Skeptic Project

I have tried to better understand why Paultards seem to think it was terrible that bin Ladden was killed and why it was so bad that people celebrated his death. While the obvious answer is many (most) are truthers who think Osama is really a CIA agent who was killed years ago, I was curious about the non-truther Paultards.

My view is they believe government is evil and incapable of doing any good. The idea that government can provide medical care, provide food safety, or protect them from enemies goes so against their beliefs that they can't handle it when people feel the government satisfied a need. When talking to Paultards I often notice that when you point out that much of the southeast wouldn't have electricity they get angry. To them supporting one thing the government does is like supporting totalitarianism. The idea that you get anything from the government means you are less free and are living a life like a blind follower of big brother.

Thoughts?

Because it violated international law. Unless you're facing fierce opposition that makes it impossible or unacceptably hard to apprehend the suspect, you're supposed to do so. That's what the legal system is based on - everybody gets a trial, no matter what Uncle Sam thinks you did.

Don't forget that the Taliban reluctantly offered to surrender Bin Laden if the USA or GB would provide the necessary evidence that proved Bin Laden was actually involved in 9/11. We don't know whether it was a serious offer, because nobody cared about it. It's likely that Bin Laden was responsible and I personally believe it, but that's irrelevant from a legal perspective, so is his confession. Ask a die-hard Tea Partier if they were involved in the killing of 20 communists and they'd probably say yes - some people are just deluded and rejoice in the idea of being perceived as more powerful as they actually are, that doesn't necessitate or justify assassinations though.

Then there's Pakistan, which is already strongly opposed to the imperial policies the USA has been carrying out and now has more than enough reason to keep following its Anti-American narrative, leading to an even less stable region.

In conclusion, I don't see how the attack was anything more than a Wild West-party for the ingroup and a big fuck international law for the outgroup. It's not that the US had a clean enough record to afford such nonsense (9/11/1973 anyone?), so even the militarist in me can't support this operation. It's strategically worthless, unethical and likely harmful for international relations.

You can say that either way, there's little strategic value in killing Bin Laden and almost certainly none that exceeds the political harm. There's a reason the Nuremberg principles were used when dealing with the most despicable members of the Nazi regime and I consider it a grand error to just throw all of this out of the window. There's value in hearing everybody out, it's what differentiates democracies from tyrannies. And while you're at it, have the Bush Administration on trial, too.

I wager that no one is going to give two shits about any other prominent terrorist now that bin Laden is dead, mainly because we've settled the whole "kill or capture" thing and because no one else can name another big shot terrorist, except maybe mullah Omar.