Good. So you accept (although that is far from clear from your posts) that Bin Laden was evil.
What do you suggest that the Americans should have done with him?
Yes, absolutely. My personal feelings for him, well, it wouldn't be polite to share them on here. Our friend's mother was killed in the 1998 Kenya embassy bombing, she was Kenyan and poor. He didn't just kill rich westerners, although you'd think so given the amount of coverage that incident hasn't had over the years.
However, I am able to look beyond this and make a judgement about what I feel is right, which is that we should not celebrate the death of anyone, it's sick. And international law is there for a reason. A terrorist is a criminal, they're just a criminal on a large scale. Bin Laden was a murderer. Murderers should be tried, and if found guilty, punished in whatever manner is seen fit. Although I don't agree with the death penalty, not just because mistakes happen, but because a quick way out is too good for people like him.
Perhaps in the real world America would never have been able to get Pakistan to hand him over, or never been able to get him alive, but that doesn't make what they did right. As I said before, expedient, yes, but what does killing him achieve? Absolutely nothing.
He would have lost consciousness the minute that bullet hit his brain. Our friend in Kenya had to grow up without a mother. A bullet through the head and a bullet through the stomach is not a punishment. It's a crowd pleaser. And maybe you could argue that it sends a message to similar people, but given that they are prepared to die in pursuit of the their aims, what is the message? We say terrorism is wrong because killing people is wrong, but it's ok for us to kill him, isn't it..?
Security has been stepped up at Heathrow and other high profile targets by the way, so if you still feel safer because of Bin Laden's death the British Government obviously doesn't agree with you. Given they have access to lots of top secret intelligence we don't, I'd trust their judgement on that one, personally.
Yes, absolutely. My personal feelings for him, well, it wouldn't be polite to share them on here. Our friend's mother was killed in the 1998 Kenya embassy bombing, she was Kenyan and poor. He didn't just kill rich westerners, although you'd think so given the amount of coverage that incident hasn't had over the years.
However, I am able to look beyond this and make a judgement about what I feel is right, which is that we should not celebrate the death of anyone, it's sick. And international law is there for a reason. A terrorist is a criminal, they're just a criminal on a large scale. Bin Laden was a murderer. Murderers should be tried, and if found guilty, punished in whatever manner is seen fit. Although I don't agree with the death penalty, not just because mistakes happen, but because a quick way out is too good for people like him.
Perhaps in the real world America would never have been able to get Pakistan to hand him over, or never been able to get him alive, but that doesn't make what they did right. As I said before, expedient, yes, but what does killing him achieve? Absolutely nothing.
He would have lost consciousness the minute that bullet hit his brain. Our friend in Kenya had to grow up without a mother. A bullet through the head and a bullet through the stomach is not a punishment. It's a crowd pleaser. And maybe you could argue that it sends a message to similar people, but given that they are prepared to die in pursuit of the their aims, what is the message? We say terrorism is wrong because killing people is wrong, but it's ok for us to kill him, isn't it..?
Security has been stepped up at Heathrow and other high profile targets by the way, so if you still feel safer because of Bin Laden's death the British Government obviously doesn't agree with you. Given they have access to lots of top secret intelligence we don't, I'd trust their judgement on that one, personally.