Osama dead

re-balance world wealth.

Dibs.

Perhaps Clive is referring to the Dalai Lama's former position as the hereditary and absolute god-king of a backward and brutal theocracy in which citizens were treated as lowly serfs by the monks and any dissent was swiftly and violently stepped upon.

A theocracy is not, by definition, a democracy.

Fox.

What was it about Bin Laden that makes him worthy of your admiration?

I'm assuming this post is a joke..?

Not a particularly funny one tbh, as he murdered thousands of people including the mother of a family friend.

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?

What do people in democracies do?

A theocracy is not, by definition, a democracy.

The US has a State Religion, as does the UK. This is distinctly not a theocracy. A theocracy has an entirely different system through which legislature has to pass.

U.S has a state religion?

The US has a State Religion.

No it doesn't, That's rather the point of the USA.

What do people in democracies do?

vote.

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?

Ha. Pretty rich when in the same breath you criticise religion in politics.

No it doesn't, That's rather the point of the USA.

indeed…

It says so in the First Amendment

he got off lightly. a quick shot in the eye and buried at sea or paraded around like a zoo animal, mock trial and 23 hour lock down in a super max prison for life

Good. So you accept (although that is far from clear from your posts) that Bin Laden was evil.

Presumably you don't have in mind any religious concept of evil? What's your philosophical or moral definition of evil here?

Superprecise will love this...:^)

No it doesn't, That's rather the point of the USA.

My bad. Your right. Officially not a state religion. So even further from a theocracy then I'd given them credit.

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.

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?

They've (USA) been quite happy to fund terrorism in the past.
http://cryptome.org/scap-talks.htm

Glass houses, stones etc.

Guise, this has been resolved already.
American style, but it has. So they say.

The US has a State Religion, as does the UK. This is distinctly not a theocracy. A theocracy has an entirely different system through which legislature has to pass.

Tibet, before the Chinese invasion, was a theocracy, as were the Papal States before 1848, as is Iran and as was Taleban run Afganistan. Not a great model for a constitution.

The US does not allow a state religion. It was founded on religious tolerance, at least between Christian religions.

The UK has a state religion but is far from a theocracy.

Presumably you don't have in mind any religious concept of evil? What's your philosophical or moral definition of evil here?

Superprecise will love this...:^)

My morality is necessarily subjective. I consider Bin Laden evil. Many do not. Fox does which is good (in my subjective view).

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.

If Bin Laden had not formed Al Qaeda, if they had not attacked the WTC ... there would have been no retribution.

If the Crusaders had not gone to the Holy Land...

If...

American reaction to the WTC attacks was inevitable in the same way that Al Qaeda reaction to that reaction was inevitable. Sadly, too many steps have been taken in the past to enable either side to disengage easily.

So what should the Americans do? Electorally, the US President could not simply ignore Bin Laden. Having discovered him, the President had to act. An arrest might have been nice and would have reflected the standards that we set for democracies but would also probably have caused more deaths in the long and medium terms.

I do not celebrate anyone's death. I was revolted by those who cheered at the WTC slaughter as i am revolted by those who cheer Bin Laden's death. Sadly, taking a Benthamite perspective, the death of one man may have been the least bad option among a load of poor options.

...taking a Benthamite

Cliveo's little helper. They help him relax.

Tibet, before the Chinese invasion, was a theocracy, as were the Papal States before 1848, as is Iran and as was Taleban run Afganistan. Not a great model for a constitution.

The US does not allow a state religion. It was founded on religious tolerance, at least between Christian religions.

The UK has a state religion but is far from a theocracy.

Just to recap, you implied the US was a theocracy. It isn't. Your not going to expand on your comment regarding the US and democracy then?

I never intended to imply that the US is a theocracy. I was alluding to Tibet in the days before the Chinese invasion.

yeah! and they lost a aircraft!puffffff! they could have done it on the cheap..using just one bullet, from a .50 cal- sniper rifle at 2000 yards....it can be done, it has been done...waste of resources and risking the life of soldiers assaulting....doesnt make any sense.

particulary..ill have take him alive and torture him until he sings where is everysingle other terrorist, ill WATERBOARD him...for days.And dont tell is torture, is a Spa treatment, i had it done, i find it relaxing!