When a terrorist dies, is it OK to gloat?

[Hermit]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-bom ... -5ko7.html

I don't recall any gloating in Australia or Indonesia when the Bali bombers were executed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Did you celebrate the end of WWII?

The end of a war IS a victory for someone.

Yes, the end of a war is good reason to rejoice, especially on the victors' side. Here, however, we are gloating over an assassination. I am glad that bin Laden can no longer organise crimes against humanity. I am also disappointed about the way it was achieved for reasons explained here.

[Seabass]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-bom ... -5ko7.html

I don't recall any gloating in Australia or Indonesia when the Bali bombers were executed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Really? Not one single, solitary Aussie college kid raised a beer in celebration when the bombers were executed? Well, if that's true, I guess Australians are superior to Americans. Or maybe UBL had a bit more notoriety than the Bali Bombers...

[devogue]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-bom ... -5ko7.html

I don't recall any gloating in Australia or Indonesia when the Bali bombers were executed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Did you celebrate the end of WWII?

The end of a war IS a victory for someone.

Yes, the end of a war is good reason to rejoice, especially on the victors' side. Here, however, we are gloating over an assassination. I am glad that bin Laden can no longer organise crimes against humanity. I am also disappointed about the way it was achieved for reasons explained here.

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

So we can expect to see Sirhan released imminently.

[charlou]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-bom ... -5ko7.html

I don't recall any gloating in Australia or Indonesia when the Bali bombers were executed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Really? Not one single, solitary Aussie college kid raised a beer in celebration when the bombers were executed? Well, if that's true, I guess Australians are superior to Americans. Or maybe UBL had a bit more notoriety than the Bali Bombers...

It's not a contest, just an observation about the difference in reactions.

The Bali bombing was big news and had a profound effect on Australians. I think the difference in response to the deaths of those responsible for the Bali bombing and the death of OBL is interesting to analyse, including the circumstances of each.

[Hermit]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/bali-bom ... -5ko7.html

I don't recall any gloating in Australia or Indonesia when the Bali bombers were executed.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Really? Not one single, solitary Aussie college kid raised a beer in celebration when the bombers were executed? Well, if that's true, I guess Australians are superior to Americans. Or maybe UBL had a bit more notoriety than the Bali Bombers...

What are you actually trying to say here? Gloating is good because it happens among Australians as well as Americans?

[Hermit]

Yes, the end of a war is good reason to rejoice, especially on the victors' side. Here, however, we are gloating over an assassination. I am glad that bin Laden can no longer organise crimes against humanity. I am also disappointed about the way it was achieved for reasons explained here.

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

Try saying that again when you're sober.

[JimC]

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

So we can expect to see Sirhan released imminently.

Your post in another thread making a comparison about a British raid on IRA terrorists on American soil made some sense, and was quite thought provoking... (aside from the completely different international relationships involved)

This one, however, was a bridge too far...

[Coito ergo sum]

Most of the gloaters and celebrants were young folks with an excuse to drink and party. It's the same reaction as when their team wins a championship. Our team won a big game.

Remember, most people aren't very bright, thoughtful or reflective. These are the folks who can't find Iraq - heck, the United States - on a map.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, but it is "o.k." to gloat? In my opinion, no. The best reaction, in my view, would be an air of seriousness, solemnity, and stern grimness. We won. You lost. The next UBL will meet the same fate.

I also don't think we should have honored his religious traditions in burial. We ought to have disposed of the body on our time, in whatever manner we saw fit. Let the next religious nutter know that he won't be "honored" in his demise. By following the religious requirements, we implicitly acknowledged that he was a man to be respected. He wasn't.

[devogue]

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

So we can expect to see Sirhan released imminently.

Your post in another thread making a comparison about a British raid on IRA terrorists on American soil made some sense, and was quite thought provoking... (aside from the completely different international relationships involved)

This one, however, was a bridge too far...

Of course Kennedy and bin Laden have nothing in common, but that's not the point I am making.

I am talking about:

a) their killers

b) the motives they had for killing their respective victims

c) the legality of those killings within their respective jurisdictions

d) the fate of the killers

Sirhan's actions were clearly illegal under US law although (initially, at least) he claimed they were politically motivated.

The USA's actions were clearly illegal under the terms of Article Three of the fourth Geneva Convention and they were clearly politically motivated.

Sirhan's most recent appeal for parole after 42 years of imprisonment was refused because he "still does not understand the full ramifications of his crime", but US special forces, military commanders and high ranking government officials will be lauded as heroes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Julia Gillard defends bin Laden celebrations
From: AAP May 04, 2011 12:47PM


PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has defended the celebrations across the West following the killing of Osama bin Laden, saying the al-Qaeda leader dedicated his life to violence.

"I think for us to welcome news that in a firefight he has been killed ... is the appropriate thing to do," Ms Gillard told reporters in Sydney.

Ms Gillard's comments come after high profile Queen's Counsel Geoffrey Robertson said bin Laden should have been put on trial rather than killed.

Bin Laden was killed by a US special forces team, US President Barack Obama announced at the start of the week.

I find this one laughable --

But a Muslim group in Australia is calling the celebration “disgusting” saying Americans should be more restrained.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/austra ... isgusting/ A group of fucking MUSLIMS talking about how "restrained" other people should be? That's a laugh. You mean, when it's our victory, we should be "more restrained," and when it's some monstrous act by a Muslim group, they'll just remain silent over the cheers and riotous gloating of Muslims (and make sure we're all reminded that it's just a "small number" of Muslims...) -- The gloating and cheering in the US was only a "small minority" of Americans, and doesn't represent the majority reaction, which was muted, relieved, and happy but reserved. Most people I know aren't of the run out in the street and swill in beer mode on this one.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/julia-gill ... z1LZvW3g3U

No word on whether the Muslim group thinks THIS is "disgusting," of course...



Celebrating the death of a mass-murderer....disgusting! Calling for the demise of an entire nation....very reasonable, and in fact the fault of the nation whose demise is called for....

[Hermit]

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

So we can expect to see Sirhan released imminently.

Your post in another thread making a comparison about a British raid on IRA terrorists on American soil made some sense, and was quite thought provoking... (aside from the completely different international relationships involved)

This one, however, was a bridge too far...

Of course Kennedy and bin Laden have nothing in common, but that's not the point I am making.

I am talking about:

a) their killers

b) the motives they had for killing their respective victims

c) the legality of those killings within their respective jurisdictions

d) the fate of the killers

Sirhan's actions were clearly illegal under US law although (initially, at least) he claimed they were politically motivated.

The USA's actions were clearly illegal under the terms of Article Three of the fourth Geneva Convention and they were clearly politically motivated.

Sirhan's most recent appeal for parole after 42 years of imprisonment was refused because he "still does not understand the full ramifications of his crime", but US special forces, military commanders and high ranking government officials will be lauded as heroes.

Phew! I thought you imagined something in my posts that would advocate Sirhan's speedy release.

[devogue]

Presumably the United States government will now see that Sirhan Sirhan's extra-judicial political assassination of Bobby Kennedy was morally equivalent to the extra-judicial political assassination of Osama bin Laden. After all, Kennedy did support Israel during the Six Day War and Sirhan said "I did it for my country" even though his actions were against the law in the USA. Didn't the US special forces also act for their country even though their actions were against international law?

So we can expect to see Sirhan released imminently.

Your post in another thread making a comparison about a British raid on IRA terrorists on American soil made some sense, and was quite thought provoking... (aside from the completely different international relationships involved)

This one, however, was a bridge too far...

Of course Kennedy and bin Laden have nothing in common, but that's not the point I am making.

I am talking about:

a) their killers

b) the motives they had for killing their respective victims

c) the legality of those killings within their respective jurisdictions

d) the fate of the killers

Sirhan's actions were clearly illegal under US law although (initially, at least) he claimed they were politically motivated.

The USA's actions were clearly illegal under the terms of Article Three of the fourth Geneva Convention and they were clearly politically motivated.

Sirhan's most recent appeal for parole after 42 years of imprisonment was refused because he "still does not understand the full ramifications of his crime", but US special forces, military commanders and high ranking government officials will be lauded as heroes.

Phew! I thought you imagined something in my posts that would advocate Sirhan's speedy release.

Not at all.

If Sirhan is not fit to be released, then he shouldn't be released. But the USA's moral and judicial authority when it comes to murder extra-judicial killing has been hopelessly compromised. A prominent British politician and ex-Royal Marine called Paddy Ashdown spoke very eloquently on the BBC last night about the bin Laden killing and how it was absolutely vital that countries like the USA kept within judicial boundaries [he was responding to a fool called Douglas Murray who said: "We are better than Al Qaeda, we don't have to show it"].

[Hermit]

Sorry, I still don't know where you are going with your previous two posts.

[devogue]

Sorry, I still don't know where you are going with your previous two posts.

In essence, a state that does not respect the rule of law forfeits the moral right to apply the rule of law.

(got there in the end)