1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Would you personally kill Osama Bin Laden?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by DaDakota, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Mr. Brightside

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    2,148
    I agree. It was just hyperbole. Just like no one here would really kill Bin Laden, no one would really do the same to anyone else.
     
  2. mrdave543

    mrdave543 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    60
    its totally different, there are laws against what you said, and I GUARANTEE YOU I WOULD REALLY KILL BIN LADEN

    to compare our President to the b*stard bin laden is idiotic
     
  3. BenignDMD

    BenignDMD Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    128
    In a heartbeat...
     
  4. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13

    A NEW HOLY WAR AGAINST EVIL?


    David R. Loy
    Professor
    Faculty of International Studies



    Like most other Americans, I have been struggling to digest the events of
    the last week. It has taken a while to realize how psychically numbed many
    of us are. In the space of a few hours, our world changed. We do not yet
    know what those changes will mean, but the most important long-term ones
    may well be psychological.

    Americans have always understood the United States to be a special and
    uniquely privileged place. The Puritans viewed New England as the Promised
    Land. According to Melville, "We Americans are the peculiar, chosen
    people." In many parts of the globe the twentieth century has been
    particularly horrible, but the continental United States has been so
    insulated from these tragedies that we have come to think of ourselves as
    immune to them - although we have often contributed to them.

    That confidence has been abruptly shattered. We have discovered that the
    borderless world of globalization allows us no refuge from the hatred and
    violence that predominate in many parts of the world.

    Every death reminds us of our own, and sudden, unexpected death on such a
    large scale makes it harder to repress awareness of our own mortality. Our
    obsessions with such things as money, consumerism, and professional sports
    have been revealed for what they are: unworthy of all the attention we
    devote to them. There is something valuable to learn here, but this
    reality nonetheless makes us quite uncomfortable. We do not like to think
    about death. We usually prefer to be distracted.

    Talk of vengeance and "bomb them back to the stone age" makes many of us
    uneasy, but naturally we want to strike back. On Friday September 14
    President Bush declared that the United States has been called to a new
    worldwide mission "to rid the world of evil," and on the following Sunday
    he said that the government is determined to "rid the world of evil-doers."
    Our land of freedom now has a responsibility to extirpate the world of its
    evil. We may no longer have an "evil empire" to defeat, but we have found
    a more sinister evil that will require a long-term, all-out war to destroy.

    If anything is evil, those terrorist attacks were evil. I share that
    sentiment. It must be emphasized. At the same time, however, I think we
    need to take a close look at the rhetoric. When Bush says he wants to rid
    the world of evil, alarm bells go off in my mind, because that is what
    Hitler and Stalin also wanted to do.

    I'm not defending either of those evil-doers, just explaining what they
    were trying to do. What was the problem with Jews that required a "final
    solution"? The earth could be made pure for the Aryan race only by
    exterminating the Jews, the impure vermin who contaminate it. Stalin
    needed to exterminate well-to-do Russian peasants to establish his ideal
    society of collective farmers. Both were trying to perfect this world by
    eliminating its impurities. The world can be made good only by destroying
    its evil elements.

    Paradoxically, then, one of the main causes of evil in this world has been
    human attempts to eradicate evil.


    Friday's Washington Post quoted Joshua Teitelbaum, a scholar who has
    studied a more contemporary evil-doer: "Osama bin Laden looks at the world
    in very stark, black-and-white terms. For him, the U.S. represents the
    forces of evil that are bringing corruption and domination into the Islamic
    world".

    What is the difference between bin Laden's view and Bush's? They are
    mirror opposites. What bin Laden sees as good - an Islamic jihad against
    an impious and materialistic imperialism - Bush sees as evil. What Bush
    sees as good - America the defender of freedom - bin Laden sees as evil.
    They are two different versions of the same holy-war-between-good-and-evil.

    Do not misunderstand me here. I am not equating them morally, nor in any
    way trying to excuse the horrific events of last Tuesday. From a Buddhist
    perspective, however, there is something dangerously delusive about the
    mirror-image views of both sides. We must understand how this
    black-and-white way of thinking deludes not only Islamic terrorists but
    also us, and therefore brings more suffering into the world.

    This dualism of good-versus-evil is attractive because it is a simple way
    of looking at the world. And most of us are quite familiar with it.
    Although it is not unique to the Abrahamic religions - Judaism,
    Christianity, and Islam - it is especially important for them. It is one
    of the reasons why the conflicts among them have been so difficult to
    resolve peacefully: adherents tend to identify their own religion as good
    and demonize the other as evil.

    It is difficult to turn the other cheek when we view the world through
    these spectacles, because this rationalizes the opposite principle: an eye
    for an eye. If the world is a battleground of good and evil forces, the
    evil that is in the world must be fought by any means necessary.

    The secularization of the modern West did not eliminate this tendency. In
    some ways it has intensified it, because we can no longer rely on a
    supernatural resolution. We have to depend upon ourselves to bring about
    the final victory of good over evil - as Hitler and Stalin tried to do. It
    is unclear how much help bin Laden and Bush expect from God.

    Why do I emphasize this dualism? The basic problem with this way of
    understanding conflict is that it tends to preclude thought, because it is
    so simplistic. It keeps us from looking deeper, from trying to discover
    causes. Once something has been identified as evil, there is no more need
    to explain it; it is time to focus on fighting against it. This is where
    Buddhism has something important to contribute.

    Buddhism emphasizes the three roots of evil, also known as the three
    poisons: greed, ill will and delusion. The Abrahamic religions emphasize
    the struggle between good and evil because for them the basic issue depends
    on our will: which side are we on? In contrast, Buddhism emphasizes
    ignorance and enlightenment because the basic issue depends on our
    self-knowledge: do we really understand what motivates us?

    According to Buddhism, every effect has its web of causes and conditions.
    This is the law of karma. One way to summarize the essential Buddhist
    teaching is that we suffer, and cause others to suffer, because of greed,
    ill will and delusion. Karma implies that when our actions are motivated
    by these roots of evil, their negative consequences tend to rebound back
    upon us. The Buddhist solution to suffering involves transforming our
    greed into generosity, our ill will into loving-kindness, and our delusions
    into wisdom.

    What do these Buddhist teachings imply about the situation we now find
    ourselves in?

    We cannot focus only on the second root of evil, the hatred and violence
    that have just been directed against the United States. The three roots
    are intertwined. Ill will cannot be separated from greed and delusion.
    This requires us to ask: why do so many people in the Middle East, in
    particular, hate us so much? What have we done to encourage that hatred?
    Americans think of America as defending freedom and justice, but obviously
    that is not the way they perceive us. Are they just misinformed, then, or
    is it we who are misinformed?

    "Does anybody think that we can send the USS New Jersey to lob
    Volkswagen-sized shells into Lebanese villages -- Reagan, 1983 -- or loose
    'smart bombs' on civilians seeking shelter in a Baghdad bunker -- Bush,
    1991 -- or fire cruise missiles on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory --
    Clinton, 1999 -- and not receive, someday, our share in kind?" (Micah
    Sifry)

    In particular, how much of our foreign policy in the Middle East has been
    motivated by our love of freedom and democracy, and how much has been
    motivated by our need - our greed - for its oil? If our main priority has
    been securing oil supplies, does it mean that our petroleum-based economy
    is one of the causes of last week's attack?

    Finally, Buddhist teachings suggest that we look at the role of delusion in
    creating this situation. Delusion has a special meaning in Buddhism. The
    fundamental delusion is our sense of separation from the world we are "in,"
    including other people. Insofar as we feel separate from others, we are
    more inclined to manipulate them to get what we want. This naturally
    breeds resentment - both from others, who do not like to be used, and
    within ourselves, when we do not get what we want. . . . Is this also true
    collectively?

    Delusion becomes wisdom when we realize that "no one is an island." We are
    interdependent because we are all part of each other, different facets of
    the same jewel we call the earth. This world is a not a collection of
    objects but a community of subjects. That interdependence means we cannot
    avoid responsibility for each other. This is true not only for the
    residents of lower Manhattan, as I write uniting together in response to
    this catastrophe, but for all the people in the world, however deluded they
    may be. Yes, including the terrorists who did these heinous acts and those
    who support them.

    Do not misunderstand me here. Those responsible for the attacks must be
    caught and brought to justice. That is our responsibility to all those who
    have suffered, and that is also our responsibility to the deluded and
    hate-full terrorists, who must be stopped. Those who intend other
    terrorist actions must also be stopped. If, however, we want to stop this
    cycle of hatred and violence, we must realize that our responsibility is
    much broader than that.

    Realizing our interdependence and mutual responsibility for each other
    implies something more. When we try to live this interdependence, it is
    called love. Love is more than a feeling, it is a mode of being in the
    world. In Buddhism we talk mostly about compassion, generosity, and
    loving-kindness, but they all reflect this mode of being. Such love is
    sometimes mocked as weak and ineffectual, yet it can be very powerful, as
    Gandhi showed. And it embodies a deep wisdom about how the cycle of
    hatred and violence works and about how that cycle can be ended. An eye
    for an eye makes the whole world blind, but there is an alternative.
    Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha said:

    "He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- for those who
    harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.

    "He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- for those who
    do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.

    In this world hatred is never appeased by hatred; hatred is always appeased
    by love. This is an ancient law. (Dhammapada, 3-5)

    Of course, this transformative insight is not unique to Buddhism. After
    all, it was not the Buddha who gave us the image of turning the other
    cheek. In all the Abrahamic religions the tradition of a holy war between
    good and evil coexists with this "ancient law" about the power of love.
    That does not mean all the world's religions have emphasized this law to
    the same extent. In fact, I wonder if this is one way to measure the
    maturity of a religion, or at least its continuing relevance for us today:
    how much the liberative truth of this law is acknowledged and encouraged.
    I do not know enough about Islam to compare, but in the cases of Buddhism
    and Christianity, for example, it is the times when this truth has not been
    emphasized that these two religions have been most subverted by secular
    rulers and nationalistic fervor.

    So where does that leave us today? We find ourselves at a turning point.
    A lust for vengeance and violent retaliation is rising, fanned by a leader
    caught up in his own rhetoric of a holy war to purify the world of evil.
    Please consider: does the previous sentence describe bin Laden, or
    President Bush?

    Many people now want retaliation and vengeance - well, that is what the
    terrorists wanted. If we pursue the path of large-scale violence, bin
    Laden's holy war and Bush's holy war will become two sides of the same war.

    No one can foresee all the consequences of such a war. They are likely to
    spin out of control and take on a life of their own. However, one sobering
    effect is clearly implied by the "ancient law": massive retaliation by the
    United States in the Middle East will spawn a new generation of suicidal
    terrorists, eager to do their part in this holy war.

    But widespread violence is not the only possibility. If this time of
    crisis encourages us to see through the rhetoric of a war to exterminate
    evil, and if we begin to understand the intertwined roots of this evil,
    including our own responsibility, then perhaps something good may yet come
    out of this catastrophic tragedy.



    David R. Loy
    loy@shonan.bunkyo.ac.jp
    18 September 2001
     
  5. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,795
    Likes Received:
    41,234
    Brightside, IMO, you should edit that post. You could go to jail for that. Seriously. Hell, maybe a mod should just lock the thread. I wouldn't mind.




    Keep D&D Civil.
     
  6. mrdave543

    mrdave543 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    60

    You are talking rationally to an irrational person, dont expect him to change it
     
  7. ivanyy2000

    ivanyy2000 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,153
    Likes Received:
    126
    Nobody mentions killing him mean that you are 25M richer and you will become the biggest hero of the nation? :confused:
     
  8. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,261
    Likes Received:
    32,981
    no no no
    Screw that clinical crap
    UP CLOSE AND PERSON
    hands around his neck . . knife in his heart

    Could you do that?

    Rocket River
     
  9. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    are you in the military?
     
  10. univac hal

    univac hal Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    29
    "Good, I can feel your anger. I am unarmed. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete."


    And in case any of you skipped MEOWGI's article:

    "We find ourselves at a turning point. A lust for vengeance and violent retaliation is rising, fanned by a leader caught up in his own rhetoric of a holy war to purify the world of evil. Please consider: does the previous sentence describe bin Laden, or President Bush?

    "Many people now want retaliation and vengeance - well, that is what the terrorists wanted. If we pursue the path of large-scale violence, bin Laden's holy war and Bush's holy war will become two sides of the same war."
     
  11. RocketRaccoon

    RocketRaccoon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    164
    I know you're talking to Dada, but allow me to respond (not for him):

    YES
    (wow, this thread has brought out my darker side)

    RR
     
  12. mrdave543

    mrdave543 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    60
    nope, just a proud american
     
  13. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    no, i could not. it took some time for me to get to a point where i could honestly pray for this guy...for what must be a miserable life spent drowned in hate. i pity him for that.
     
  14. mrdave543

    mrdave543 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,434
    Likes Received:
    60
    Please clarify this for me, I can somewhat understand not wanting to kill a person, but to have pity for this "man" and even pray for him? I just cant fathom
     
  15. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    No, as an atheist I believe in forgiving those who sin againt me and turning the other cheek.


    It is ironic that all this retribution is being wrought by people who believe that this life is just the gateway to heaven. If you really believed that why couldn't you see your way to being a pacifist? Maybe that's not a tenent of Islam but it sure as hell is one of Christs teachings.

    (sure as hell, :D )
     
  16. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,203
    Likes Received:
    15,373
    I have never killed anyone, so I can't really say for sure, and I don't know if I would do it or not.

    I can say that my general understanding from reading about people who have killed others is that if you say you would put a bullet through him and sleep well at night you are either someone who has never thought particularly deeply about the subject or you are a psychopath.
     
  17. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,261
    Likes Received:
    32,981
    I understand
    but
    Dropping a bomb on someone
    shooting them from 500 Feet away
    all that is too easy

    For those who say yes. . . I wanna know can you look into his eyes
    and watch him fade into the hear after

    I beleive I can . . but to me .. . that is a measure of your resolve

    Rocket River
     
  18. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    so if you're real serious in killing him why don't you enlist?
     
  19. DaDakota

    DaDakota Balance wins
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    129,323
    Likes Received:
    39,870
    No difference in my answer, I would kill him if given the chance.

    DD
     
  20. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    Well, the origin of this is in the words of this guy named Jesus. :)

    When I consider how far this man is away from peace...and what that leads to...yeah, it makes me pity him. I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be subject to man's justice. I'm suggesting that I personally can't live in hate and rage and anger. I do not wish to live that way; to be consumed that way. And it's not as if it was easy for me. Not to do so honestly, any way.
     

Share This Page