Osama Bin Laden(VERY serious topic)

[Batmex]

From your point of view, should this man be imprisoned or executed?

Yes, this man has done something terrible, but in my oppinion he should be sent to jail, execute him could backfire at us.

How?:

This man has influenced so many people(maybe a good number of youth) that think that he is the great thing, that it's God's will that America must be destroyed, killing him will make him look like a marthyr(sp), thus insipring others to maybe do even worst atacks at this country.

Please I want mature responses to this topic.

[Calhoun07]

Execution is the only suitable end for this man, but I think we need to extract as much information out of him before we put him to death. I am quite serious when I say that ancient styles of torture should come back into play to get that information from him as well. A quick death would be too good for him, we need to see this man suffer for a while while we get information from him.

[VinceA]

Part of me (the part that saw the planes hit the WTC live from my office windows) wants to have OBL decapitated then have his head mounted on a pike at the site of the WTC as a warning to future would-be terrorists (or funders of terror).

Another part of me would be happy if OBL were imprisoned in a small box in the deepest darkest prison where he had zero contact with humankind (a slice of bread and a glass of water could be slid under the door to him every day or so).

[Zorakfan]

Either way sounds good. As long as he suffers for his notorious deeds.

[James]

I think he would have to be executed.

As bizarre as it may sound, if he was to put on trial, there is a small chance he could get off - with no immediate ties to the bombing (eg; he wasn't there) there is always the risk he could be found not guilty - imagine the lawsuit he could then bring up against the US Government/UN!

The other problem, is while he is imprisoned, you will get terrorist factions campaigning for his release. Quite often this will come in the form of hijacks and general terrorist activities - in exchange for the release of the individual, many could be killed in a campaign made by sympathisers.

Ideally, he's already dead. Then there is no trial, no martyrdom - he's just been simply removed from the equation - which considering the damage caused - can only be a good thing. I don't look at the problem in what he deserves, but just an impartial look at what benefit the most people.

As I said. Hopefully he's dead - if not, a straight forward on the spot execution. No capture, no exposure for his cause or regieme, no public display - it may make people feel good seeing him caught or made to pay for his crimes, but it will do his cause more damage if he is made to disappear without a fuss.

Peace.

[Watagashi]

I personally think that, no matter what someone does, they shouldn't be executed. No one, for any reason, has the right to kill anyone. Of course, severely punish him or imprison him for the rest of his life, but no killing.

[ccffan01]

Living in New York I know how his sick mind affected so many families. What he did was as bad as anything in recent memory. The only punishment "worthy" for him would be excution, and I'm not talking about leathel injection, give him the "Chair".

[James]

I understand the anger ccffan01 and normally I'd agree with Watagashi about imprisoning him, but I think it will do more harm to people keeping him alive that it will do good.

Any public display of his death or satisfaction from it will only cause more tension in the Middle East. If that can be avoided, I'd say that would be critically important step. Any public or high profile death would serve no purpose and this would be an opportunity to show the world that we are above such needs for revenge.

Imprisonment is expensive, high profile and dangerous. While he is alive he will become a target of many ransome demands. Bin Laden has many sympathisers and will almost definately result in terrorist acts being made in his name or in demand for his release.
As I said before Trial is risky. I know many will scoff and declare that we all know he's guilty - he very likely is, but in the eyes of an impartial court (and such a high profile case with the entire world watching it would have to be impartial) there is a chance that he would not receive the maximum sentence. Either way, it becomes fuel to his followers - another injustice by the West.

Little has been heard of late, I wouldn't be surprised if he has been bombed to death. With DNA tests being made by the US from cave fragments I wouldn't be surprised if he turns up dead. As I said, it would be the most fortuanate and ironically diplomatic soloution to the problem.

With the situation so critical in the Middle East, damage control should be high on the agenda if we are to hope for any sign of peace in this area of the world.

[Failure]

Ideally, Osama is dead. Death is what he deserves. But if he is captured alive and brought back to the US, we as a country deserve the right to give him a fair trial. It's risky, but by doing that, we're saying "screw you" to every person, group, and country who disagrees with our way of life. It's taking the high road. Does Osama deserve the high road, does he deserve a trial? No, like some have said, Osama deserves to suffer for what he's done. But I feel we have to follow our established beliefs and norms, just to show that nobody can shake our way of life.

[kiddiesunshine]

slit his throat and bomb him!!

[Naraht]

OK...I'll play devils advocate here...

Look at the Middle East, specifically Israel.
As a Jew, I can say...there isn't going to be peace anytime soon. Why?

We Kill Them, therefore they kill us. We killed them, because they killed us. At somepoint, someone has got to say Enough Is Enough.

I am against killing anyone, for any reason. Killing Ossama isn't the answer...Someone will pick up where he left off. Imprisonment is a much more viable alternative, but in the long run...awareness, and prevention are the more important things for us to concentrate on. Killing Osama, or even imprisoning him won't bring those victims back. The best thing to do is never surrender, never forget.

[SilverKnight]

My friends, there is no solution.

Why? Here's why:

Trial: As SJJ said, he could get off. Although, to me, that's of little consequence. I wish we could try him. As Failure said, it'd be a big "screw you" to those who wish to break us. By not following our own rules, we sabotage ourselves. He would either be imprisoned or sentenced to death, whereas the violence would increase sharply to scare us into either killing him--the infidels at work--or freeing him--the infidels are afraid.

Public Death: Impossible. While many thirst for revenge, this ISN'T the right thing to do. This only shows the sympathizers that Osama is right. That in UNACCEPTABLE. It'd make him a martyr, but in the worst way possible. Those who sympathize with him will galvanize themselves into action, dedicated more thoroughly to destroying the west. Think of it as if Rudy Guiliani were publicly executed in Kabul, and you'll get what I'm saying.

Private Execution: This would again make him a martyr, but there would be no time to live it up in the spotlight. He simply died while fighting. This would still galvanize his supporters into action, but they would be hit harder. Osama...died? He wasn't murdered ruthlessly by vengeful infidels in their homeland, he died in his own land. While that may sound no different from the public death, Bin Laden's people would be quelled for the moment.

Ideally, I'd love to go with naraht. I despise thinking in such cold, analytical manners about someone living. Even Osama Bin Laden. I'd love to say "enough is enough" and put down the sword and just hope everything comes out okay. Maybe in the long run, that would work. Maybe by showing them we can commit to peace, they would no longer have a reason to hate us. It's kind of like hating a priest--it doesn't work.

BUT--that would be ideal. The world is hardly ideal. The private execution to me is the safest and most logical choice. It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I respectfully disagree with anyone who says that bin Laden should be imprisoned for life.

Do you know what jails have these days? They have cable, N64 and a bunch of other consoles, weight rooms, decent food, pools, and other assorted stuff that even some of us would like to have. Anybody who goes to jail gets this. Sex offenders even get magazines for free, and you know which ones I'm talking about.

Bin Laden probably won't enjoy his stay anyway; the inmates at the prisons are American, too. But he'll probably be put in solitary confinement anyway, so no need to "worry" about that. That guy is currently on the run, living in caves, and he is suffering and I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT.

Prison is going to be paradise compared to wherever he is (wait, anything in comparison to Afghanistan is....). He is never punished by the system because of the environment and the protection he will get from our system from the other inmates.

I highly recommend the Mexican firing squad, burning at the stake, or severing one body part at a time til he bleeds to death. Then decapitate him and find something fun to do with the head.

Rock 'n' Roll only
The Guitar Slayer :mad:

I saw the whole thing September 11 from Jersey from my high school. Don't ask me how many family members of my friends almost died that day.

[Sir Gatts]

It's just as the United States Marine Corps said:

It's Gods responsibility to forgive Bin Laden.
It's our responsibility to arrange the meeting.

[SilverKnight]

I'm sorry to hear that. I have no idea what that would feel like, and I don't want to hazard to imagine. But, I think your emotions are running away with you. It's understandable, but the leaders of the free world can't do that. Remember, we're making history. Anything we do today will have profound repercussions years from now. What would you rather have twenty years from now? Peace or war? That's what the choice will be depending on our actions TODAY. I can feel for your reaction, part of me feels the same way, but we can't allow ourselves to play into the role Bin Laden wove for us.

Someone once said, in paraphrase, "People say I should teach my students the way to heaven. I'd rather teach them the way to Hell, so they know where not to go." We may not be sure of how to proceed, but we MUST NOT become what he and his sympathizers portray us to be. It's that simple.

[Failure]

I have to agree with SilverKnighht, there's too much emotion surrounding this for people to think clearly. It's like if a guy killed my family, would I want to take justice in my own hands and pay back the killer? Yes. But the law doesnt allow me to do that, even though I feel the killer deserves to pay in the way I see fit. This is bin laden, only there are thousands who want payback because of direct suffering, and millions more who want payback, because of their feelings for those who suffered. But the law is the law, and if bin laden were caught alive, we have to put him through the system. (Personally, I hate the system, it's slow, it's ineffective, basically it sucks. But it's our system).

This makes me wonder... I wouldnt be surprised if we had a special forces kill bin laden, and then the government would tell us and everyone that bin laden just disappeared and they couldnt find him. This would seem to be the best choice to keep from making him a martyr to his followers.

[austin norsworthy]

we sould send this to the president. I honestly don't know much about but I just want to confess.

I don't have much sympathy for the victoms. God, I'm so ashamed. I'ts probaly because I have had a life so many would kill for. the only tragic moment in my life is when my grandma died.


go ahead and hit me with everything you've got. I desirve it.

[Trent Lane]

Everyone's got there own feeling on the situation, austin. I'm not gonna be judgemental on anyone, just this: I can't imagine the pain and anguish the victim's families feel, especially the unborn children who will never see or know their fathers. That's gotta be a knife in the stomach to them...

And as for Bin Ladin, there's no right thing to do. Kill him, we're the bad guy, keep him alive, well, not too many will be happy. I don't want him dead, tho he'll probably take his own life before we get to him. In an ideal world, we'd capture him and put him in a cell deep underground cut off from everything, with two meals a day and an hour of light. Although, in a ideal world, people like him wouldn't exsist anyway...

Just send in some of those special op guys and have then finish the job. I'm not saying it's the right way, but it's one of the few ways he'll be taken care of once and for all...

[James]

I must say I am really pleasantly surprised about the responses on this thread.

I was expecting a far more emotional posts calling for justice/revenge for the tragic circumstances that have incurred. September 11th was understandably a profoundly terrifying attack on America ( a country which has had to deal with comparitively very little terrorism) and yet the posts here, have been thoughtful and intelligent. The outlook has been that of civilized people and not people out for blood. I mean no disrepect, but I did expect a far more emotional response - something this issue really needs to avoid.

Throughout the months, I must confess to wondering how far America would take this retribution - I don't have much faith in Bush himself as a man of tolerance (a personal opinion - I await to be proved wrong! :) ) but I hope your goverenment handles the end of the crisis with the intelligence and open mind as the people have here.

Just to reaffirm my POV, I agree that imprisonment is the ethical and correct proceedings. Indeed trial would be risky. Witness' and direct evidence is lacking and perhaps may cause problems in prosecuting the man - regardless of whether you believe he did it. I admire the people here who have said they rather take the risk and prove what they feel a society should be like.

Preferably, I would hope (and I don't believe I'm saying this!) that the army could dispose of him without disclosing the fact they had done so. A secret execution, with no proof that he was found and may have been bombed in the hills - that would be the best political circumstance if not the best ethical one. No one knows what happened to him - that way it would become difficult to Martyr him.

Unfortunately, a trial would possible bring him one step closer to becoming a martyr. It would be a dangerous route, and many innocent people may die as a bi-product of this action, but it is indeed the civilized route.

As I said, hopefully he is already no more. It would be the best political situation and the best way to a more long term soloution to the crisis in the Middle East.

Interesting stuff.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Okay, blood pressure is back to normal.

When I wrote the previous post, primal instinct took over. Blood for blood. Whenever someone goes through a trauma, the first response is emotional. The body is in shock, the mind is spinning out of control....

Ever see that episode of MASH when the characters dream? Margaret's dream/nightmare was her standing in the middle of a field in her white wedding dress. She is covered in blood in shock. She is completely helpless.

Everyone at the school was weeping that day. Except, seemingly for me. I was the one just standing there in shock. I skipped the external emotional responses and went right to "Who did this? Why did this happen? This is movie. This can't happen. This is too surreal. No way. No freakin' way. Get the bastards who did this." When everybody fell apart, I stood cold.

Call me heartless, I never cried over September 11. Why, I don't know. I'm a writer. Everything I felt is written down in a journal somewhere.

I suppose this is therapeutic for me. I don't emote particularly well.

I still think bin Laden should not pay for his crimes in a cushy high security jail cell. I still think bin Laden should physically suffer for his crimes.

But then, as SilverKnight, SJJ, et. al. said, this will affect our children and grandchildren, depending how we deal with this. Peace or war? Peace, preferably. Thus, we cannot make bin Laden a martyr. Yet, he undoubtly deserves some sort of punishment. As long as he is still around, Al Qaeda and other terrorist connections are a monster with a head. It is a cache-22.

As for the future, we might go to war anyway. Either because of the long dead 'martyr' or bin Laden pulls something like this again in the future.

Peace and Rock 'n' Roll
The Guitar Slayer

[Failure]

Actually, now that I think about it, a trial might not be as risky as we (or at least I) first thought. I forgot for a moment that if bin laden were caught and sent to trial, it wouldnt be a normal trial, it would be a military trial. And my vague understanding of this is that, there is no jury, and the proceedings usually go in the form of "guilty unless proven innocent." Still a bit risky, but maybe not as risky as we might have first thought.

[Batmex]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SJJ
[B]
Imprisonment is expensive, high profile and dangerous. While he is alive he will become a target of many ransome demands. Bin Laden has many sympathisers and will almost definately result in terrorist acts being made in his name or in demand for his release.

I NEVER thought of that! That dealing with his fate is so darn complicated

[BWDK]

Killing is not the right thing to do. I don't mankind is the one to judge.

Personally I think he deserves the worst things this planet has offer, however it won't bring back the lifes he has taken.

IMO the best thing to do is lock him up in a cold, dark nasty hole with nothing, no light, no colors, just a plain nothing. He should get food once a day and he should be kept alive under any circumstances, because I believe, if you kill him you'll probably do him a favor.

[James]

Originally posted by BWDK
Killing is not the right thing to do. I don't mankind is the one to judge.


His death in my eyes would be neither meant as a mercy or revenge - it would not be a statement to those who have suffered or as an act of justice for his crimes.

His death would be not be a judgement, just a dispassionate soloution to prevent martyrdom. If he just 'disappeared' - and there was no evidence of his status dead or alive, his presence and effect would hopefully diminish into nothing.

But as everyone has said, if we were to be noble and stand by our beliefs, he should be put on trial - regardless of the consequences. I'm not much of one for morality in such as sense, I just want to see soloution which will save as much grief and polictical tension as humanly possible. The future world stability for future generations holds more relevance than an act of mercy/justice today. In relation to a better a future, I'd say the ethical soloution to one man amounts to very little.

[BWDK]

Oops I forgot to type the verb. It's supposed to be:

I don't think mankind is the one to judge.

[James]

We all do that.. the meaning came across true and proper BWDK! :)

[SilverKnight]

Let me just put this on the table for everyone. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but:

The ethical thing to do is not always the RIGHT thing to do.
-and vice versa-
The right thing to do is not always the ETHICAL thing to do.

Now, which one is which, and which solution falls under which category? That's a question we all have to answer. A simple execution, or Bin Laden disappearing, is the RIGHT thing to do. Is it the ETHICAL thing to do, though? It goes against all our principles.

But, playing the other side of the field, a trial. It's the ethical thing to do, per se, but it's not the RIGHT thing to do. By sending him through our justice system, it will only inflammate the situation.

But what is "ethical" and "right"? Aren't they the same thing?

No.

Ethical more or less means doing what the laws of society govern us to do. Don't steal, don't cheat, etc.

RIGHT means doing the correct thing in that situation, whether it be ETHICAL or not. Now, going back to my original statements, which falls under what category, and which will screw humanity worse in the long run? My answer is only my opinion. The choice is up to you.

[BWDK]

Overall I think this is a question that needs to be answered individually. It depends whether you think it's appropriate to take a life or not.

[The Guard]

My two cents...

None of the people that took part in 9-11 can EVER be made to pay for what they did. There is only so much suffering you can put someone through. Think of all the broken homes, children without parents, people who have lost loved ones...

We lost 6,000 CIVILIANS. Not soldiers. CIVILIANS. They killed innocent people. Parents, children, friends, neighbors...

Knowing full well that it was wrong.

They can never be made to suffer enough. Perhaps a higher power can, but nothing we do can make them pay enough. Killing Bin Laden will end any suffering he might have, any fear...unless that higher power decides to be vengeful.

There are lives that we will never get back. And killing one man will not bring them back. The government talks of a war on terrorism. If that's the case, then follow through. Hunt down and eradicate ALL traces of terrorism in this world. I for one will not be "satisfied" with the death of one medium sized fish. If they execute Bin Laden and ignore the rest of the problem, then there's no point.

I hold human life in high regard. There is nothing more precious.

But a part of me wants him dead. Because of what he enabled, and what happened because of him.

Regardless, when they find him, he's a dead man. He will be tried, found guilty, and executed. Just to get it over with. No military tribunal will find him innocent or push for less than the death penalty.

[The Mad Hatter]

Actually, the death toll's down to 3,000 or so. Still pretty horrible though, for a civilian attack.

Anyone hear Pakistan's assertion that Osama's likely dead, not from an attack, but from kidney failure? They say he had a dialysis machine, and that all the hiding made it less likely he would get treatment. Interesting, and perhaps a tad ironic, if it's true.

[The Guard]

Actually, the death toll's down to 3,000 or so.

I won't complain. When it first happened, they were talking about 20,000...

Still...each one of those 3,000 was a LIFE. Someone with family, friends...

[James]

Originally posted by The Guard
My two cents...

None of the people that took part in 9-11 can EVER be made to pay for what they did. There is only so much suffering you can put someone through. Think of all the broken homes, children without parents, people who have lost loved ones...

We lost 6,000 CIVILIANS. Not soldiers. CIVILIANS. They killed innocent people. Parents, children, friends, neighbors...

Knowing full well that it was wrong.


Did they know it's wrong? I doubt it. The first objective in understanding the full scale of the tragedy is to understand both sides of the conflict. Your evil is another man's good. There is no such thing as 'evil', it's just different perspectives.

Again, before I'm flamed to death, this by no means I personally feel/agree for the attackers, but I just think it's time we as people understood that people do things for a reason. They may be totally wrong, and they may lead to pain and suffering but there is no such concept as evil. That's a backwards concept that belongs (in my opinion!) with spooks and goblins.

Some, nay many, from the Middle East regions see the West as evil. To them their hatred of the US and company stems from the fact that they see all Westerners as Evil whether from a political or more likely religious perspective.
I would say that no one in the West sees themselves as Evil, again, it is a matter of perspective.

In regards to the point which I am straying from, in the perspective of the attackers, they will genuinely see what they've done as doing no wrong. Not being a fanatical supporter of anti western philosophy, I can't say what their stance would be, but I imagine they are taught and believe that the 'Evil' west holds no worth on their regilious perspective. Perhaps in some ways, they see the peopls of the US as being less than human. Whatever the reason, my point is that they do not adhere to the same perspective, morals or ideology that you and I do.

Whether their philosophy is right or wrong is entirely different. From a humanitarian point of view, their activities have been cold and calculating with a entire disregard for the respect of all human life. That's not my issue.

My issue is that to understand and come closer to a solution to any problem, we must try and appreciate the perspective of all involved. If we don't, then that's where mistakes occur.

To find an answer, you most understand the question. Everyone has a different point of view - even if it is the most vile and opposing one you can imagine, you must try to understand even if you don't empathise.

That is why I'm such a advocate against the terms 'good' and 'evil'. It's a dangerous path as these attackers have proven. It seems that because they were able to blanket all Westerners as Evil, that means they need not have regard for the people they'll harm.

It is vital we don't make the same error when trying to come to terms with these people. Understanding is difficult and often very uncomfortable, condemning people as evil is in fact very easy.

I hope I have not offended anyone with this, and it was not aimed anyone's post in particular. I just think that it's a perspective we should all try and consider.




There are lives that we will never get back. And killing one man will not bring them back. The government talks of a war on terrorism. If that's the case, then follow through. Hunt down and eradicate ALL traces of terrorism in this world. I for one will not be "satisfied" with the death of one medium sized fish. If they execute Bin Laden and ignore the rest of the problem, then there's no point.


The danger your goverenment faces, is pledging something it cannot possibly deliver. A stronger policy against terrorism is one thing - to eradicate all terrorism is an impossibilty. It a dangerous political line to take. A vote winner in the short term but impossible to implement.




I hold human life in high regard. There is nothing more precious.


That is a commendable perspective and one that I think we all respect.



But a part of me wants him dead. Because of what he enabled, and what happened because of him.


Should never feel bad about how you feel - it's how you act on those feelings which matters!



Regardless, when they find him, he's a dead man. He will be tried, found guilty, and executed. Just to get it over with. No military tribunal will find him innocent or push for less than the death penalty.

I'm not sure if it goes to a military tribunal. This is as polictical as it is military. Can anyone shed light on whole the trial would be held?

Steve

[The Guard]

Did they know it's wrong? I doubt it. The first objective in understanding the full scale of the tragedy is to understand both sides of the conflict. Your evil is another man's good.

I should have been more specific. I was not really referring to the people that actually flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Not that I excuse them, but they are, from a young age, the product of almost brainwashing. If we were told things about Afghanistan for years, WE would think THEY were less than human. But somewhere in the entire plan, someone (Looking in the Americans' direction here) knew that it was wrong. And they did it anyway. I don't care about their Holy War. All I care about is that they were too cowardly to actually take on someone who could defend themselves. You could argue "tolerance" all night, but in the end, I would still be angry.

There is no such thing as 'evil', it's just different perspectives.

I'm sorry. But there IS evil in this world. Maybe not in September 11, but there is evil...

Again, before I'm flamed to death, this by no means I personally feel/agree for the attackers, but I just think it's time we as people understood that people do things for a reason. They may be totally wrong, and they may lead to pain and suffering but there is no such concept as evil. That's a backwards concept that belongs (in my opinion!) with spooks and goblins.

What's wrong with spooks and goblins? :)

Some, nay many, from the Middle East regions see the West as evil. To them their hatred of the US and company stems from the fact that they see all Westerners as Evil whether from a political or more likely religious perspective.
I would say that no one in the West sees themselves as Evil, again, it is a matter of perspective.

In regards to the point which I am straying from, in the perspective of the attackers, they will genuinely see what they've done as doing no wrong. Not being a fanatical supporter of anti western philosophy, I can't say what their stance would be, but I imagine they are taught and believe that the 'Evil' west holds no worth on their regilious perspective. Perhaps in some ways, they see the peopls of the US as being less than human. Whatever the reason, my point is that they do not adhere to the same perspective, morals or ideology that you and I do.

Whether their philosophy is right or wrong is entirely different. From a humanitarian point of view, their activities have been cold and calculating with a entire disregard for the respect of all human life. That's not my issue.

My issue is that to understand and come closer to a solution to any problem, we must try and appreciate the perspective of all involved. If we don't, then that's where mistakes occur.

To find an answer, you most understand the question. Everyone has a different point of view - even if it is the most vile and opposing one you can imagine, you must try to understand even if you don't empathise.

That is why I'm such a advocate against the terms 'good' and 'evil'. It's a dangerous path as these attackers have proven. It seems that because they were able to blanket all Westerners as Evil, that means they need not have regard for the people they'll harm.

It is vital we don't make the same error when trying to come to terms with these people. Understanding is difficult and often very uncomfortable, condemning people as evil is in fact very easy.

I hope I have not offended anyone with this, and it was not aimed anyone's post in particular. I just think that it's a perspective we should all try and consider.

The danger your government faces, is pledging something it cannot possibly deliver. A stronger policy against terrorism is one thing - to eradicate all terrorism is an impossibilty. It a dangerous political line to take. A vote winner in the short term but impossible to implement.

Yes, it is impossible. Just like it's impossible to win a war on crime. No one wins here. No one. The United States can turn entire regions into smoking craters, but at what cost?

I'm not sure if it goes to a military tribunal. This is as political as it is military. Can anyone shed light on whole the trial would be held?

This is why tribunals are reappearing. Because no one is impartial. The point is, after whoever is found guilty, there will be no appeals, no long drawn out court battles. Just punishment.

[Danielle]

Timothy McVeigh was executed for blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma, killing many people. The World Trade Center was much bigger, and more lives were lost. Kinda like a kol v'chomer (don't ask :rolleyes: ); if McVeigh was executed for that, how much more so should Bin Laden be executed.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ
They may be totally wrong, and they may lead to pain and suffering but there is no such concept as evil. That's a backwards concept that belongs (in my opinion!) with spooks and goblins.

Well, we need to be careful about meaning here. What do you mean when you say "there is no such concept as evil"?

Literally, you are saying that there is no such concept. But concepts can exist even when there is nothing that the concept applies to; there is such a thing as the concept of a unicorn, even though there are no unicorns. And, just as clearly, the concept of evil exists, since people talk about it all the time.

So you must mean that evil doesn't exist. But what exactly are you saying when you assert this? Are you saying that there are no objects of which "evilness" can be predicated? Are you denying the existence of a substantive property called "evil"? Or are you denying the meaningfulness of the term "evil"?

These are all different claims. Perhaps I can explain by comparing it to the concepts of a "sake" and "happy."

"I am doing this for your sake," your mother says. Question: What is your sake? What kind of thing is it? Is it a physical thing? Where do you keep it? Do you have only one sake, or many? Obviously the questions are nonsensical. There are no objects to which you can point and say, "That is a sake" the way you can point and say "That is a kangaroo." But obviously the word can be used meaningfully. You know exactly what someone means when they talk about your sake (or another's).

By contrast, the word "happy" is both meaningful and can be ascribed to objects: "That's a happy man," we say meaningfully, refering to a man of whom happiness can be ascribed. But does it name a substantive property, like color or shape or material composition? It doesn't seem like you find a physical or chemical correlate to the term "happy." But that fact doesn't argue against the legitimate use of the term happy.

You may mean that "evil" is like "happy" in the sense that it cannot be made into a scientifically respectable property. Or you may mean that it cannot be used to denote specific objects the way "red" or "elephant" can be. But neither of these facts implies that the term is meaningless or that it cannot have a genuine use.

On a separate note, if you are reluctant to use the word "evil," what word would you use to describe the Holocaust or the killing fields?


Some, nay many, from the Middle East regions see the West as evil. To them their hatred of the US and company stems from the fact that they see all Westerners as Evil whether from a political or more likely religious perspective. I would say that no one in the West sees themselves as Evil, again, it is a matter of perspective. [/B]

A caution: Don't confuse a lack of agreement with the non-existence of a fact of the matter. "That's a rhinocerous," say I. "No, it's a hippopotamus," says you. The fact that we disagree does not imply that there is neither a rhinocerous nor a hippopotamus in the vicinity. It is quite possible that it is one or other, and that one of is mistaken. So too with moral disagreements. Otherwise you are forced into the nasty position of suggesting that the Nazis merely had a different "perspective" on the merits of genocide.

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Well, we need to be careful about meaning here. What do you mean when you say "there is no such concept as evil"?

Literally, you are saying that there is no such concept. But concepts can exist even when there is nothing that the concept applies to; there is such a thing as the concept of a unicorn, even though there are no unicorns. And, just as clearly, the concept of evil exists, since people talk about it all the time.

My apologies. On a subject as sensitive as this I should have been more careful with my words. Yes, by definition, there is such a concept as evil. That was dumb of me to put it like that (teach me to type faster than I can think).

No disagreement.



A caution: Don't confuse a lack of agreement with the non-existence of a fact of the matter. "That's a rhinocerous," say I. "No, it's a hippopotamus," says you. The fact that we disagree does not imply that there is neither a rhinocerous nor a hippopotamus in the vicinity. It is quite possible that it is one or other, and that one of is mistaken. So too with moral disagreements. Otherwise you are forced into the nasty position of suggesting that the Nazis merely had a different "perspective" on the merits of genocide.

Fair enough, but surely in the end we are talking about motivations rather than outcome. To say someone was evil, you are refering to him as a person not specifically his actions (although they will play a part in the assessment.

To go back to your excellent analogy, "That's a rhinocerous" says I. "Well I say it's it's a hippopotamus, and to think that it's a rhino is beyond my understanding and I condemn you for it." In other words, the man who believes it's a hippo can't understand why the other sees a rhino and condemns him outright without trying to see why the other sees a rhino."

As with tha Nazi's, you can judge the action - that from your perspective - is wrong. To any humanitarian is an act of wrong doing. A gross misconduct and disgusting.
I most confess to prefer judging actions as right and wrong. A choice. A right one, a wrong one. To me, the holocaust was a wrong action. Those people had a choice and the result of that action has caused much death and pain, for an ideology - I can never agree that an ideal should take preference over human life. The Nazi's felt different, believing in a manifest destiny for their race.

So I find to assess the Nazi's as evil avoids addressing the motivations behind these people. They didn't see it as evil. Many saw it as a just act. Whether it be for racial superioity or personal hatred, they had motivation which made them comfortable with their direction. I think it's vital to make sure we look behind the simplicity of the concept of evil and why people act in this way - not to decide whether you agree with the actions but understand why that person felt they had the right to it. People are people. They are complex and sometimes very different that is clear. Understanding why someone did something is part of the way to understanding how to deal with it in the future.

Classifying people as 'evil' is a comforting concept as it means we can distance ourselves from them - they are not people, they are evil.

Deny the fact that they are indeed people and people are actually capable of such deplorable acts and we'll never outgrow intolerance because we'll never understand it.

What's one persons evil is another man's good. It's a horrible world out there and we need to face it with open eyes and not the closed and simplistic concept of 'Evil' populated by the gutter press.

Peace.

(PS: Guard - I'll forgive you for believing in goblins - but ghosts? nah, never happen... :D )