I'm in the minority, but although Osama was an evil man and most definitely deserved to die, it just makes me sick how people are celebrating like they just won the lottery. The celebration of death is never a good thing; all it does is enforce the worst claims ever made about the Western World.

[Zilla]

I'm sorry to say it, because clearly I'm in the minority, but although Osama was an evil man and most definitely deserved to die, it just makes me sick how people are celebrating like they just won the lottery. The celebration of death is never a good thing; all it does is enforce the worst claims ever made about the Western World.

I felt the same way when someone posted a story on another site about how this ex-marine guy stood up to thugs who had boarded a bus and attempted to rape someone, and he ended up killing like 4 of them or something. And they were celebrating "how much of a badass" he was. <_<

It's a gray situation. It'd be awesome to hear we took the moral high ground and only captured him, alive. I dunno, I'm quite insulated from terrorism, so I don't have that emotional charge that others might. All I know is that you shouldn't fight extremism with extremism.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Or as the people with religious attachment might say: an eye for an eye. Which I believe Ghandi said would make the whole world blind.

That seems about right.

[Rowan]

There is a difference between petty revenge and opposing evil, however.

You may be familiar with a saying, "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

Many times there is a moral gray area. But many times it is very clear who is good and who is evil.

Do not weep for evil men for they would not shed a single tear for you.


An Israeli family was brutally murdered. They were loved and cherished by their own family. They were just good and honest people living their lives. And our enemies celebrate the slaughter of an innocent family by handing out candy and sweets. If one cannot see the evil, or tries to justify cold blooded massacre , or celebrating the deaths of innocents, then their moral compasss is permanately damaged.

[Mitera Nikkou]

Good and evil, as well as morality, are human inventions, purely concepts of the imagination. They're just a means to justify what is seen as right and wrong, enforced not by the laws of the universe or a supernatural being (or beings), but by the people who believe in them.

In fact, these concepts can be blamed for so many innocent deaths throughout history that it isn't even funny. Because what they do is divide people into distinct groups, rather than focusing on just those responsible for whatever is seen as being "wrong" or "evil," which in turn inspires people to hate the group(s) those individuals are associated with. Both sides say they're on the side of good while the other side is on the side of evil, and how can you reason which side is right without being biased? You can't. Either neither side is right or wrong, and you're neutral, or one side is right because it happens to match your beliefs and/or interests.

Ever hear how the way to Hell is paved with good intentions? That's what these ideas are notorious for, because the very concepts themselves creates conflict, not unity or understanding: it's us and them, and we don't need them; they need to be made into us, or done away with. Both well-intentioned people, as well as the not-so-well-intentioned people, will take advantage of this innate conflict toward their own ends, driving many others to fight, kill and die for what they believe is right and good.

In reality, there's not much difference between (petty) revenge and justice. It's just "our way or the highway." The only thing that separates them is the amount of people who believe in someone's actions being right and/or justified. Justice being blind is a farce, because it's created by bias to begin with. And then it's sustained by that bias, in addition to human error (from honest mistakes to corruption). Basically, there's no force that says how we should behave other than ourselves.

Since religion is a major source of propagating the concepts of "good," "evil" and what's "moral..." Slavery was a "good" idea for most (if not all) civilizations for several millennia. Heck, did the Israelites abolish slavery, after they had escaped from being slaves themselves? No. Did god think that there was anything wrong with slavery? No; just that it was his people being enslaved. Did Jesus have anything to say against it? No. It's only recently that it has generally been decided to be seen as something "bad." To be honest, I don't know why. I'd like to think that it was inspired by sympathy: "I know I wouldn't like it if I were a slave."

So you don't like, or even hate, what other people are doing or have done. So... what? You think that you'd be justified in doing something to them, against their will, just like they did? And it wouldn't make you out to be like them, just because your reasons and methods differ? Reaching the same end with different means doesn't change what the end is. You all use force, you all vie for control, and you all use justification, for what is perceived as "good" and "evil." People who support a concept whose very nature causes conflict are all guilty of what results from it. That there are grey areas of reasoning at all should be enough evidence to show that this extreme, over-simplified way of thinking is unconscionable.

We're all animals. People who think that they can rise above others in some way, by trying to be perceived as a noble and majestic beast, will still be a beast. In many cases they're just as filthy as any other beast, except they use something to hide it.

Life isn't easy. When people you love are murdered, it's understandable that you'd want some form of misfortune to happen to whoever was responsible for it. But all it is is a negative reaction, and does little -- if anything -- to make things better. It doesn't bring back who you lost, it doesn't suddenly make other people nicer, and how would you be different from them if you take gratification for, or even enjoy, what's done to them in return to what had been done to you and those you had lost?

The cycle of receiving and returning suffering and hate has to end somewhere. You don't need to know what's good and evil to do it. The solution usually isn't easy, and no one should ever expect it to be. It's not uncommon for it to come at a price: but better to pay for it to end than for it to continue.

[Zilla]

Thanks, Nikkou. You said what I would have, in this spot.

I almost want to carry the torch further here though, since you've focused on people not being good or evil. Even actions are not good or evil, but objectionable or not. It's all society's viewpoint, and that depends on the society you are set in. From an existential frame of reference, the loss of life isn't bad or good, really... it just is. It is what it is. It causes others suffering, but that's just implicit, really. It's all about the implicit connections that they make with the person.

I mean, the dead person isn't going to care about being dead. Grieving is about your own loss, not the loss of the deceased. But these, too, are just one frame of reference by which to weigh things. It's the most fair, but it's not necessarily the best.

[AmbushCat]

Somehow, I get the feeling that some moral compasses were deactivated during infancy.