bin Laden not armed - was it right to shoot him anyways?

[RJDiogenes]

As I explained earlier, bin Laden had already voluntarily surrendered his rights by committing acts of war; as did Japan in 1941.

I think from a legal point of view you're 100% correct. I was coming at it from more of a moral one.

Question: How do Christians reconcile Jesus explicit instructions for them to 'love their enemies' with the cheering of the assassination of bin Laden? The two concepts seem to me to contradict themselves.

You'd have to ask a Christian about that. As for me, I'm not celebrating anything (and the inevitable adolescent posturing in Threads like this makes me cringe). I'm glad that he was killed and I think it was the correct thing to do, but, as far as I'm concerned, it's a terrible situation all around.

 

[Davros]

Bin Laden was not a soldier, or a general, he belonged to no army. He was a criminal.

 

[STR]

I'm not devoutly Christian (though tick the box on official forms) so I'm not qualified to resolve these theological issues, but my vague memory of the Bible is that there's plenty of fire and brimstone in there (especially in the Old Testament) that would provide more than adequate scriptural support to giving God a helping hand to defeat the enemies of those who believe in him, if one were concerned about such justification.

So as a relative outsider looking in on this point, it seems a trivial non-issue to me, and more a case of looking for a clever debating point rather than a meaningful theological controversy.

I'm not trying to be 'clever,' per se but rather understand the disconnect between Christian belief systems versus the joyful reaction of shooting an unarmed man in the eye to kill him.

It seems incongruous with Christian beliefs to cheer a mans death in a belief system that preaches peace, love and forgiveness.

And in my opinion is directly related to my original question about whether it was right.

I think you've resolved the issue about if it was legally correct to shoot bin Laden so the natural progression of the conversation is if it was morally correct or not? And America for all of its diversity is a Christian nation.

Yeah...most Christians don't even understand their own religion. First, while shooting and killing him might have been a practical necessity, which means it's justifiably okay under Christan principles as divined from 2,000 years of theological study, celebrating the death is not. Wishing for him to burn in hell isn't either. It's not even your place as a mortal to demand that anyone should go to hell, or heaven. That's entirely God's call.

Then again, under any interpretation of what's actually written in the Bible, Osama isn't in hell. In fact, he's getting the same treatment you will likely get. He will "sleep" until the end of days, where both he and you (assuming the crackpots with the signs are wrong and the end of the earth isn't happening next Tuesday) will be raised up with and judged with all of humanity at the end of the 1,000 years of peace. Only then will he possibly be condemned to separation from God in the dominion of the 1/3 of angels that defied God. Depending on your choice (Revelations is entirely about choice and the consequence of that choice) you'll either join the New Heaven-on-Earth, or go off to hell.

Nobody goes up or down until it's all over.

 

[Silvercrest]

I don't think the second paragraph will get universal agreement among Christians.

But the first paragraph SHOULD get universal Christian agreement-- and anyone who disagrees with it is not acting like a Christian. As you say, not all so-called Christians understand their own religion.

 

[STR]

There's 1 sentence that one could disagree with, and it's one of the ones in parenthesis. The rest is all in Revelations, and once you cut through the imagery, it's a fairly straightforward story. Osama bin Laden is not in hell. Not in the Christian hell, at least not yet.

 

[bigdaddy]

I'm against abortion!

Now let's sentence all the niggers to death!

-Southern Christians.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The rest is all in Revelations

Oh, there isn't anything controversial about the Book of Revelation, is there? And if you believe that there isn't, then clearly every Christian will line up to visit the Creation Museum as soon as possible.

Sarcasm aside, I think STR has failed to realize all the ways in which the various denominations of Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible.

On this issue, I agree with Silvercrest.

 

[Silvercrest]

Thanks!

And I'm not taking a particular stand on how to interpret the Revelation, either. I realized a number of years ago that it doesn't affect how a Christian should live his life, so what's the point of arguing about it?

 

[JarodRussell]

Given that Bin Laden certainly wasn't going to voluntarily change his mind and hand himself in, and given that he did not surrender to forces trying to capture him in order that the aforementioned justice could be served, the only other practical option available to his forces was to kill him. That feels pretty morally watertight to me on a personal level, and I think it feels broadly acceptable to a majority of people.

Any criminal who does not surrender can only be shot? I don't know his martial arts skills, but if he was UNARMED, how could he be of any danger to a group of special forces soldiers?

We've already determined he was an enemy combatant as well as a criminal, so your point is irrelevant on a legal level. On a moral level, if you imagine the scenario unfolding in real time, there really is no way the special forces could have known he didn't have a grenade or whatever else on him, and in a combat situation, if someone isn't clearly surrendering, it's perfectly morally acceptable to kill them.

Applying 20:20 hindsight is rather daft; the soldiers in real-time would not have known he was unarmed even if he didn't have a gun in his hand, and as he did not surrender, there wasn't any other option but to kill. Even wounding him or using tear gas or whatever, would not have guaranteed sufficient incapacitation.

This kill was clean, legally and morally, under any permutation of the available facts, fun though it is to argue it through.

How come they shot the woman in the same room in the leg then? Women don't have hand grenades?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ss-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-532011

 

[Holdfast]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make; wouldn't have been a legal or moral problem if they killed her either. Their reasons for not killing her aren't clear; could have simply been a prioritisation of Bin Laden himself, so taking a quick shot at a moving target and only hitting her in the leg; could have been a (misplaced IMO) desire to avoid female casualties for propaganda reasons.

*shrug*

Makes zero difference to the ethical case vis a vis killing Bin Laden.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm against abortion!

Now let's sentence all the niggers to death!

-Southern Christians.

Unsurprisingly, this gets you a Warning for Trolling. You should try not to do stuff like this.

Comments to PM.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make; wouldn't have been a legal or moral problem if they killed her either. Their reasons for not killing her aren't clear; could have simply been a prioritisation of Bin Laden himself, so taking a quick shot at a moving target and only hitting her in the leg; could have been a (misplaced IMO) desire to avoid female casualties for propaganda reasons.

*shrug*

Makes zero difference to the ethical case vis a vis killing Bin Laden.

This was not about the moral or legal situation. I was just pointing out that they apparently did know what they shot at. The unarmed woman gets shot in the leg, the unarmed man gets shot in the head twice, why?

 

[Gov Kodos]

All outcomes aren't the same in a chaotic situation. Where was it said or described how the folks were hit?

 

[Admiral2]

This was not about the moral or legal situation. I was just pointing out that they apparently did know what they shot at. The unarmed woman gets shot in the leg, the unarmed man gets shot in the head twice, why?

The unarmed woman was little more than a bystander. The unarmed man was running Al Qaeda.

Jarod, are you just stringing us along or are you actually this dense?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The unarmed woman was little more than a bystander.

How do you know this? Have the identifies of all the people in the compound been published, along with a reliable description their roles in al-Qaeda, if any?

 

[STR]

The rest is all in Revelations

Oh, there isn't anything controversial about the Book of Revelation, is there? And if you believe that there isn't, then clearly every Christian will line up to visit the Creation Museum as soon as possible.

Sarcasm aside, I think STR has failed to realize all the ways in which the various denominations of Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible.

That's just about the worst retort I've ever read on the internet. You disagree, fine. Make an argument and support it with evidence. Stating that there is a controversy, and then try to take some kind of moral high ground by claiming I ignore the idea that someone has a differing opinion is just a cheap way to change the subject so you don't have to debate the topic at hand.

I'm sure such a tactic has worked for you in the past, but you're going to have to actually put some effort in with me. Do like I said, read the book, and if you still stand by your view give an actual reason why. Or not, I really don't care all that much what you think given your above response. Just don't try to play games with me.

 

[Admiral2]

The unarmed woman was little more than a bystander.

How do you know this? Have the identifies of all the people in the compound been published, along with a reliable description their roles in al-Qaeda, if any?

Don't know and don't really care, but I'm assuming if she were anybody actually important to the organization we'd be hearing about her as much as Bin Laden. But we really don't know who she was, but we do know the guy My President said we'd get Dead or Alive is now DEAD.

Quibbling about how he died is moronic.

 

[John O.]

They've released more details about events in the compound - it was in an article on Christian Science Monitor. Few points I've seen debated:

1) Was OBL armed? Apparently he was spotted in a doorway to a bedroom as the lead man came around a corner or up a stairwell and as he turned to retreat back into the room, he was shot twice - once in the head and once in the chest. In the room they found a least one AK-style rifle and one pistol. IMO, the instinct that a person who darts back into a room is probably going for A. cover or B. escape is probably a good and solid justification. The only NON lethal solution to this situation would've been to drop to his knees and put his hands up, and for a guy as dedicated in his tradecraft and obsession as OBL, I think we all know how likely that was.

2) The woman killed was in the same room as the courier, the first person engaged in the compound. The courier fired at the SEAL team, they retired fire, the woman was killed in the crossfire.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This was not about the moral or legal situation. I was just pointing out that they apparently did know what they shot at. The unarmed woman gets shot in the leg, the unarmed man gets shot in the head twice, why?

The unarmed woman was little more than a bystander. The unarmed man was running Al Qaeda.

Jarod, are you just stringing us along or are you actually this dense?

Let's try to veer away from personal insults, please.

 

[Deckerd]

I think if bin Laden had dropped to his knees with his hands up, he would still have been shot. If that had happened, the Seals would have been perfectly open about it. They had their orders like any special unit. The SAS were sent into the Iranian Embassy with the express orders to kill all the hostage takers. The fact that one survived is because the Embassy staff wouldn't let the SAS take him back inside to be shot.