Disgusting...
Maybe I'm just completely naive, but I don't understand why everyone in this country is celebrating, yes CELEBRATING, the death of another human being. Yes, terrorists can be very dangerous, harmful people. But do they deserve to be hunted down and murdered? I don't think so. Wouldn't it have been possible to detain the man and maybe bring him in front of an international court so that he could be sentenced for his crimes against humanity? How is the US government any better than the terrorists it hunts if it just goes into whichever country it chooses and kills people? Someone was murdered last night and I don't see how that could possibly be a positive thing.
posted by Katie @ 9:32 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
i think its kind of, i dunno, barbaric? that his dead corpse is on the front page of every newspaper and website on the internet.
Yes, Org, we united states are! We his death show to world! Rule, we do! ::grunt:: ::sniff:: ::scratch:
Amen, sista!
WHOA, sister. Wtf did I just read? It's not murder. And it's not just "someone". Which does not mean anyone should be running around like an idiots, celebrating anyone's death.
Firstly, the army *had* to show his photo, otherwise no one would believe it, and it's necessary that people believe it.
Second, why wouldn't the photo be on the page of every news paper? I mean, his dead face is the news. It's not just American publications doing it, and I don't even think it's of questionable ethics or morality. They're not humiliating him and they're not harming his dead body or anything like that -- the picture simply needs to be seen, it *is* the news.
Third, you're right that it would be preferrable to capture him alive, for a zillion reasons. And you're right it's ridiculous for anyone to be "happy" about anyone's death -- even if the death is advantageous, it is still sad enough that the situation has come to what it has, and that sadness ought to mute any jubilation. You can be pleased, for rational purposes, but celebrating is just ridiculous.
But I think it's silly to equate us to terroristsl, as you did, because we killed him. He wasn't exactly somewhere police could drive up to and detain. He wasn't in Queens. Also, he was probably surrounded by many guards -- to detain him would have probably only been possible if you surrounded him with A LOT of soldiers. Doing that, you're risking all their lives because there would inevitably be a huge firefight. And you're risking that he'd get away, the repercussions of which are also myriad and all horrible.
It's very easy to say we should just have captured him but I think it's much harder to actually do, and if you're a general faced with the decision: kill him by air strike, greatly increasing the chace he will be eliminated while making sure none of your own men die, or trying to capture him alive, risking his escape and almost guaranteeing the death of at least a few of your own men, I think the choice is clear. In war people die no matter what. I think the rule is probably: a) the less the better, then b) better them than us.
Would you have preferred no action be taken? Would you have preferred that two dozen American soldiers died in a messy firefight that did not come close to guaranteeing his capture? And then if he escaped, would you have slept soundly the next time he bombed a mosque, killing 25 civilians?
I think your reaction is preposterous. And worse than that, it's cliche (though, now that I think about it, mine probably is, too). Of course I'll still be giving you that bottle of wine. ;)
ps. I am not reading over what I just wrote. I hope it makes sense.
dan, it makes sense.
i don't understand why there are no photos of dead u.s. soldiers though. sure, their families would probably be upset, but maybe that's a good thing. (if you think we shouldn't be at war, that is. public outcry to dead u.s. soldiers that you can put a face to is a stronger motivator than some tidbit flashed across the bottom of cnn.)
i, personally, am disappointed that james bond didn't take him out. what the hell happened to mi5?
Dan, in response to your comment: You may be right that they had to show his picture for people to believe he was dead, but it bothers me nonetheless. The interesting thing is, did you know what he looked like? I watch the news all the time and I couldn't have picked that man out of a crowd. I am taking the word of the media that the dead face they are showing me is the face of who they say. Upon thinking about it, it probably would have been very difficult for the army to capture him alive and undoubtedly US soldiers would have died trying. I don't want anyone to die. I think this whole situation is very sad. Of course I don't want terrorists to harm any additional innocent bystanders. However, I also don't believe in an eye for an eye (i.e. terrorists come to our country and kill our citizens, so our soldiers go to their country and kill them). Yes, you can argue that we are killing a murderer. But who are we to decide who should live or die? The definition of murder in Merriam-Webster: 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Whether or not you see the motives of our country in a different light than I do, they murdered that man. Finally, I completely disagree with you that my reaction is cliche. It appears to me that the vast majority of Americans are quite pleased that we have taken revenge on this terrorist and see no harm in killing him. I find your response cliche actually. I understand your views, but I just cannot agree with them.
Josh, whereas I don't want to look at pictures of dead US soldiers (I think it would be very difficult for their families and the families and friends of soldiers who are still over there fighting), I do think that the public should be aware of just how big a sacrifice this country was willing to make. Whether or not our citizens believe that the sacrifice was justified, I do think it is important that they recognize the full extent of this situation.
This difficult subject matter is making me tired.
You speak of it in terms of revenge, eye for an eye, but that frames this totally incorrectly. He's an enemy in a war, not just someone we happen to dislike and killed for spite. If we left him alone, which seems to be what you prefer (?) we'd have done, then he'd go on doing what he did: beheading people, directing huge bombs into mosques during prayer times, conducting a PR campaign to try and spread his or some form of his craziness. Should we have let him do it? You say: who are we to decide who lives and who dies? But if we didn't attack him, we would be doing just that: his victims die and he lives. That's the choice you are proposing as best?
It sounds to me like your disapproval of the war in general, and more so other people's reactions to it, is biasing your reaction to this specific act. I also would have preferred us not being in the war and once we were in it obviously had never imagined we could mess up so much, but that's where we are.
To equate the US government to a terorrist org, for this act, I think is realy misguided. Our aim was to eliminate someone who has and would have killed lots of innocents who are supposed to be under our protection. And we do it only because we, now, have little other choice. How does that equate to the planned and arbitrary killing of a maximum number of civilians?
Anyway I agree with you celebrating is retarded but I don't agree we ought not to have done it.
Necessary evil. Those 2 words essentially sum up the topic of discussion.
The problem with the blanket view that all killing is evil is that it makes a determination in a void. Do I like the killing of humans? No. But I do believe that, sometimes, one must decide if killing to save lives is worth it.
I think everyone is in agreement that he had to be stopped to save lives. That said, what serves the greater good: Killing one man who is guilty in the court of public opinion, or capturing him, possibly resulting in the deaths of US soldiers and innocent neighboring Iraqis?
There are those who would say capturing him is worth the sacrifice, as one should not sacrifice one's ideals for expediency. Another person may view that minimizing deaths should be the ultimate goal. Both views have flaws if one uses them universally.
The cliche example that one would like to use here is the Hitler example, where one says "if you had the ability to assassinate him and prevent the Holocaust, would you?" We will not discuss that. Instead, we will go through another thought exercise:
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.
Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?
As for your issues with the nation celebrating his death, I can understand where you are coming from. But the nation's celebration, so to speak, is essentially an oversimplification on some levels. His death => hurts insurgency => stabilizes Iraq => leads to less deaths of soldiers and Iraqis => troops coming home => good.
Assuming someone agrees with that line of thought, then I can understand why they would celebrate. They may not articulate it as such, but I like to think that people's thought processes are generally oversimplified (sometimes by others, sometimes by themselves). To say his death is not a cause for celebration has a sort of "well I'm above you and your barbaric ways" feel to it that seems overly idealistic.
That said, my reaction to his death was: wow => he deserved to die => I shouldn't think that => ehhh, his death will do little to stop the overall insurgency => ok, I think that, overall, his death was probably a good thing.
So, for some period of time in the past 2 days, I could totally sympathize with your views. But now I can only empathize.
Note: Removing this man probably will do little do stop the insurgency. I agree with some pundits that he was at least somewhat artificially elevated in importance.
Post a Comment
<< Home