Editor's Note: Better Than Before

[MoD1212]

holy shit! these forums are getting ridiculous. Can we just get a few things straight here

1) is anyone actually sad to hear that Bin Laden has been killed, no the man is responsible the deaths of thousands around the world and his influence ended to be put to an end.

2) As an American I will be the first to tell you that our Government has been fucking up long before 911 with our foreign policies(and other things), We also all don't think we shouldn't have to answer for our action to the world, We're not all idiots

3) speaking of idiots, i place that a good amount of all the excess celebrating that many of you found disgusting was made up of idiots, most people that i talked those who may have or had not lost someone in that attack, spent that night when the news broke in quite personal satisfaction, just like Russ.

Is there anything wrong with that. this is the man(prior support from our own government notwithstanding) that killed thousands of our people, and sent our government on a ridiculously overblown anti-terrorism agenda for the last ten years, and now he can no longer be the cause to anymore harm. Sure the mean's might be questionable as some have use this hunt to push his own agenda(Cheney mostly, Bush was a puppet), but that doesn't mean his death isn't for the better, nor should the fact that our national drunks found a reason to party(every country has there national drunks), cloud the fact that at least 20% of our nation slept soundly for the first time in awhile.

 

[Tuqui]

(...) yes there was a lot of power from that man and possible more terror, but why not judge him? why not to put him under law instead of just killing him?

(Not trying to flame just posting my opinion.)

To be honest, because it's a can of worms.

Flying into a sovereign country and kidnapping someone, even to put him on trial, is arguably not the most legal thing to do. There are differences however: if he's captured, where do you put him on trial? Who has jurisdiction? Who has an interest in appointing oneself a target for holding the trial, or participating in it? To expose his citizens to retaliation (on top of the possibility of terrorism they alreadty face)?

Someone over at foreignpolicy.com (interesting site btw) mentioned that when Saddam Hussein was caught, he was put on trial by the Iraqi People/Government - they had a reason (lots of reasons really) to want him to face the trial, and it did contribute to the nationbuilding exercise there.... Who would want to do that with bin Laden? The Pakistanis certainly want nothing to do with it (and are kind of busy with internal strife), Afghanistan more closely ressembles Mad max than anything else, and the US judicial process can't even figure out how to deal with dozens of Gitmo inmates.

He's dead & gone, and suddenly all those questions become irrelevant.

There will be fallout, but it's not like terrorists would have stopped anytime soon, or that they would be appeased by bin Laden being put in front of a jury (plus: appeasement "is feeding the dragon in hopes he'll eat you last" (W. Churchill)).

The question wether it was the legal thing to do, is one people a lot smarter for us will be discussing for quite some time. As of now, the world doesn't have a legal concept of "war on terror", or any assymetrical military engagement of a nation against a non-localized, non-national, fluous entity/network. Legally, we only know war (between nations) and civil war.

Whether it was the right thing to do, is something people will have to answer for themselves. I personally think it was the smart thing to do, and that there wasn't a lot of choice in first place.

It's a pretty hollow argument to say that you killed to not worry about those matters, following that train of though where to set the line of when's ok to kill on the spot, instead of going through the bureaucracy of trial after trial. Also they wont stop neither for killing him.( Personally if I were someone like him and I escaped for over 10 years I would have settled a lot of matters in successor, and action at my death, IMO)

 

[RA92]

The problem is, Laden was never really a major threat post 9/11. Even now, Laden's Taliban has, according to estimates, around 600 operatives who have been unable to carry out major operations recently because they are constantly on the run. Killing Laden will not stop the thousands of splinter groups around the world spawned by his ideology.

And rebuilding my house after a hurricane won't stop hurricanes. But it still feels good, and it allows me to feel that I've reclaimed some semblance of control and balance in my life.

I wasn't trying to decry your sense of rejuvenation. Laden was responsible for the mass-murder that was 9/11, and you and your people have every right to a some closure.

Death isn't what we're celebrating.

We're celebrating that he was stopped, not how he was stopped.

My point was, if you're celebrating due to the fact that he was stopped, then it's somewhat irrelevant, since he has been barely active for the last one decade. The symbolism lies in his death, which you're at the end of the day, inadvertently or not, celebrating.

And I would have done the same in your place.

 

[sylekage]

That was a really good article, and I was hit hard by the emotion of it all, and agree with everything in it. This country's come far in these ten years, whether it's been good or bad, but we've definitely grown up. And it kind of had to be taught to us, but now we know, and it's time to start coming out of this hole that you say we're in.

Good show, sir.

 

[nipsen]

If you can't discuss and debate in a polite matter, you will not be debating anything on our forums at all.

You're right.

Congratulations.

 

[John Funk]

If you can't discuss and debate in a polite matter, you will not be debating anything on our forums at all.

You're right.

Congratulations.

It is perfectly possible to disagree even strongly with someone and still be polite and respectful. I'm sorry you can't do that. Goodbye.

 

[Hive Mind]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

 

[Anjel]

Clearly you are too young. The IRA bombed Canary Wharf (which is a comparable target to the WTC) as well as firing a mortar at Downing Street and also successfully blowing up the Cabinet in Brighton; not to mention the scores of attacks all over the country (including one that ripped the heart out of my own city, and injured people I knew).

To hear American politicians (other talking heads), after 9/11, saying things like 'all terrorists are Muslims' was sickening (both in its racism and in its presumption that terrorism was invented in 2001) - particularly when you bear in mind that the terrorists I suffered attacks from were Catholic.

Yes I know what the IRA did, I meant I was too young to understand how it affected us as a people and therefore am not as afraid of an IRA attack as I am a Muslim extremist attack. But bombing Canary Wharf and flying two passenger jets into WTC are not quite the same in my opinion - they're equally deplorable, don't get me wrong, but how many deaths were there in the docklands bombing? Two, was it? And over 2000 in the attack on WTC? Us Brits suffered at the hands of terrorists, yes, but I was referring to the single attack on WTC rather than the long drawn out campaign by the IRA.

 

[hotsumota]

My god, this reminds me of one of my favorite games of all times: Seiken Densetsu 2 (Secrets of mana). Every single game that has come after legend of mana basically is the same thing over and over, even the story is the same!

But, I still went back to buy these games, or borrow from a friend, to try to recapture that great feeling that secrets of mana gave me when I was a kid.

 

[Jonabob87]

What a load of crap. The world was not awoken, there was no beginning of an "epic chapter in the lives of all free men" (pretentious as hell).

America got a late invite to the great big terrorism party we've all been taking part in for the last hundred years.

You see killing a bed-ridden dying old man as a turning point? If you think it's the end you're out of your mind. Essentially what happened is, someone killed 3,000 civilians in your country (a tragedy, in all honesty) so you went to their country and killed 20,000 civilians.

 

[Jonabob87]

I spent a good portion of my childhook living just outside of London during the 70s, so "terrorism" was not new to me, but it sure did seem different when it was against my own country. Perhaps those feelings were because at the time I was younger than I was in 2001. I did not have kids of my own.

The feelings I had, being a half a country away from my family when the word came out on what was going on are indescribeable. The 24 hour car journey across the vast wastelands of the US can only be explained as surreal. The talk on AM radio ran the gambit from consipracy theorist stating the government had spearheaded the attacks themselves to truckers ready to take up arms right then!

I was more concerned about the world my two young children would now be forced to live in.

I find it amusing that on these boards it's constantly pointed out that "America" brought it upon themselves. The only frames of reference that are mentioned are all of the negatives. Nobody mentioned the $9B worth of aid that Bush sent to Africa, which was not $9B worth of GUNS and VIOLENCE but rather FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, MEDICINE and other social needs. Not to mention the aid provided to all of the other countries and communities around the globe. Its all about the NEGATIVE. All about how 'big bad big brother' is beating me up again.

Perhaps it IS time for the US to go back to it's pre-WWII thinking and not give a rats ass about what is going outside of it's own borders. Secure those borders and tell everyone else to just piss off since they are not AMERICAN.

You think Afghanistan and Iraq are in Africa?

 

[John Funk]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

Please read other responses, I've already covered this. Being relieved that Bin Laden is dead does not mean approving of actions taken in the name of the War on Terror whether in US borders or abroad. That's a terrible strawman argument you have there.

 

[Hive Mind]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

Please read other responses, I've already covered this. Being relieved that Bin Laden is dead does not mean approving of actions taken in the name of the War on Terror whether in US borders or abroad. That's a terrible strawman argument you have there.

It would be difficult to be relieved that a man is dead (irony in and of itself) whilst knowing 100 000 civilians, people just like you, with families and dreams, were massacred to achieve it.

I find no solace in the death of 100 001 people. If you find closure in the end, the means cannot be so easily brushed aside or made to look a strawman.

EDIT: is the closure (murder) worth it to you?

 

[PeePantz]

People at the Escapist (better yet, non-Americans) are failing to realize the spirit of this article and why Americans celebrated and rejoiced the news of the death of Osama bin Laden. It has nothing to do with the killing of "our enemy", rather it's the celebrating of unifying our country with something we all could agree on: an evil man no longer is in this world.

Not just any evil man. A man who was directly responsible for tearing us apart and creating a nation filled with hatred, fear, and distrust. These feelings are more centered to our own people rather than our perception of the world. One man's actions created such a social and political divide that the repercussions resulted in unpopular wars, political sabotage, and an economic collapse many generations have not seen and will never see again.

As terrible and horrific the events of September 11th were, they were (as many have pointed out) just a drop in the bucket compared to many catastrophes and the daily slaughtering of innocents throughout the world. However, the impact of this event far supercedes the event itself.

Those who were anti-Bush were labeled soft and essentially terrorist sympathizers. Those who were pro-Bush were labeled war mongering zealots that didn't care about anyone but themselves. Terrorism was/is the buzz that allowed a government to run a muck and make changes to the betterment of a politician's financial and influential standing, not its people. Osama bin Laden grew to represent total manipulation.

This brings us back to the celebrations. Bin Laden's death finally brought a country together in a way very few occurrences have. There was an out pour of emotion when we realized we could come together and hopefully move on from the horrendous past ten years. Maybe now we can work together and actually get our country back on track. We have rid ourselves of a man that has caused so much strife amongst ourselves. It was a moment of optimism and hope that finally our leaders might be now able to listen to each other and respect the political opposition. This is about the start of moving forward, and bin Laden's death was necessary.

If that isn't cause for celebration, I don't know what is.

 

[Ferrious]

Not sure I should join in to this discussion, the massive can-of-worms that it is, but I needed to express something. (Cultural context: educated but working-class British).

When 9/11 happened I was shocked. Everyone was shocked, in one way or another. I was much younger at the time and was enjoying my teenage rebelliousness. "It was the right target, but the wrong time" I seem to remember saying. What I had meant was that I disapproved of America's capitalist nature, but couldn't condone the death of thousands. If the building had been destroyed empty, my teenage self would've considered it fitting. The building was, after all, a monument of capitalist success.

I'm older now, and honestly can't understand the feelings of my younger self. People died. Lots of people. The building wasn't empty, and thousands of lives were changed directly, likely millions changed indirectly. People have continued to die and suffer, from campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq, from famine and disease that could've been helped with some of that defence budget, from being wrongly imprisoned and tortured in the name of fighting terror, from further terrorist attacks on civilians of all nationalities. These things can be traced back to that attack, in varying degrees. Bin Laden was a man of death - if he had the mental capability to plan the attacks, then he could see the likely consequences of attacking the largest military power's civilians on their own soil. He simply did not care, and committed thousands to death (without heed to which lives they were) for his views.

He could not be allowed to remain free and show others who aspire to terror that it is without consequence. It is saddening that another death is the conclusion to his part in this suffering, capture would have been preferable (and was most likely desired), but he was a terrorist. Terrorism exists without flag, country, organisation or true leadership. Because of that it is impossible to treat with, negotiate with, or cause the surrender of. It can only be eliminated, stamped out.

The death of an old man isn't cause for celebration. Striking a blow against terror for the sake of all who have suffered, is.

 

[StrixMaxima]

It is sad to see that people really see this action as a real blow against terror. This achieves nothing, in practical terms. It has only rekindled the hatred that was somewhat dormant in the fanatic's minds. This single event will, in all likelihood, cause even more deaths. It is a cycle that has to end by someone's hands. I had hoped, in the past, that the Americans would eventually cool off and be magnanimous about it. Obama had the profile to turn this sad incident into a more constructive outlook for the future.

Sadly, due to internal pressures and the need to be reelected, he opted to carry on with this vendetta, despite the costs. Despite the torture. Despite the fact that Osama was unarmed. Despite all that. I was really disappointed with that.

Now, the deed is done. A strike had been dealt on terrorism. Not a crippling strike, but a slap in the face that will rouse the extremist's hubris and give them a renewed sense of duty. Let's hope the same people celebrating today are not mourning (or dead) tomorrow.

 

[John Funk]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

Please read other responses, I've already covered this. Being relieved that Bin Laden is dead does not mean approving of actions taken in the name of the War on Terror whether in US borders or abroad. That's a terrible strawman argument you have there.

It would be difficult to be relieved that a man is dead (irony in and of itself) whilst knowing 100 000 civilians, people just like you, with families and dreams, were massacred to achieve it.

I find no solace in the death of 100 001 people. If you find closure in the end, the means cannot be so easily brushed aside or made to look a strawman.

EDIT: is the closure (murder) worth it to you?

That Bin Laden, a man who had the blood of thousands of people around the globe on his hands - and that of arguably millions of Afghans - is gone should be a source of relief to everybody around the world. He may have not been in day to day command of Al Qaeda but he was an important figurehead and rallying symbol for ultra-conservative political groups and religious extremists around the world. Those groups and extremists are still around, of course, but they have lost a massive symbol.

A world without Bin Laden is a better world than one with him in it. Again, this does not mean I approve of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or what has been done in our own national borders. They were not acceptable losses, and I would be happy were the man who ordered them to face punishment of some sort.

But a man who encouraged hate and twisted religious beliefs to suit his cause, and who was responsible for the deaths of people that I know, is gone. And that is a good thing.

 

[Hive Mind]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

Please read other responses, I've already covered this. Being relieved that Bin Laden is dead does not mean approving of actions taken in the name of the War on Terror whether in US borders or abroad. That's a terrible strawman argument you have there.

It would be difficult to be relieved that a man is dead (irony in and of itself) whilst knowing 100 000 civilians, people just like you, with families and dreams, were massacred to achieve it.

I find no solace in the death of 100 001 people. If you find closure in the end, the means cannot be so easily brushed aside or made to look a strawman.

EDIT: is the closure (murder) worth it to you?

That Bin Laden, a man who had the blood of thousands of people around the globe on his hands - and that of arguably millions of Afghans - is gone should be a source of relief to everybody around the world. He may have not been in day to day command of Al Qaeda but he was an important figurehead and rallying symbol for ultra-conservative political groups and religious extremists around the world. Those groups and extremists are still around, of course, but they have lost a massive symbol.

A world without Bin Laden is a better world than one with him in it. Again, this does not mean I approve of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or what has been done in our own national borders. They were not acceptable losses, and I would be happy were the man who ordered them to face punishment of some sort.

But a man who encouraged hate and twisted religious beliefs to suit his cause, and who was responsible for the deaths of people that I know, is gone. And that is a good thing.

Death is never a good thing. Enjoying the ending of a life is appalling. It doesn't matter who is dying or how; life being extinguished is bad. The way you are celebrating the murder of human beings honestly disturbs me. Yes, he was a bad man in my view -- in some people's eyes, the worst there ever was. Does that make it okay to sing a song now that his family and loved ones are burying him? Remember how it felt when someone you knew died at his hands? Yeah, it's not nice is it. Hypocrisy doesn't just go away because someone is evil in your eyes. You cannot simply point to the 9/11 attacks and wash your hands of human qualities. Death may be a better outcome (to you) than him living, but my god, man... Good? Celebrating murder... And here I thought my side was fighting a monster.

Also, could you please answer one question for me?

Were the deaths of 100 000+ civilians (not mentioning the thousands of dead volunteers in the Allied Forces' Military) worth it? All politics aside. Just that question. The feeling you have now that Osama Bin Laden is dead - is it worth 100 000 lives?

 

[John Funk]

It means emotional relief for me and for the 20% of Americans who knew someone who died on 9/11..

And what of the 100 000 civilians who have died since the U.S decided to invade their home? Was their 100 000 lives worth the closure? Congratulations. Enjoy the carnage.

Please read other responses, I've already covered this. Being relieved that Bin Laden is dead does not mean approving of actions taken in the name of the War on Terror whether in US borders or abroad. That's a terrible strawman argument you have there.

It would be difficult to be relieved that a man is dead (irony in and of itself) whilst knowing 100 000 civilians, people just like you, with families and dreams, were massacred to achieve it.

I find no solace in the death of 100 001 people. If you find closure in the end, the means cannot be so easily brushed aside or made to look a strawman.

EDIT: is the closure (murder) worth it to you?

That Bin Laden, a man who had the blood of thousands of people around the globe on his hands - and that of arguably millions of Afghans - is gone should be a source of relief to everybody around the world. He may have not been in day to day command of Al Qaeda but he was an important figurehead and rallying symbol for ultra-conservative political groups and religious extremists around the world. Those groups and extremists are still around, of course, but they have lost a massive symbol.

A world without Bin Laden is a better world than one with him in it. Again, this does not mean I approve of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or what has been done in our own national borders. They were not acceptable losses, and I would be happy were the man who ordered them to face punishment of some sort.

But a man who encouraged hate and twisted religious beliefs to suit his cause, and who was responsible for the deaths of people that I know, is gone. And that is a good thing.

Death is never a good thing. Enjoying the ending of a life is appalling. It doesn't matter who is dying or how; life being extinguished is bad. The way you are celebrating the murder of human beings honestly disturbs me. Yes, he was a bad man in my view -- in some people's eyes, the worst there ever was. Does that make it okay to sing a song now that his family and loved ones are burying him? Remember how it felt when someone you knew died at his hands? Yeah, it's not nice is it. Hypocrisy doesn't just go away because someone is evil in your eyes. You cannot simply point to the 9/11 attacks and wash your hands of human qualities. Death may be a better outcome (to you) than him living, but my god, man... Good? Celebrating murder... And here I thought my side was fighting a monster.

Also, could you please answer one question for me?

Were the deaths of 100 000+ civilians (not mentioning the thousands of dead volunteers in the Allied Forces' Military) worth it? All politics aside. Just that question. The feeling you have now that Osama Bin Laden is dead - is it worth 100 000 lives?

We are celebrating a huge blow against international extremism and hate, not the end of a life.

I'm not going to answer your strawman question, as the two are not related.

 

[nipsen]

If you can't discuss and debate in a polite matter, you will not be debating anything on our forums at all.

You're right.

Congratulations.

It is perfectly possible to disagree even strongly with someone and still be polite and respectful. I'm sorry you can't do that. Goodbye.

I pointed out the contradiction in your and Russ' arguments. So did others. You ignore it, claiming you don't have to defend or justify yourselves since your emotional scars are so severe and real. And you insist that you do not need to consider information that might change your point of view, because it's "nor related".

So you can blame yourselves if no one is "debating you" properly.