[quote=PiroMunkie]Though I've read an article or two suggesting that the way he was buried might actually anger some Muslims. That a burial at sea is only done in extreme cases, which some don't agree that this was one; and just because it was done as part of tradition, doesn't mean it was done properly or according to Islamic law. Though in this light it seems it's more how he was buried and less about who buried him that might cause some reprisal.[/quote]
[font=palatino linotype]Honestly, the fact that they made any effort at all to be provide a respectful Islamic burial is enough for me. Consider what happened to Daniel Pearl a few years ago, for example. Pearl's kidnappers (who follow bin Laden's backward ideology) treated him even worse than garbage and that very much included his actual death and the subsequent abuse of his body (i.e. by using his severed head as part of propaganda footage).
Given the contrast, I can't in good conscience complain about what the American authorities did. Even if their burial was not strictly perfect (I have heard that burial at sea is generally not acceptable under Islamic law, although again, I don't think they really had much choice), it certainly afforded bin Laden a degree of respect and dignity that his followers have deliberately denied their victims.[/font]
[quote=Allamorph]And thank you, James, for making the effort to understand the point, even as you're stuck trying to reconcile yourself to both sides of a horribly polarised case in an effort to smooth out all the feathers.[/quote]
[font=palatino linotype]Your point about celebrating death is not only one I agree with, but it is a valid way of reminding us that in our pursuit of enemies, we should try as much as possible to maintain the ideals that we are actually fighting for.
Having said that, I did not lose a family member on 9/11. So honestly, I can not truly understand what kind of emotions the relatives of victims must be feeling at the moment. I imagine that many of these people are feeling a much stronger conflict of emotion than we can even imagine.[/font]
[quote=Allamorph]To sort of attempt to steer the current conversation away from such a volatile angle, it occurs to me (for the first time, actually) that a "war on terror" is rather an ambiguous 'enemy', if you will. Raises a couple more questions in my mind.
* How do you know when you've won? or at least when you are able to go back to just being vigilant?
* Specifically to this situation, how stable does the Middle East have to be for us (the US) to end what is essentially protective occupation?[/quote]
[font=palatino linotype]Very good questions with no easy answers, I agree.
I have always disagreed with the term "war on terror", because terrorism is really a tactic and the tactic itself is really not the enemy.
The enemy is really a group of people with a very strict interpretation of Islam - an interpretation that takes the Quran literally and uses its text as a justification for what is essentially a form of theocratic colonialism.
It is very unpopular to say that we are fighting against a religious ideology, but we are. It's a similar ideology to those Christians who blow up abortion clinics. It involves people who are not psychotic or irrational; they quite literally believe that they are doing god's work.
This is why it is erroneous for people to try to blame the U.S. or other western powers as the cause of the current problem. People who make that assertion only demonstrate that they don't know their history and they apparently haven't even listened to Osama bin Laden's speeches, where he himself has declared the Quranic lights by which his ideology is based.
So to answer your questions, I don't think that the current war will have a definitive "end". What will need to happen, I think, is a long term effort that involves removing the ideological foundations and safe harbours of such extreme groups as much as possible.
On the second question, I think it comes down to largely to the ability of said nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) to maintain their own security, independent of foreign support. But that will take a long time, especially in Iraq, where the United States essentially disbanded the entire public service without considering the long term consequences.[/font]
[quote=Boo]Well basically, I just went for his use of the word "avenging" and took it from there. If I had the energy, I'd probably also make a ranty remark about CaNz's remark about it not being murder because it was done by SEALs. But I don't. 8D[/quote]
[font=palatino linotype]The reason it is not murder is because it does not fit the definition of murder.
Osama bin Laden (and his affiliated organisations) declared war on the United States. So bin Laden made himself a combatant in a "war". I used quote marks because, obviously, this is not a typical war between two states.
Nevertheless, bin Laden is essentially a military combatant. He leads an organisation that has trained fighters to carry out para-military style missions. And this is not just a designation I am putting on him by way of assertion - he has described himself as being engaged in a war. So he made himself a viable combatant. [/font]