That's fine. But in this action some civilists (3) died as well. People who celebrate today should consider this too. We should just remind ourselves that in the civilized world people get processes if possible and for a good reason.

That's not how I read that, but I could definitely have misread that, it sounded more about taking the rights away than ones emotional perspective.

I'm not too worried about my credibility in the eyes of Utopians. Would it make anyone feel better were I to falsely claim that I'm not pleased to see bin Laden removed from the land of the living? I AM pleased. There is no question of his guilt in several really nasty acts of large-scale murder throughout the world, and I see no reason to tiptoe around the issue when dealing with this type of walking sewage.

That's not to say I wouldn't have liked to see him captured; we could go through the dog-and-pony show of a human rights trial or however it would manifest itself on the world stage, but the result would be the same: one dead piece of garbage.

To be honest, I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the US doesn't assassinate people, but now all of a sudden we're assassinating Osama bin Ladin. I don't have any qualms about that, I think it's pretty clear that for the good of humanity that he be stopped, and given that he wasn't going to do so voluntarily, the options were greatly limited.

I just think that by assassinating a foreign national that now we can't say that we don't or wouldn't do that to a particular individual. Over all a worthwhile trade off, but it's still not without risk or consequence.

Yes, that's... That's precisely the reason why is it wrong to be so happy about it. That's just listening to your base instincts that tell you to pull the heart of that guy who is teasing you bare-handed.

It's still a murder. In hindsight, it was a necessary murder, necessary evil, and celebrating evil that is inheritably usable as a predicament makes it even more dangerous. That's just a cold logic, not a human perspective.

Congratulations to the Americans here. The killing of Osama was important for you and now it is done. Whether this is actually true or not is not so important as the fact he is now officially dead. GOG.com have even declared his name a no-name and it is thus no longer accepted by the spell-check.

I doubt that his death will be an important turn for good in the fight against extreme Islamic militancy but I think that the Americans were right in pursuing him and "putting him to justice" (invading Afghanistan is another discussion). I think a trial would have been better if he could have been captured alive without significant extra threats for the life of soldiers or innocents but I can also understand it if the people in charge wanted him dead rather than alive.
The West will not win the fight against extreme Islamic militants by killing them but by winning the hearts and minds of their sons and daughters.

I do not feel any sadness or pity for the death of Osama but those that do should be praised rather than ridiculed.

Osama was not only a murderer that deserved a trial, he was also a warrior and warriors lives by the sword and dies by the sword. Such is the life of terrorists.

You mean Iraq, nobody in their right mind thinks that the Taliban being allowed to permit terrorist training camps was a wise idea. I'm also not aware of any alternative means by which we could have ensured that they wouldn't become a haven for terrorism.

I meant Afghanistan. This discussion was not what I wanted, I just wanted to clarify that I didn't support this invasion as much as I support going after Osama and al-Qaeda. Your point is true and the ends did probably justify the means but attacking Afghanistan were not a legal form of self defense and did therefore make international laws even less relevant.

Afghanistan government cooperated with Osama and his allies therefore when they refused to hand him over to USA they were legally entitled to attack it.

as much i hate military and war this case is quite clear that usa had all right to strike its aggressor.

I'm confused about the mistaken identity part, what does that have to do with anything? I never said he was innocent or something. If the knowledge of guilt is sufficient already to carry out the sentence, what do we have laws and courts for?

I should probably just let it rest, but at the risk of getting on everyone's bad side: Yes, it was mainly the celebration of assassination that bothers me, but you're also right that I am suspicious of assassination as political means. And in answer to your Hitler analogy, well, Osama Bin Laden is not Hitler and we're not living in times of WWII, you can't just draw an analogy like that because it won't work. International terrorism won't implode because Bin Laden is dead.

Anyway, assassinating Hitler might have prevented lots of evil, it might have been the right thing to do when there was no other option left, even a cause for celebration, but no, it wouldn't necessarily have been in line with human rights. That doesn't mean I think it would have been wrong, there was a lot at stake and weighing the assassination against the consequences of not taking any measures at all, I can sympathize with it. Extreme situations can make it neccessary to take desperate measures like that. But that doesn't make it always right and I don't think this is such an extreme case where no other measures were possible. Again, I don't know what exactly happened here, I don't know what the mission's objective was, if Bin Laden's death was an unavoidable accident. I'm only talking theoretically about assassination as a political means, for those who seem to support the idea.

The would-be assassins of Hitler took full responsibilty, they made an individual decision based on their conscience and their political agenda and outside of any law and order, embracing all personal consequences. That's different than a government ordering an assassination. If you consider that a legit political means, where do you draw the line? At what point exactly will the government decide to suspend their laws and principles to dispose of an enemy? How many crimes are necessary for that and of what nature will they be? What evidence of the crimes does it take? Where is it all written down for the populace to control? Who decides who's going to be assassinated? The populace, their leaders or their secret services? Is that really a democracy you want to live in? Hell, there were some voices even suggesting in all seriousness to assassinate the leader of Wikileaks ...

Apart from that, the goal of Hitler's assassination would have been to prevent further genocide, not to avenge the deaths he was responsible for. Bin Laden isn't even a ruler, by no means does he have the power of Hitler and his death will most probably not change the world. You're making him far more important than he actually is because it's a comforting thought that there's just one man behind all the terrorism and that the problems can be solved by disposing of him.

Did Bin Laden deserve death? Most definitely. Is it okay for us to disregard the principles we claim to live by and bring death to all people who we think would deserve it, even without a trial? Personally I think not. Will it make the world a better place and help the cause of the western world? I doubt it.

You can support assassination of your opponents as a political means or even lynch justice for murderers, rapers, child molesters (because the whole world hates them, don't we?) but if you speak about values like constitutional democracy and humanity and whatnot in the same breath, that's not very convincing if you're trying to sell your way of life to the rest of the world. (Well, apparantly a lot of people aren't even trying to set a good example, just caring for their own country and giving a shit about where the world is heading. Kudos to their honesty.)

My post was the result of misunderstanding what you meant. I wasn't sure whether it was the celebration or the devaluation of a person's human rights. And the potential for a slippery slope to end up affecting people who genuinely are not the right target.

EDIT: I probably ought to have chosen a different despot, but I couldn't think of one that would be known and where we'd be agreeing upon the degree of evil deeds.

Ah, deontology, you're a strange animal.

It is somewhat suspicious that we aren't shown any picture of him, but it could be that they are afraid that showing his dead body to the world because it could be misinterpreted or warped. Some people could accuse Americans of showing his dead body around as a trophy.

If you believe that the moon landing never took place you are being deceived by tricksters, conspiracy theorists and crazy people. Read some astronomy. Our world is far more fantastic than any tinfoil hat man could ever realize.

He he, okay let's get back to discussing animal metaphors again. :D