True enough, my Master Po. It may well be that they just don’t get it yet.
My hope was that, since Binladen’s eventual fate will stand forever more in the history books of future generations, they would eventually get it, and would see that it was the US who showed such strength in the face of savages calling their bravery “weakness”.
On that matter, opposed as I am to capital punishment, I will happily agree. 
It is my hope as well that someday, the US will end the barbaric practice of seizing by force the fruits of men’s labor to fill the pockets of magistrates and fulfill the misguided plans of myopic bureaucrats, so that enlightened generations may hail us as heros.
It is my hope that generations yet further down that line of enlightenment might welcome being freed from the tyrannical yoke of property privilege, such that a child may not starve just because previous generations had seen fit to forcibly divvy up the world he is born into, and hail those heroes who ended all coercion both physical and economic.
In the world as we find it today, might not agreement by the wise upon a suggested course do more practical good than calling attention to where they disagree?
Hmmmm…
Nope, still don’t get it.
Isn’t it clear enough from context that he means humane, as in as painless and swift as possible.
Though “humanitarian” works for me too as in an action that’ll promote human welfare and advancement. Put him down like a mad dog. Do him and everybody a world of good.
Were science and wealth the answer, no child would starve even now. We know the logistics and have the means to feed every human on earth. For mercy and kindness, we do not need better minds or wealthier governments, but better hearts.
Amen. If we could find it in our hearts to consider our democratically elected government as “us” rather than “them”, why, we could change the world.
For the majority in a democracy, it is indeed “us”. Now if we would just grant the right of consent to the rest, they could change the world. 
Let not “us” be solely “those with whom I agree”, my brother. Let us show that world that no matter how passionately we might disagree, we can settle our differences democratically. I will consent to your plan if you can convince more of us than I, and I hope that you can find it within your heart to do the same if I were found to be more convincing.
Otherwise, if one of us considers that the other’s plan engenders tyranny and coercion, how do we decide which plan to enact?
I think the message we send might be different from the message received.
We intend to say, “Look how merciful we are - we don’t even execute someone who has murdered thousands of our citizens.”
What they might actually hear is, “Hey terrorists! He’s still alive! Maybe if you kidnap enough tourists somewhere and send their fingers one at a time to the media, the Americans might let him go! What do you have to lose?”
I recommend a fair trial, a quick execution, cremate the body, and sell the ashes on eBay.
OK, OK, I am kidding about the last part.
Regards,
Shodan
In the long run, over the decades and centuries, I think the two will gradually converge.
Much as I would enjoy agreeing with you in this particular case, I am just not willing to risk encouraging hostage-taking behavior in order to prove a point. Bin Laden killed enough people, and I wouldn’t risk letting some more wackos in the MidEast kill more in his cause.
I’m not too worried about this. Bin Laden’s netowrk, while far from dead, had been dealt a severe blow, and he himself is still a fugitive. He’s not really been very good headlines recently, and when we finally do catch him, it will the last nail in his bad PR coffin.
Martyrs are powerful symbols, but victory is a better one.
I suppose that depends on who wins.
If we win, bin Laden’s death will be considered as is Hitler’s. If the terrorists win, he will be considered a martyr.
Although, since the victory over terrorism is not likely to be as clear-cut as the end of WWII, there will always be those who argue that bin Laden is like Tojo and thos who think of him as Sacco or Vanzetti.
I expect he will suicide if he is on the verge of being caught, probably by having someone else shoot him, so maybe he will be regarded mostly like Caligula.
Regards,
Shodan
bandit:
We risk encouraging revenge-taking behaviour by martyring him. If the ‘severe blow’ to AQ means we should not worry about action taken in response to his martyrdom, why should we worry about actions taken in response to his imprisonment?
Shodan:
Since one can no more declare war on a terrorist organisation than on a cartel of dodgy bookmakers, I don’t think the history books will say when it was “won” at all.
I can speak only for myself, my friend, and that’s rather the point. I say let each man decide for himself what plan he believes is most likely to effect his safety and happiness, and refrain from denying any man the right to consent that God or nature has given him by virtue of his ownership of his own mind and consciousness — they and his body belonging to him and unlike any other. Let us not conspire among ourselves that, because of our greater number, we are mystically imbued with an ad populum authority and wisdom that reveals to us what he really needs and entitles us to force our will upon him. Let us not be more concerned about a man’s material possessions than about his character, because there is no shame in poverty, nothing ignoble about struggle, and nothing superior about complicated plans and college-educated intellect over kind-heartedness and good common sense. Let us simply get off the man’s back so he can breathe. If money were the answer, then our politicians — almost all of whom are wealthy — long ago would have led us into the age of Aquarius.
They hate us anyway. I doubt they are going to engage in revenge-taking more than they do now simply because they hate us.
What killing bin Laden is intended to do is raise the opportunity cost of terrorism. Those who are willing to die aren’t going to be affected one way or the other. If we kil bin Laden, they attack us to get revenge. If we don’t, they attack us because they hate us, as they do now.
But those who aren’t willing to die, but might attack if they think we might go easy on them, might be affected. And, of course, killing bin Laden means one less terrorist leader in the world, and so whatever further atrocities he might plan from prison will also be prevented.
I grant you, it is difficult to predict the behavior of people like terrorists.
When it was won, or who won it? I expect that by the time the convergence between message sent and message interpreted occurs, as you mentioned, a consensus will also have formed on who won.
And I don’t see why you can’t declare war on a terrorist organization. I am thinking about the Red Army Brigade, or even the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe the Klan still exists, but in numbers and influence they have been very much marginalized. They may not have been completely defeated, but I would certainly say enormous progress has been made against them. And it wasn’t even a military approach.
The continued presence of neo-Nazi groups does not mean that WWII was not won. And I would say that bringing the axis of evil to heel would represent substantial progress in the WOT.
I understand your point, but there is a distinction to be drawn as well.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with all of this, friend. Let each man decide for himself what he needs and uses for his own safety and happiness, and let not others force their will upon him, and let us not be concerned with material possessions, but simply get off his back so as he can breathe.
Were we all to be of good character, this could all be done without any man owning so much that another was deprived of safety and happiness. If our hearts were such that we gave enough of what we owned that all were safe and happy, why, what need have we of a mechanism guaranteeing that one can hoard so much that another suffers?
I ask again, friend, if our ideas of what constitutes maximal freedom, liberty and absence of coercion differ, which do we enact? Do we merely dogmatically *decree[/]i that our own vision is “better”? Put simply: absent democracy, how to we decide whether property privilege is to be enforced?
How about this — let’s give you the freedom to enact yours and me the freedom to enact mine. I will not impose mine upon you, and you will not impose yours upon me. If you should ever initiate an imposition, or should I, then let us grant the other the right to exposit, by meeting initial force with responsive force. This constitutes for both of us maximal freedom.
How about this scenario (not completely impossible IMHO)
Bin Laden’s representatives let it be known to Al-Jazeera that he intends to give himself up to the French Embassy (I’ve picked the French Embasy as it would cause maximum embarrassment allround). He is filmed, alive and well, going into the French embassy in Lahore (or Dar Es Salaam or Mombassa etc) and a statement is released saying he is willing to account for his actions. So there’s no doubt he’s alive and in the custody of a first world country.
The USA would then apply for extradition. France would HAVE to tell them where to stick it unless the death penalty was waived. They would have no discretion in this.
So what happens next? Does the USA drop the death penalty - do France end up with the worlds most unwelcome permanent guest?
OK, so I’m hungry, and there’s an orchard over there. I could go over there and, hey presto, I’m not hungry.
The moment you declare the orchard “yours” you impose hunger upon me. The moment I pick an apple, I impose “theft” upon you. It seems we get no further. Which idea is enacted merely reduces to which definition of “imposition” we follow.