Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Killing Osama From A Different Angle

This morning my friends and I engaged in a semi-heated debate as to whether or not the killing of Osama bin Laden was justified. The question at hand was not based on why Osama was killed, but rather we debated the ethical grounds of how he was killed.

The NYT this morning ran an article explaining that Osama was not armed at the time he was shot (

One friend said, "Of course the US can get away with this, but Israel faces this problem everyday and they are always getting crap for it!"

To which I responded, "Ya, but does that make it wrong?"

This conversation went on and on and on, and never really reached a conclusion. However I did learn something from it. People, just like media outlets, can have very different initial reactions to seemingly universally agreeable questions. Did I assume that all Americans wanted Osama Bin Laden dead? yes. Do they all care about how it was done? to my surprise, yes.

1 comment:

  1. I believe your friends' logic is deeply flawed. Firstly, Bin Laden was given the option of surrendering, which he refused, and only then did the US Seals whack him. Secondly, this was never intended to be an honorable battle. Your friends agree that we needed to kill him, but how were we supposed to know exactly when he'd be holding a gun so we could barge in during that precise moment. It was an execution, plain and simple, and the assumption is that it was a justified one. Those being executed are typically unarmed.