Bin Laden human rights

[Flannen]

Don't even get me started on how REDICULOUS it is for people to be screaming about Bin Laden's rights.

Bin Laden was a human. Which means that he is entitled to be treated exactly the way any other person should be treated. To suggest otherwise makes all of those who have died in the name of campaigning for and upholding human rights seem ridiculous.

Those people who are screaming about it, can recognise that not to makes their flippancy about other people's lives is as barbaric as those of Bin Laden and his associates.

What about the world we live in tells you (general use here) that treating other people as sub par to other humans works?

I could go on but I'll end up ranting and I don't want to. I couldn't, however, not at least chuck a cent or two in because this whole human rights issue always drives me crazy.

 

[sisterofmercy]

Does George Bush deserve to be killed for all those innocent Iraqi people who were murdered in the name of searching for weapons AKA oil? Should Shimon Peres be killed for the death of the innocent people in Gaza Strip? I actually comforted a fellow Palestinian teacher because her uncle's family's house was bombed and her family was murdered for doing nothing. There are a lot of deaths all around the world caused by greedy murderers who have the power to save themselves from justice. I'm completely sick of the war and the deaths. I just wish those sick people would get a grip and let us all live in peace.

Exactly. What gives us the right to kill a guy who killed loads of innocent people when our politicians (Bush and Blair) basically did the same? Just because it happened in the Middle East and not in one of our countries, doesn't make it right. Human rights are for all who are human; making someone a monster in order to justify murder is going against our conception of morality as prescribed in law. If everyone were to do that then there'd be a blood bath, hence why we have things like the human rights act.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

hence why we have things like the human rights act.

But the human rights act does not say that you can't kill a person. It does not say that your life cannot be taken. It DOES say that your right to life cannot be taken "arbitrarily."

 

[sisterofmercy]

But the human rights act does not say that you can't kill a person. It does not say that your life cannot be taken. It DOES say that your right to life cannot be taken "arbitrarily."

Then the question is more to do with whether it was an arbitrary murder or not, which is still somewhat questionable in a moral sense for me. 'Arbitrary' is contingent on your moral outlook.

 

[BuffyElevated]

Bin Laden was a human. Which means that he is entitled to be treated exactly the way any other person should be treated. To suggest otherwise makes all of those who have died in the name of campaigning for and upholding human rights seem ridiculous.

He was a mass murderer who showed absolutely NO remorse in the taking of people's lives. If Bin Laden had ever expressed remorse of any kind, my feelings toward him might be slightly different, but he didn't. He was pure evil, plain and simple, and he had to be stopped.
People that defend him and his rights anger me to the core. This man would have killed you without blinking if he could have. He was cold and heartless, and he would have thought nothing of taking your life, so why the Hell would you defend his?
Ugh... I'm so damn over this crap. I'm gonna have to stop talking about it before I go off on someone and get in trouble.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'm gonna have to stop talking about it before I go off on someone

Hi! how ya doing? Looking for volunteers? I am in need of a good going off on.

 

[sosa lola]

I've watched this video a long time ago and thought it was interesting. I hope it's okay to post it here.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-LhnzszFOw[/ame]

I don't wanna offend any American, most of my favorite friends in the net are Americans. And personally I hate Bin Laden with every passion inside me for what happened in 9/11! I just wanna say that he's not the only terrorist in the world.

 

[Flannen]

He was a mass murderer who showed absolutely NO remorse in the taking of people's lives. If Bin Laden had ever expressed remorse of any kind, my feelings toward him might be slightly different, but he didn't. He was pure evil, plain and simple, and he had to be stopped.
People that defend him and his rights anger me to the core. This man would have killed you without blinking if he could have. He was cold and heartless, and he would have thought nothing of taking your life, so why the Hell would you defend his?
Ugh... I'm so damn over this crap. I'm gonna have to stop talking about it before I go off on someone and get in trouble.

The fact that I have a set of principles that make it difficult for me to rejoice in someone's death does not equate to me defending him. Just because I can face up to the fact that he was a human and not paint him as a purely evil monster to make myself feel better about what some humans being are capable of, does not mean I support what he did or who he was. I'm not really sure how to respond to the suggestion that I do to be honest because it's a pretty huge thing to suggest about someone.

I stand by my principles, no matter what. I don't pick and choose who they relate to and I never will. Every human being should be entitled to the same rights. The fact people don't do this is the reason why the world is in the state that it is in.

I don't want to argue about it or end up with people getting angry but I felt compelled to make it very clear, that the assumption I am defending Bin Laden is untrue and uncalled for.

 

[zobothehobo]

He was a mass murderer who showed absolutely NO remorse in the taking of people's lives. If Bin Laden had ever expressed remorse of any kind, my feelings toward him might be slightly different, but he didn't. He was pure evil, plain and simple, and he had to be stopped.
People that defend him and his rights anger me to the core. This man would have killed you without blinking if he could have. He was cold and heartless, and he would have thought nothing of taking your life, so why the Hell would you defend his?
Ugh... I'm so damn over this crap. I'm gonna have to stop talking about it before I go off on someone and get in trouble.

I strongly believe in my deepest part of me that NO ONE is pure evil. You said he was pure evil in the other thread too. But someone somewhere must have loved him. There must have been someone somewhere that he loved too. You've made an assumption about him that you can't possibly prove. You don't KNOW him. You know what he did, you know how little he valued a human life... but you don't know him. He was more than his actions. He was a person. He had feelings and emotions. There must have been a time in his life he felt love and compassion towards someone.

As for me, I think it probably was the best thing to kill him. Just because I don't think there would be a safer and more humane way to take him out of his position in Al Qaeda. Like others have said here. Was it the right thing to do to kill him? Yes. Was it our right to take another human life? No.

If we value one human life over another... any human life over another... we're saying it's ok for others to do that too. That's exactly what Osama Bin Laden did. He valued the lives of his people over the lives of ours. I say we value them all the same.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Every human being should be entitled to the same rights. The fact people don't do this is the reason why the world is in the state that it is in.

Exactly.

And when you have one that openly and repeatedly disregards this, what? You cant really ask them nicely to not.

It's no different than infractions leading up to banning on this forum. You break the rules you can expect to pay.

You say every human being should be entitled to the same rights, I agree, they should. Hundreds were not allowed that right because he commanded it. How do you solve that?

 

[Flannen]

And when you have one that openly and repeatedly disregards this, what? You cant really ask them nicely to not.

In the other thread about this, which I should have maybe said again in here, is that I am not going to pretend that I have a better option; that I know what the right thing to do was. But that doesn't mean I should be happy that someone is dead. I have to accept that we live in a world where you have to resort to killing but I'm not going to celebrate it.

You say every human being should be entitled to the same rights, I agree, they should. Hundreds were not allowed that right because he commanded it. How do you solve that?

I can't. But I'm not going to be attacked or feel that I'm wrong for being conflicted. Being conflicted about these kinds of issues is fundamental to who I am. At the end of the day, the fact he took others away justifies him having his taken away for you. But it doesn't for me. Because it's doing exactly what so many people hate him for. And that makes zero sense to me.

And to me, it sounds like that what you agree with is humans being given the rights they deserve based on who they are and what they have done. If this is the case, then this is where we differ.

 

[InsaneMystic]

He was a mass murderer who showed absolutely NO remorse in the taking of people's lives. If Bin Laden had ever expressed remorse of any kind, my feelings toward him might be slightly different, but he didn't. He was pure evil, plain and simple, and he had to be stopped.
People that defend him and his rights anger me to the core. This man would have killed you without blinking if he could have. He was cold and heartless, and he would have thought nothing of taking your life, so why the Hell would you defend his?

You know that a lot of people would probably say the same about the soldiers who killed him. (Being trained Special Forces, I doubt they were blinking all that much when they pulled that trigger.) I suppose it's not a big deal having them killed, now, either? Strangely, when members of the armed forces die in action in Afgahnistan, Iraq etc. because some guerilla shot a heli down or blew up a transporter, a big deal is made about the dead soldiers, it's even shown as a tragedy. Sorry, but I honestly don't see any logic in that.

It boils down to this - if we don't take pains to ensure the rights of others, we lose the right to make a fuss about it if and when our own rights getting taken away. Again, if human rights aren't universal, who the hell cares if a bunch of people get killed in the WTC? Why should we bother about them dying? What makes them so special to deserve a blanket protection of their lives if said protection has to be earned? Where is the proof that those 3000 were "good enough" people to start with? (With that number of victims, the chance that there were several rotters in the bunch is pretty high, actually.) Who is to say that the Al Queda criterion of "infidel imperialist" is not the valid one to get rated as "they had it coming and deserved to die for the cause"?

As Ben Franklin put it: if you're ready to trade in liberty for security, you deserve neither and will lose both in the end. I, for once, will most definitely prefer the risk of getting killed myself than to take away the universal rights of others. It would seem pretty selfish to me to have it any other way, as I am absolutely certain that I do not have any more right to live than Osama, completely regardless of the question if he'd kill me without hesitation and remorse or not. And Britt, you know I love you, but neither do you.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

And to me, it sounds like that what you agree with is humans being given the rights they deserve based on who they are and what they have done. If this is the case, then this is where we differ.

No, that's not at all what I think. LOL... I wont SAY what I think though... because ya know. There are some people here that far too sensitive and it would really aggravate.

 

[InsaneMystic]

t's no different than infractions leading up to banning on this forum. You break the rules you can expect to pay.

You seriously compare banning in a forum to being shot dead? Whoa.

Besides, if the penalty for breaking the rules is such that the only difference between a rule-breaker and a mod is the name (you'll kill us, so we'll kill you right back), then I'd not see much point in wasting my time keeping the rules in mind. If the penalty for foul language were to get called names by the staff, I'd cheer on everyone who'd call the mods by the most colorful four-letters to come up with... might come up with a few good ones myself. 😛

 

[Washburne]

Wish someone would reply to sosa lolas post.

This man would have killed you without blinking if he could have. He was cold and heartless, and he would have thought nothing of taking your life, so why the Hell would you defend his?

Flannes reply was great. It's not about defending him per say. It's about the principle. Has anyone said that you're bad people because you're happy? To disagree isn't to say that thinking the other way make you bad. Who are we (The western world/The ones being hurt/America?)to be world police and the ones to decide when to make an exception?

You break the rules you can expect to pay.

Pay yes. But at what cost? Is it ok to hurt others just to make another one pay? Is there just one way to pay?

I have enough trouble teaching 6 year olds that being mean/hitting someone in return isn't the way to deal with things. Yet it's easier than trying to convince adults of it. What message do we want to teach the future leaders of the world?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

You seriously compare banning in a forum to being shot dead? Whoa.

Yeah, I am. That's not that bad of a thing is it? Action, reaction, consequence, result.

Besides, if the penalty for breaking the rules is such that the only difference between a rule-breaker and a mod is the name (you'll kill us, so we'll kill you right back), then I'd not see much point in wasting my time keeping the rules in mind. If the penalty for foul language were to get called names by the staff, I'd cheer on everyone who'd call the mods by the most colorful four-letters to come up with... might come up with a few good ones myself. 😛

And there-in lies the problem... yes? It is a very similar problem this forum faced not so long ago.

 

[Kean]

I said this to Flannen earlier, and it is pretty much all I have to say on the topic.

The true measure of our humanity is not that we cleanly and quickly kill someone who deserves it, but rather that we extended the universal human rights to those who appear to be least deserving, to those who have hurt us the most.

That is humanity. That is justice.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Pay yes. But at what cost? Is it ok to hurt others just to make another one pay? Is there just one way to pay?

At the cost those requiring payment deem necessary.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

That is humanity. That is justice.

But this wasn't about humanity or justice... it was about feeling better. Feeling better about getting 'payment' and feeling better/safer with him not being around to do it again. Humanity and justice never entered into it.

 

[Kean]

But this wasn't about humanity or justice... it was about feeling better. Feeling better about getting 'payment' and feeling better/safer with him not being around to do it again. Humanity and justice never entered into it.

A man was killed so people could feel better? And payment? This one single life makes the thousands he is responsible for taking OK?

He did not invent terrorism. He is not its source. It was there before him and will be there after him. This is not a safer world without him.

Justice and humanity need to be part of this. Justice and humanity need to be at the heart of this.

 

[Washburne]

Just out of curiousity. Why did/do Al Qaida think so badly about americans? Just out of the blue they one day decided it on a whim? You don't think they had a reason (even if you don't agree with it) and looked for "payment" the way they felt necessary?

At the cost those requiring payment deem necessary.

So if someone steal my wallet and I found out who did it it's ok to burn down their house because that's what I find necessary payment for the suffering I went through? Add to that that the fire spread and burned down their neighbours houses as well. It wasn't meant to happen so it's ok right?

Too much?