Quadafi's death.

[oldborn]

Another reason why I may have come off as insensitive is because I cant help my mind lingering to Bahrain where there were genuine anti govt protests which were quashed in very similar means to what Gaddafi tried. Why though were NATO not so involved in the freedom of citizens there.

+1
So when westerners or any almighty super power talk about democracy, it is really just new contract in mind
That is how it is!

 

[ramjambunath]

So when westerners or any almighty super power talk about democracy, it is really just new contract in mind
That is how it is!

True, it happened from two fronts till the late '80s now it is from a single front.

Myanmar will never be bombed or attacked though, they are a Chinese ally and neither India or China would want an invasion so close to the borders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think this is true at all. The question whether it's right or wrong to celebrate the death of a person, not the effects of it, is a very basic and general one. So it doesn't matter if you are Libyan or American.
Of course conceding that there are any objective moral judgements at all.

Unless that is directed at someone here than I assume it is to the Libyan people who were celebrating today - and again, the fact that Ghaddaffi is dead is not why they celebrate, it is that he has been removed from power.

Here is a video of Libyans celebrating the liberation of Tripoli 2 months ago - it looks the same as the scenes today.

As I said earlier, the Western governments will be more relieved at the death of Ghadaffi than the people of Libya who sought justice to his oppression.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Unless that is directed at someone here than I assume it is to the Libyan people who were celebrating today - and again, the fact that Ghaddaffi is dead is not why they celebrate, it is that he has been removed from power.

Right behind the part you refer to it says "not the effects of it". So I'm completly with you. But I guess the way I wrote it, it could be easily misunderstood, especially in the context of the quote I replied to.
I was going for the philosophical issue of making general moral judgements. In this case about celebrating a persons death alone.

 

[mikeNphilly]

The Libyan people have every right to celebrate Ghadaffis death.

The American people did not have the right to dance in the streets celebrating Bin Ladens death (if hes actually dead which I doubt)

Has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever wrote on this board. When my co-workers at work read this we basically we quite mad at your opinion(trying to be nice, and not type what I thought for real.)

 

[mikeNphilly]

Indeed, the situation isn't very much alike.
Ghadaffis dead happend in a battle in a real war. He more or less was the old regime there were fighting against in many ways. So this is a victory of a very diffrent sort.

In contrast, celebrations about Obamas dead were not celebratiosn about winning a war, but the celebration of revenge and the execution of someone who should have been brought to justice in a trial. There is no justice in simply executing someone. Also here, it would have been better to capture Ghadaffi, but I'd guess they didn't even try - out of pragmatic reasons.

Our celebrations in the US were because, since we are in a war over terrorism, and the main leader of the terrorist was now dead, we celebrated. Should have painted him red, white and blue and drug him behind a tank for a bit, IMO.

I'm am quite happy for the people of Libya. I'm glad NATO helped them. Next steps should be Syria, Iran and North Korea.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Our celebrations in the US were because, since we are in a war over terrorism, and the main leader of the terrorist was now dead, we celebrated.

In what way are you in a war on terror, exept for the naming of it? Where is the regular enemy? Where are the battles, where are the battelfields? How can you fight a war against something that isn't even one single group? Also Osama wasn't the main leader of the terrorist. There is nothing like a leader in a loose netwokr of small terrorist groups which all have in some way differing motives.
He was a symbol, not a leader.

Should have painted him red, white and blue and drug him behind a tank for a bit, IMO.

In what way would that not be extremly barbaric? Why would anynone do this exept out of the feeling of pure hate and the lust for nothing but revenge, not justice?
If actions life that were moraly right, in what way would it be very diffrent from the barbaric actions terrorist take?

I'm am quite happy for the people of Libya. I'm glad NATO helped them. Next steps should be Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Why those? Why not any other dictatorship? And besides that: how would you justify it? On what kind of right, or concept of justice?

Also: why no war on Saudia Arabia for example?

 

[The Hitch]

I see a lot of people hiding behind the " I would not enjoy another persons death, time for being alone, I am above this, yada yad yada" argument.

I dont care if you enjoy the death or not. I ask why others cannot stake pleasure out of the demise of the wicked?

 

[Altitude]

In what way would that not be extremly barbaric? Why would anynone do this exept out of the feeling of pure hate and the lust for nothing but revenge, not justice?

Because some people would prefer violent revenge to justice via trial and conviction. Simple fact of human nature

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

I see a lot of people hiding behind the " I would not enjoy another persons death, time for being alone, I am above this, yada yad yada" argument.

I can't see exactly what you mean with that.

I dont care if you enjoy the death or not. I ask why others cannot stake pleasure out of the demise of the wicked?

Well obviously they can, the question was if one should wasn't it?
Let me ask you a question in return: what would be the pleasure you get out of them dying?
I mean what would give you pleasure about that? I don't exactly see why it should pleasure me. He doesn't have to face trial anymore, he doesn't have to stand up for what he did anymore. He can't be punished by the people anymore. Probably he was killed by some member of some group who was probably driven by some sort of pracmatic reaosoning or the wish fo revenge. In any way it was arbitrary law that was used, no real one.
Nothing that isn't achieved in a way I can approve of would really pleasure me.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Because some people would prefer violent revenge to justice via trial and conviction. Simple fact of human nature

Sure, but that doesn't make it any better does it?
I assume that he does have a sense of justice. So I'd like to know how he thinks those two go together, violent revenge and a sense of justice.

 

[Cobblestones]

I ask why others cannot stake pleasure out of the demise of the wicked?

He's dead. It's over. Dancing on someone's grave is simply not done in civilized society. If it helps you, go with a feeling of quiet satisfaction. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

 

[The Hitch]

Well obviously they can, the question was if one should wasn't it?

Well i addressed it to people who wrote in the bin laden thread. There the idea that people could celebrate the mans death was met with words such as "disgusting".

Let me ask you a question in return: what would be the pleasure you get out of them dying?
I mean what would give you pleasure about that? I don't exactly see why it should pleasure me. He doesn't have to face trial anymore, he doesn't have to stand up for what he did anymore. He can't be punished by the people anymore. Probably he was killed by some member of some group who was probably driven by some sort of pracmatic reaosoning or the wish fo revenge. In any way it was arbitrary law that was used, no real one.
Nothing that isn't achieved in a way I can approve of would really pleasure me.

I didnt get any pleasure out of bin ladens death nor have i gotten any out of Quadaffis.

But I strongly defend the right of those who wish to celebrate it, and I suspect that if I was in the same situation as many of them, I would celebrate just the same.

 

[Anonymous]

Has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever wrote on this board. When my co-workers at work read this we basically we quite mad at your opinion(trying to be nice, and not type what I thought for real.)

Why is it dumb, its my personal opinion.

I thought the scenes of Americans dancing and celebrating the wonderful victory of the free and rightous west over the evil Bin Laden were sickening and in bad taste. Im not going to upset all the American posters by reminding everyone to what extent America funded the Bin Laden family for many years.

Its worth bearing in mind, without going off on too much of a tangent, that a large proportion of the British people have a deep rooted suspicion on the American Government and the American Armed forces (why is it, all american reality shows, top chef, survivor etc all have to have a damned armed forces episode with the stars and stripes waving in the background). For many people like myself who believe that there was american, if not involvement, but severe misjudgement during 9/11 and the illegal war in iraq that followed, celebrating bin ladens death was in poor taste. This is no way a reflection of my opinion of the large amount of American people who are kind, peaceful, and sensible people. If the Americans really want to celebrate something, hold the celebrations until George W Bush dies. Supplied Saddam and Bin Laden with the weapons, started a war to boost their own beleagured economy and then celebrated when they killed the person they armed in the beginning (and I dont beleive OBL is dead)

The Libyan people celebrating the end of the dictorial regime that hoarded all their wealth and resources for fourty years I do not have an issue.

I think its impossible for any of us to put ourselves in the position of the Libyan people. If Tony Blair died tomorrow I would not celebrate, but, If Tony Blair had spent fourty years controlling everything, controlling our income, taking our money, and then was involved in a civil war where hundreds of our people got killed then maybe my opinion would change.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Well i addressed it to people who wrote in the bin laden thread. There the idea that people could celebrate the mans death was met with words such as "disgusting".

Actually disgust is exactly what I felt. Mostly when the Chanceleress I am saidly ruled by said she was happy about Osama being killed.
There is nothing good in killing someone, especially without court.

I didnt get any pleasure out of bin ladens death nor have i gotten any out of Quadaffis.

But I strongly defend the right of those who wish to celebrate it, and I suspect that if I was in the same situation as many of them, I would celebrate just the same.

I guess in stead of "you" I shoul've written "one".

But still you dind't really answer my question did you? The answer would also explain to me why you'd defend their "right" to celebrate such action. I mean, any right has to have a ground it stands on. What would that be in this case?
What is right and what is wrong isn't a matter of feelings.

I do understand that a lot of people in the US emotionally gained on Osamas death, but I am convinced that this is mostly because the general culture is one of "an eye for an eye"-like thing. So while I think the emotional reaction on basis of this rather barbaric view of justice is understandabel, the basis on what the feeling is build on is still disgusting, because it is barbaric.

 

[The Hitch]

He's dead. It's over. Dancing on someone's grave is simply not done in civilized society. If it helps you, go with a feeling of quiet satisfaction. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Says who?

From what I understand celebrating the death of someone so evil is a good way for the victims to look to a new life and forget about the past.

Life out of death.

People who have been subjected to the most unspeakable crimes should be able to behave anyway they want when the object behind their suffering falls.

I certainly wouldn't want to impose my standards (that of someone who can not even imagine the mental trauma of simply living under such a mans dictatorship) on those who have been pushed beyond the limit of human tolerance.

 

[Cobblestones]

Well i addressed it to people who wrote in the bin laden thread. There the idea that people could celebrate the mans death was met with words such as "disgusting".

Actually disgust is exactly what I felt. Mostly when the Chanceleress I am saidly ruled by said she was happy about Osama being killed.
There is nothing good in killing someone, especially without court.



I guess in stead of "you" I shoul've written "one".

But still you dind't really answer my question did you? The answer would also explain to me why you'd defend their "right" to celebrate such action. I mean, any right has to have a ground it stands on. What would that be in this case?
What is right and what is wrong isn't a matter of feelings.

I do understand that a lot of people in the US emotionally gained on Osamas death, but I am convinced that this is mostly because the general culture is one of "an eye for an eye"-like thing. So while I think the emotional reaction on basis of this rather barbaric view of justice is understandabel, the basis on what the feeling is build on is still disgusting, because it is barbaric.

Well, apparently the Westboro church has the right to celebrate at military funerals in the US. So the right you're looking for would be the one of free speech. It's still disgusting though -- in every situation.

 

[Cobblestones]

Says who?

That would be Diogenes Laertius.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Well, apparently the Westboro church has the right to celebrate at military funerals in the US. So the right you're looking for would be the one of free speech. It's still disgusting though -- in every situation.

Sure, free speach. I didn't mean it in this way though. Sometimes I should think more about how exactly to put my words. What I meant was the moral justification, not the usual legal right to express yourself.

Oh btw: I thought it would be "fun" to watch CNN about this topic. So there's this Senator basically saying "Yeah, he was crap and he did al sorts of illegal things. So I think it doesn't matter if he was executed or not, because for the bad guys we don't need to use usual standards of law and justice."

Also I just realised that there isn't a real word for "Rechtsstaat" in English, which is quite fascinating. I didn't expect this. I always thought that the concept of a "Rechtsstaat" was quite central in the civilised world, so I expected to find a word or phrase for it in English.
One suggestion was "Rule of law", which is still very very far away from a Justice-State.

So now they're saying he was killed in a crossfire, by a shot in the head. While being on a car that was to bring him into a hospitle.
I just saw the wound, because they showed videos of his corpse and soildiers. And well - I don't think a man who should be laying down can be shot in his forehead.

"Now Nato has a country - the question is what Nato want's to to with it." Don't know what "Analyst" or whatever said it, but WHAT THE ****?

 

[Altitude]

Sure, but that doesn't make it any better does it?
I assume that he does have a sense of justice. So I'd like to know how he thinks those two go together, violent revenge and a sense of justice.

Doesn't make it any better to you. To some, violent revenge is a brand of justice, perhaps the ultimate one. They might argue that for someone who spends their life dealing in violence and terror, repaying them with those very things is exactly what they deserve. Not everyone adheres to the same moral standards as you do.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Doesn't make it any better to you. To some, violent revenge is a brand of justice, perhaps the ultimate one. They might argue that for someone who spends their life dealing in violence and terror, repaying them with those very things is exactly what they deserve. Not everyone adheres to the same moral standards as you do.

I am also aware of that. But the question still arises on what basis what is just is to be determined. So how this can once be right and once be wrong without being self-contradictonary.
The question how this works is independent of my view of what is right or wrong.

 

[The Hitch]

Actually disgust is exactly what I felt. Mostly when the Chanceleress I am saidly ruled by said she was happy about Osama being killed.
There is nothing good in killing someone, especially without court.



I guess in stead of "you" I shoul've written "one".

But still you dind't really answer my question did you? The answer would also explain to me why you'd defend their "right" to celebrate such action. I mean, any right has to have a ground it stands on. What would that be in this case?
What is right and what is wrong isn't a matter of feelings.

Sorry what was the question then? Is it the one where you ask why "one" might take pleasure from anothers death. I dont know but I would guess that its because theyve been traumatized, and death is the best way for the mind to be able to put that experience behind them.

I do understand that a lot of people in the US emotionally gained on Osamas death, but I am convinced that this is mostly because the general culture is one of "an eye for an eye"-like thing. So while I think the emotional reaction on basis of this rather barbaric view of justice is understandabel, the basis on what the feeling is build on is still disgusting, because it is barbaric

I dont think it was a barbaric view of justice. The debate about the death penalty is a different one from this one.

They were imo celebrating the death of someone who had caused them so much misery, and who continued to pose a real threat.

His death helps Americans put the trauma of 911 behind them, and was a symbolic strike against the threat Bin Laden and his butchers continue to pose.

That would be Diogenes Laertius.

I meant the bit about celebrating someones death being uncivilized.

+ rest of previous post.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Sorry what was the question then? Is it the one where you ask why "one" might take pleasure from anothers death. I dont know but I would guess that its because theyve been traumatized, and death is the best way for the mind to be able to put that experience behind them.

This might be true, but it is primarily a psychological statement, not an ethical. I did put a lot of weight on "should", like in "What ought I do".

I dont think it was a barbaric view of justice. The debate about the death penalty is a different one from this one.

They were imo celebrating the death of someone who had caused them so much misery, and who continued to pose a real threat.

His death helps Americans put the trauma of 911 behind them, and was a symbolic strike against the threat Bin Laden and his butchers continue to pose.

On the basis, I don't see how it is a diffrent discussion.
Like I said, psychologically you might be right, but some people may also feel better with all Arabs being killed. They don't need to be lunatics to feel like that. Still they'd be wrong.
I seriously doubt that feelings are primarily a good way to judge what is right or wrong.

I'd like to hear your arguments though why this should be the other way around.

Oh and just out of curiosity: did this bloody message get to you?

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

"We wil look back to some of the most memorable moments of Gaddafis reign", says CNN and shows pictures of him lookind rediculous.

The media is a wonderful freak show...

 

[The Hitch]

I seriously doubt that feelings are primarily a good way to judge what is right or wrong.

I dont know what you mean by right and wrong. I never said it was either right or wrong, but rather that if people want to celebrate the death of a tyrant, i will support their right to do it, and I dont believe those of us who havent had these horrid experiences, should be looking down on them.