View Full Version : RIP Osama bin Laden
We don't have to mourn him to show class. We don't have to respect bin Laden, his beliefs or his actions, but if we don't respect life then we are no better than he was. Feeling a sense of justice being done and a degree of closure is fine. I just hope America goes forward with a level of poise befitting a world leader.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
We don't have to mourn him to show class. We don't have to respect bin Laden, his beliefs or his actions, but if we don't respect life then we are no better than he was. Feeling a sense of justice being done and a degree of closure is fine. I just hope America goes forward with a level of poise befitting a world leader.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
'.....world leader....?' Please explain.
I think gregg meant WE are the world leaders. The poise is ours.
The way I see it, dancing in the streets is pretty tacky, but then I didn't lose anyone during the September attacks. I view this as I view any murderer. It's not my place to dictate how the families of the victims should celebrate, and the only ones who can truly forgive him are dead.
I just wonder how long it will take before some preacher or someone like that will try to demand we all 'forgive' him.
Well spoken and an excellent quote, Gregg.
Forgiveness, as has been discussed here on SLN a number of times, is not letting someonewho has caused harm off freely but choosing to detach or let go of the anger and emotional anguish that torments 'us' so that we can move on and fulfill our potential. No one has said that this is easy to do.
South Africa and so many other countries have done this with courage and grace and moved into the next progressive stage. Those who hang onto the anger and anguish keep suffering seeing themselves as victims because they cannot let it go and move ahead.
Sentiments aside, the quote is an Internet creation, and not from MLK.
Sad Eyed Lady
5-4-11, 9:33am
Thanks Gregg for sharing that wonderful quote from Dr. King. Well said.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies
hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction
of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of
annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength To Love, 1963.
It's only the first sentence, "I mourn the loss ..." that's not actually King.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/05/misquotes-martin-luther-king-bin-laden-twitter.html
The sentiment is the same to me. Thanks, Gregg. I think at some point in the other thread I wandered down the path of sounding like I was mourning OBL's death, which is not the case. This is a much better summary.
Thanks for the correction on the quote bae & kib. The true quote still carries the sentiment I was hoping for. Goldensmom, peggy was right, I was referring to the USA as a world leader. In a different thread I think it was Alan who said we all suffered a loss on 9/11 and that is true. OTOH, my loss is insignificant compared to those who lost family and friends. I do not begrudge them anything if they feel celebrating bin Laden's death is appropriate. What I'm hoping is that our nation will proceed with the grace and courage razz wrote about. This could be a prime opportunity to shine a little light and 'drive out the darkness'. I just hope our leadership, along with the rest of us, has the courage and the wisdom to point in that direction.
rodeosweetheart
5-4-11, 7:57pm
"I just wonder how long it will take before some preacher or someone like that will try to demand we all 'forgive' him."
Wait no more, Jesus has already asked us to forgive our enemies as our Father has forgiven us.
Wait no more, Jesus has already asked us to forgive our enemies as our Father has forgiven us.
Dalai Lama 'says bin Laden killing justified'
(AFP) – 2 hours ago
LOS ANGELES — Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama suggested that killing of Osama bin Laden by US was justified, a report said Wednesday, although his office sought to clarify the remarks.
Asked about bin Laden's death at an event Tuesday in Los Angeles, where the Buddhist leader was at the start of a trip to five US states, he said the Al-Qaeda chief may have deserved compassion and even forgiveness.
But, cited by the LA Times, he said: "Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iA-sagU5ibaB8_R2gsRuwSgS3FbQ?docId=CNG.c4e5aaec1a6b9a e498dbebf05c7cebdc.12f1
The Storyteller
5-5-11, 11:52am
I am glad he is dead and rejoice in it, with no apology. I don't like the way it went down, or the apparent orders the SEALs were given, but that is because I don't believe in assassination for anyone at any time. THAT is what taints us, not our joy at his death, which I believe is entirely justified.
The Storyteller
5-5-11, 11:55am
"I just wonder how long it will take before some preacher or someone like that will try to demand we all 'forgive' him."
Wait no more, Jesus has already asked us to forgive our enemies as our Father has forgiven us.
Yeah, well, Jesus wasn't always right, and neither was MLK. Binny boy will never be forgiven by me for what he has done to our world. Never.
Yeah, well, Jesus wasn't always right, and neither was MLK.
Good thing they've got you to set them straight.
The Storyteller
5-5-11, 2:03pm
Yeah, well, Jesus wasn't always right, and neither was MLK.
Good thing they've got you to set them straight.
Of course, I could be wrong.
rodeosweetheart
5-5-11, 4:58pm
Storyteller, I agree, we could all be wrong about a lot of things. I also agree that I do not like assassination and was taken aback when I heard what happened. I'm 55; this was not something that would have happened when I was a kid. Or maybe it did and it was hidden. But it would not have been freely admitted, that Americans did things that way.
As to forgiveness, I do believe that we are called to radical forgiveness, and I am personally not capable of it. I know that because my son's girlfriend was raped 10 years ago, and I do not think I am capable of forgiving the people that did that to her. So I know that I fall very short in my ability to forgive, and believe me, I am not judging anyone for what I cannot seem to do myself.
But still, I keep trying to follow the peacemakers.
I keep working at forgiveness, because that is what I feel called to, spiritually. There is a wonderful movie called Hiding and Seeking, about forgiveness, and I wish more people would view it.
The Storyteller
5-5-11, 5:56pm
I'm all for peace, but I think we have found pretty much the only way to make peace with Osama Bin Laden.
Storyteller, I agree, we could all be wrong about a lot of things. I also agree that I do not like assassination and was taken aback when I heard what happened. I'm 55; this was not something that would have happened when I was a kid. Or maybe it did and it was hidden. But it would not have been freely admitted, that Americans did things that way.
Robert Kennedy authorized the assassination of Fidel Castro right before the Bay of Pigs invasion, one of many attempts we made on his life. That was about the time you were a kid. We targetted a fair number of other world leaders in that era.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/family_jewels_wh1.pdf
rodeosweetheart
5-5-11, 7:35pm
Thanks, Bae, I did not know that.
Thanks, Bae, I did not know that.
My first "real" summer job, in 1977, was at a small office staffed by "ex" military officers, allegedly devoted to real estate property management. One of them was writing his memoirs on his role in the Allende coup, apparently ordered by Nixon. I thought it was all hogwash until they started declassifying documents recently:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
We've never been Boy Scouts.
rodeosweetheart
5-5-11, 7:46pm
Thank you, I looked the link. Wow, I am surprised.
Sentiments aside, the quote is an Internet creation, and not from MLK.
You may be right, and it's not relevant to me. It is the heart of the matter.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-11, 11:42am
He was not a good man. OTOH, the whole thing is played on a level so far above me (not so lovely :)), that I'm rather indifferent really.
Far above me mentally? Well no that's not really what I meant, but then I don't spend all my time keeping up with politics either so ....... perhaps, but who else's judgment am I going to trust? But what I meant it it's all about geopolitics and there is plenty of evil to go around. The U.S. government in it's military branches has killed how many people in other countries afterall, just in these recent wars? Bombed how many weddings, killed how many babies in mis-targets? The type of things Osama Bin Laden was angry about were evil too. I'm certainly not saying that justifies the murder of what were afterall innocent New Yorkers. No way, again those people were just innocent people slaughtered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If people who knew those New Yorkers want to celebrate I can certainly understand that. But for me, there is plenty of evil to go around at least when you talking about those with power.
Forgiving is for those who were wronged, not for the wrong-doer. Many years ago I had a very traumatic experience. It took me a long time to forgive and let go of the anger, but when I finally did I was able to move on.
At the risk of getting flamed, and in no way defending Bin Laden's actions, I will say this: there is plenty of evil to go around and some of it is carried out by the "good guys". Whether you are a "good guy" or not is often determined by who wins the war and writes the history books. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Whether you are a "good guy" or not is often determined by who wins the war and writes the history books. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
I was at the World Trade Center visiting some folks I do business with at Cantor Fitzgerald, just a couple of weeks before 9/11.
658 people in that office died in the attacks of the "freedom fighters"...
rodeosweetheart
5-12-11, 8:33pm
bae, I am so sorry for your loss.
I was at the World Trade Center visiting some folks I do business with at Cantor Fitzgerald, just a couple of weeks before 9/11.
658 people in that office died in the attacks of the "freedom fighters"...
Did I say I thought he was a freedom fighter?
No, it was an evil action, and I am truly sorry for your loss. My point was simply that he is not the only one who has done something evil. Consider Dresden in WWII.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Very few hackneyed phrases set my blood pressure spiking like this one. It's one of those comments that I always feel like responding "So what?" to. One man's murder is another's example of justifiable retribution. One man's rapist is another's sexually assertive hero. One man's child abuser is another's stern disciplinarian.
The list is endless. What's the point of statements like that? That for every sociopathic monster taking action in the world there are other equally screwed up people that will justify those actions?
If Bin Laden, or a US President, or my grandmother engages in premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets then they are a terrorist. It doesn't matter that there are others who might put a more admirable label on it.
Very few hackneyed phrases set my blood pressure spiking like this one. It's one of those comments that I always feel like responding "So what?" to. One man's murder is another's example of justifiable retribution. One man's rapist is another's sexually assertive hero. One man's child abuser is another's stern disciplinarian.
The list is endless. What's the point of statements like that? That for every sociopathic monster taking action in the world there are other equally screwed up people that will justify those actions?
If Bin Laden, or a US President, or my grandmother engages in premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets then they are a terrorist. It doesn't matter that there are others who might put a more admirable label on it.
I don't know if i really agree with that. I'm wondering if your examples aren't apples and oranges. War is a different critter all together. Did you agree with going into Iraq? Certainly some of those hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens were non-combatant. Same with Afghanistan. Or Korea, or Germany or Japan. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, there were plenty of nursery schools and little old ladies sitting in the park in our target. Are we then terrorist? Or is it justifiable because we won the war?
I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm just saying war is different. All wars start with the first 'shot', but what makes one first shot a declaration of war and another an act of terrorism? Or maybe an act of terrorism is always a declaration of war, and a declaration of war, usually an attach of some kind, an act of terrorism. Maybe it just depends on who is doing it, a country or an individual on behalf of some group-not-country.
All in all I kind of agree with SoSimple.
Did I say I thought he was a freedom fighter?
No, it was an evil action, and I am truly sorry for your loss. My point was simply that he is not the only one who has done something evil. Consider Dresden in WWII.
Both Dresden and Hiroshima were in response to a war which the US didn't start and helped put a stop to a much greater evil. I don't think there is any moral equivalency to what Osama the terrorist did in New York.
The attack on New York didn't even have the pretext of a military mission. The goal of the terrorists was to kill as many as possible.
We live by killing. The most strictly observant pacifist vegan off-the-grid deep ecologist survives by devouring plant life and collateral damage to animal life in the competition for resources. Our civilizations can only survive by maintaining a capacity for deadly force against internal and external threats. Condemning violence of any kind strikes me as the sort of hypocrisy that can only be indulged in when we’re counting on someone else to protect us. Speaking loftily about “breaking the cycle of violence” makes as much sense as talking about breaking the cycle of life.
Since we cross the line into violence by simply existing in this imperfect world, the best we can hope for is to develop ethical codes concerning necessity and proportionality. There is no alternative to weighing the harm we inflict against the harm we hope to prevent as best we can. Anyone expecting or claiming some kind of disinterested purity, who simply equates every violent act and actor, is indulging in self-righteous fantasy. Mill was right when he said war is ugly, but not the ugliest of things.
Very few hackneyed phrases set my blood pressure spiking like this one. It's one of those comments that I always feel like responding "So what?" to. One man's murder is another's example of justifiable retribution. One man's rapist is another's sexually assertive hero. One man's child abuser is another's stern disciplinarian.
The list is endless. What's the point of statements like that? That for every sociopathic monster taking action in the world there are other equally screwed up people that will justify those actions?
If Bin Laden, or a US President, or my grandmother engages in premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets then they are a terrorist. It doesn't matter that there are others who might put a more admirable label on it.
Apologies for causing your blood pressure to spike. My point is not so much that evil justifies evil, and certainly not that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter; rather that there are those that think he is. I grew up with the IRA, so perhaps I have a different viewpoint from some, having had conversations with Irish Americans who truly believe that what the IRA did was justified.
We live by killing. The most strictly observant pacifist vegan off-the-grid deep ecologist survives by devouring plant life and collateral damage to animal life in the competition for resources.
Are you saying that we have to damage animals in eating plant life? That there must be competition against them? Do animals eat the same plant life we do? In a world in which there are only vegan humans, animal life would suffer more? Do plant eating animals fight to the death over grass, berries, leaves?
Our civilizations can only survive by maintaining a capacity for deadly force against internal and external threats.
Have we, in the U.S. done that? Is surviving the standard to which we ought to aspire? Have we thrived in maintaining this capacity? Did the Roman Empire survive? Did India survive its internal threat? Does any entity, which is a conceptual fiction describing individuals, really survive? Does it have a life? One of the most pervasive habits of mind that perpetuates violence is to ascribe attributes of the living to the non-living and vice versa.
Condemning violence of any kind strikes me as the sort of hypocrisy that can only be indulged in when we’re counting on someone else to protect us.
So true.
Speaking loftily about “breaking the cycle of violence” makes as much sense as talking about breaking the cycle of life.
Is "breaking the cycle of violence" referring to the unavoidable, and unintentional violence or is it the "eye for an eye" type of violence? Or are you condemning any kind of non-violence?
Since we cross the line into violence by simply existing in this imperfect world,
Is violence offensive in its outcome or in its intention? If a piano falls by accident onto a passerby on the street and kills him, even though he dies a violent death, is this the "line" that we have crossed into violence?
the best we can hope for is to develop ethical codes concerning necessity and proportionality.
Does this mean that because we must kill plants to eat, we have to kill people and how is that proportional?
There is no alternative to weighing the harm we inflict against the harm we hope to prevent as best we can. Anyone expecting or claiming some kind of disinterested purity, who simply equates every violent act and actor, is indulging in self-righteous fantasy. Mill was right when he said war is ugly, but not the ugliest of things.
You may be right.
The Storyteller
5-15-11, 7:18pm
Are you saying that we have to damage animals in eating plant life?
I can absolutely and categorically assure you that we do. Setting aside environmental displacement and polution, every time plants are planted or harvested or the ground is prepared, animals are damaged and killed. Where do you think mice and rabbits put their homes when there are acres and acres of wheat or corn or oats, or just about any mass produce vegetable or grain? And that is whether it is grown organically or not.
We live by killing. The most strictly observant pacifist vegan off-the-grid deep ecologist survives by devouring plant life and collateral damage to animal life in the competition for resources. Our civilizations can only survive by maintaining a capacity for deadly force against internal and external threats. Condemning violence of any kind strikes me as the sort of hypocrisy that can only be indulged in when we’re counting on someone else to protect us. Speaking loftily about “breaking the cycle of violence” makes as much sense as talking about breaking the cycle of life.
Since we cross the line into violence by simply existing in this imperfect world, the best we can hope for is to develop ethical codes concerning necessity and proportionality. There is no alternative to weighing the harm we inflict against the harm we hope to prevent as best we can. Anyone expecting or claiming some kind of disinterested purity, who simply equates every violent act and actor, is indulging in self-righteous fantasy. Mill was right when he said war is ugly, but not the ugliest of things.
Wow. This is why I generally avoid the Public Policy forum.....eating plants & eating animals to stay alive = murder of unsuspecting noncombatants? hmmmm. OK. Your ethical views... blllp.
As to the assassination of Osama Bin Ladin: politically everyone, including Mr Bin Ladin, expected it. That's why he was hiding.
Those that feel that they can forgive him for what he has done, you are probably better off. Less angry. More loving.
For those that can not forgive him, your anger is justified. What he did was evil.
Let us, as a people, dedicate ourselves to finding non-violent solutions to our problems when ever possible. Hate begets hate. Love begets love.
my honest opinion is that I hope he is not resting in peace. I hope he burns forever in hell. I hope his youngest virgin is 70 yrs old and knows how to swim.........
I can absolutely and categorically assure you that we do. Setting aside environmental displacement and polution, every time plants are planted or harvested or the ground is prepared, animals are damaged and killed. Where do you think mice and rabbits put their homes when there are acres and acres of wheat or corn or oats, or just about any mass produce vegetable or grain? And that is whether it is grown organically or not.
I aware of the above and if you look at the other questions in the same context, that's not what I was asking. The Jains put it well:
Ancient Jain texts explain that violence is not defined by actual harm, for this may be unintentional. It is the intention to harm, the absence of compassion, that makes action violent. Without violent thought there could be no violent actions.
Besides, you've brought farming into the equation. In the example of an off-the-grid vegan etc., they could survive and thrive by foraging and I assume there are Jains in India that do just that. I'm not suggesting that that is the way we ought to live, I'm interested in the exploration of what is ethically consonant and that which is unexamined.
The Storyteller
5-16-11, 7:13pm
I aware of the above and if you look at the other questions in the same context, that's not what I was asking. The Jains put it well:
Ancient Jain texts explain that violence is not defined by actual harm, for this may be unintentional. It is the intention to harm, the absence of compassion, that makes action violent. Without violent thought there could be no violent actions.
Besides, you've brought farming into the equation. In the example of an off-the-grid vegan etc., they could survive and thrive by foraging and I assume there are Jains in India that do just that.
Well, no, vegans could not survive in America via foraging. It is hard enough to maintain proper nutrition without leaving it to chance in a land where there is so little wild left.
But let me focus on your first paragraph. I challenge your premise that the damage (violence) is unintended. If a reasonable person realizes that harm will come from their actions, yet does them anyway, then intent is there: they intend to commit actions that will do harm. So, even via the rather abstract BS that violence is done only when there is intent, your test fails. The diet of the vegetarian is rife with harm to animals, only the completely clueless would think otherwise, yet they do it anyway.
If you want to plead clueless, then I would submit most meat eaters are just as clueless of the consequences of their diet and are thus equally blameless or blame-worthy, depending on your perspective.
Both Dresden and Hiroshima were in response to a war which the US didn't start and helped put a stop to a much greater evil. I don't think there is any moral equivalency to what Osama the terrorist did in New York.
The attack on New York didn't even have the pretext of a military mission. The goal of the terrorists was to kill as many as possible.
The truth, of course, is much more complicated than 'osama bin laden was a bad man who decided to kill lots of innocent people on 9/11.' And much different from Bush's speech stating that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." If we'd had our freedoms but left the middle east to go about its business as it saw fit then 9/11 would not likely have happened. However, going way back there has been a steady stream of events like the CIA killing the elected, socially progressive prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, resulting in the brutal Shah becoming dictator there, with our full support, until his offer-throw and the US embassy being taken hostage in 1979. There are plenty of other examples of our meddling in the middle east, many of which involve our selling powerful weapons to whoever was our current ally to be used on other middle-easterners who were not our current allies. Looked at from that point of view it's not so difficult to understand, at least on some level, what motivated the 9/11 attack.
Getting back to the original post, I personally don't think violence is ever something to be celebrated. Just as plenty of Americans were repulsed by images shown on tv on 9/11 of middle easterners cheering while watching the WTC collapsing on tv, the flip-side is no more pleasant or right. Whether we were right or morally justified in assassinating Bin Laden is debatable with no 'right' answer, but cheering for his death just doesn't seem right.
The Storyteller
5-16-11, 9:28pm
The truth, of course, is much more complicated than 'osama bin laden was a bad man who decided to kill lots of innocent people on 9/11.'
No, not really. That pretty much sums it up.
I don't think there's any evidence that bin Laden cared one way or another about events in Iran. It seems that he was initially radicalized during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and then turned his attention to America when we helped drive Iraqi troops out of Saudi Arabia in 1990.
What began with helping the Taliban fight the infidels turned into a personal war against America due to our perceived world dominance among infidel nations. It didn't really matter what we may or may not have done, the very fact that we were the perceived leader of the non-Islamic world was enough for him to make it his life's mission to terrorize America. For that reason alone we were more than justified in taking him out with extreme prejudice and I am glad that we did it.
I'm not the type to dance in the streets in celebration but I certainly do believe that a small measure of justice has been enacted and I won't lose a moment's sleep worrying about anyone else's reaction to our joy and relief.
My mention of hte Iranian assassination was only meant to be one example among many in an ongoing US foreign policy that has been interfering in the middle east for the last 60 years. Anyone striving to have some understanding beyond a simplistic "bin laden was a bad man" view of what happened on 9/11 would do well to read up on the subject of our foreign policy.
The Storyteller
5-17-11, 10:58am
Yes, let's justify the murder of 3,000 plus innocents for stuff they had absolutely no influence on or responsibility for.
Besides, bin Laden's motivations were religious, not political. I doubt anyone who confuses that really understands why 9/11 happened.
I have to agree with Storyteller. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that U.S. foreign policy had anything to do with the radicalization of bid Laden. While there are probably many foreign policy issues that we should be concerned about, using them as a catch-all motivation for terrorism is only valid in the sense that it puts all blame back on the U.S., while somewhat absolving truly evil people. That seems terribly self serving to me.
As to why we should celebrate his killing, consider his terrorist timeline below:
1988: Al-Qaeda - "the base" in Arabic - was created by Bin Laden and other Arab fighters from the mujahideen.
1991: Bin Laden moves to Sudan and makes the country al-Qaeda's base.
1993: Bin Laden linked to the bombing of the World Trade Centre which left six dead.
1996: The US identifies Bin Laden as the prime suspect in the bombing of the Khobar Towers military complex in Saudi Arabia in which 19 US servicemen are killed.
Aug 1998: A truck packed with explosive blows up the US embassy in Kenya, killing 219 in the first acknowledged al-Qaeda attack. Minutes later, 12 die when another bomb shatters the US embassy in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania.
Oct 2000: A suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen blows a 40sq ft hole in the ship's hull, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.
Sept 11 2001: Bin Laden's operatives hijack passenger jets to bring down the World Trade Centre in New York and attack the Pentagon. Another plane crashes in Pennsylvania. Almost 3000 lives are lost.
Dec 2001: An attempted suicide attack on a Paris to Miami airliner by London-born "shoebomber" Richard Reid, an al-Qaeda sympathiser, is thwarted.
Early 2002 Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is kidnapped in Pakistan and beheaded by al-Qaeda.
Oct 12 2002: Two bombs explode in a busy nightclub area on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people, including 28 Britons.
Nov 28 2002: A vehicle packed with explosives ploughs into the Paradise Hotel near Mombasa in Kenya, killing 11.
Nov 2003: Suicide car bombings in Istanbul hit the British Consulate and the HQ of HSBC bank in the city, killing 61 including British consul general Roger Short.
March 2004: Bombs rip through commuter trains in Madrid, killing more than 200. Al-Qaeda claim responsibility.
May 2004: 22 people die after gunmen allegedly from a group linked to al-Qaeda attack offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia.
June 2004: US engineer Paul Johnson is beheaded by suspected al-Qaeda militants in Saudi Arabia.
July 2005: A total of 52 people are killed and more than 700 injured when terrorists launch four attacks on London's transport network.
Nov 2005: The group massacre at least 56 people when they blow up three foreign owned hotels in Amman, Jordan.
June 2006: Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is killed in a US airstrike in Iraq.
June 2007: Two car bombs defused in London before a terror attack on Glasgow airport is foiled. Both attacks are linked to radical Islamic sects.
Dec 2007: Al-Qaeda linked to the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was killed during a suicide attack at an election rally.
June 2008: Al- Qaeda kill six people with a car bomb at the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan.
October 2009: At least 155 victims die when al-Qaeda carry out a double suicide bombing in Baghdad.
May 2011: Bin Laden killed by US forces in Pakistan
The entire al-Qaeda organization was set up and funded by bin Laden to do exactly those things listed above. Their ongoing operations will continue with more of the same as long as there continue to be people to plan and fund the operations. The world is better off without him along with anyone else who would like to take his place.
The Storyteller
5-17-11, 1:39pm
I would add that I also understand the causes of WII and Hitler's rise to power had much to do.with how Germany.was treated after WWI, but that doesn't negate the fact he was an evil man, or excuse the murder of millions of Jews.
Well, no, vegans could not survive in America via foraging. It is hard enough to maintain proper nutrition without leaving it to chance in a land where there is so little wild left.
Maybe. If it's true it's only because we have lived in a way that has ruined the land and the largest contributor, by far, of that ruin is the damage caused by factory farming: mass production of meat and dairy. I'm not an advocate of everyone becoming vegan but the amount of animal products that is consumed now, per capita, as compared to the first 150 or so years of this country, is dramatically increased which is directly linked to soil depletion and pollution.
If a reasonable person realizes that harm will come from their actions, yet does them anyway, then intent is there: they intend to commit actions that will do harm. So, even via the rather abstract BS that violence is done only when there is intent, your test fails. The diet of the vegetarian is rife with harm to animals, only the completely clueless would think otherwise, yet they do it anyway.
This is from the quote I posted earlier, the emphasis is mine:
"...the absence of compassion, that makes action violent."
If, as reasonable beings, we accept that nature is a mutual eating society, ergo some living things must die, we can then make choices that are informed and consonant with spiritual insight and sustainability. Because to ignore this fact, is to cause violence to oneself: by not killing some living things we kill ourselves.
But you're right. Perhaps "intention" is not the right word. If one has the desire to be compassionate, that is Non-violence. Animals can die, even people can die in non-violent action.
As I understand it some Native American tribes used to offer prayers of thanks and apology to their hunting prey (buffalo etc.). It is also consistent with Non-violence to kill someone who is shooting people in order to stop the violence.
So, eating no dairy or meat is consistent with Non-violence in that it is refraining from an action with a desire to do no harm which in fact minimizes harm.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.