Osama Bin Laden confirmed dead

[Grumps]

we should all take a moment of silence

world champion hide and seek player- finally found

[Hexa]

I saw some of the videos of americans celebrating.

Unsettling at best and and errilly similar to terrorists celebrating their attacks.

I agree with this statement.

Except I didn't see videos. I saw them in person.

I'm pretty sure I was more creeped out then you were.

I mean it's good that he was brought to justice, in spite of that being through death, but to celebrate a death seems...

we should all take a moment of silence

world champion hide and seek player- finally found

Awww. I was about to say that.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Hexa

[dubyawhy]

By watching all the celebrations, I have to say from all my friends, the general consensus is that most Americans are nationalistic hooligans that revel in something as horrible as death. I've normally introduced myself as an American to strangers. Not this time around though. I'm quite ashamed that I share citizenship with these idiots.

But hey, what can one expect? We cheered "YEAH **** THE JAPS" after Hiroshima, so obviously one death wouldn't stop these fools from cheering and screaming "USA! USA! USA!", so long as it seemed to them that the meaningless wars were somehow, suddenly, brought to a measurable and successful goal.

But it's not over. Clearly, the Americans in this forum are somewhat more open-minded and human (teehee - no doubt the doing of the IB ). So, I kindly ask you to talk your(and my) fellow countrymen into some sense.

Americans need to realise that Bin Laden had (somewhat acceptable) reasons for his actions, however gruesome his actions were. I'm not a jihadist, or a follower of Islam, but I just need to (its so sad that this is necessary) point out to Americans that It isn't as simple as "ARABS HATE FREEDOM SO THEY FLEW PLANES INTO US HUURR DUURRR". Every act of aggression by a group such as Al Qaeda has a reasonable and justifiable cause, given enough empathy. They wouldn't commit such acts just out of spite alone.

So, since I'm not at home to ask Americans myself, I'd just like to do it here.

10 years, 80,000 deaths, and 5 billion dollars later, you've caught the one guy.

Was it worth it?

[Proletariat]

By watching all the celebrations, I have to say from all my friends, the general consensus is that most Americans are nationalistic hooligans that revel in something as horrible as death. I've normally introduced myself as an American to strangers. Not this time around though. I'm quite ashamed that I share citizenship with these idiots.

But hey, what can one expect? We cheered "YEAH **** THE JAPS" after Hiroshima, so obviously one death wouldn't stop these fools from cheering and screaming "USA! USA! USA!", so long as it seemed to them that the meaningless wars were somehow, suddenly, brought to a measurable and successful goal.

But it's not over. Clearly, the Americans in this forum are somewhat more open-minded and human (teehee - no doubt the doing of the IB ). So, I kindly ask you to talk your(and my) fellow countrymen into some sense.

Americans need to realise that Bin Laden had (somewhat acceptable) reasons for his actions, however gruesome his actions were. I'm not a jihadist, or a follower of Islam, but I just need to (its so sad that this is necessary) point out to Americans that It isn't as simple as "ARABS HATE FREEDOM SO THEY FLEW PLANES INTO US HUURR DUURRR". Every act of aggression by a group such as Al Qaeda has a reasonable and justifiable cause, given enough empathy. They wouldn't commit such acts just out of spite alone.

So, since I'm not at home to ask Americans myself, I'd just like to do it here.

10 years, 80,000 deaths, and 5 billion dollars later, you've caught the one guy.

Was it worth it?

I would really, really, really advise caution when one attempts to associate adjectives like "reasonable", "acceptable" and "justifiable" to the slaughter of innocents.

A man can be reasonable or justifiable in criticizing American foreign policy. A man is not reasonable when that criticism is delivered as the execution of over 3 000 civilian lives.

And really, let's call those adjectives for what they are: subjective. And if you're going to wield subjective adjectives in such a manner, you should make sure to be clear who's viewpoint you're arguing from. I have no doubt that massacres and martyrdoms are "acceptable" for Al-Qaeda and its followers, and I have no doubt that the majority of the human beings on this planet - American, Canadian, or Chinese - will find these acts deplorable, horrific, and every bit as unjustifiable, unacceptable, and unreasonable as I personally do.

Americans have a twisted psychology as a nation; there is not a single other country in the world that is so young, yet has so much power and influence. It is perfectly within your right to call them out on this pathology; it's just not necessary to defend mass murderers to do it.

[Tiffers]

To be honest. You dont think it's true.

i think he is either dead for a long time or havent die yet.

How could people be sure that OSAMA is dead while there is no evidence provided and said that his body has already been "sea buried?

but if it's true...

YEA! USA FINALLY GOT HIM!

Edited May 3, 2011 by Aboo
No text speak!

[pumkinns]

On a lighter note, the world champion of hide and seek was found after almost ten years

so you guys seem very serious about the topic, i just want to lighten up the mood, and say Bin Laden is found, now they have to go look for Waldo

[Ice Cream is really yummy]

Honestly, I do not like it when people celebrate someone's DEATH. I'd much rather celebrate someone's LIFE than their death. It's just as cruel. That feeling of "happiness" that people get from killing someone because they just "got the job done", that, to me, is pathetic. I don't get it, and I don't want to. I'm not being ignorant and I am pretty good at feeling how otheres may feel about a many topics/things, but this, I cannot tolerate. (That's just me). I still understand others, but I don't agree with them.

[Sangostwin]

No one's death should be celebrated even if he was a horrible killer. And even if he was killed, what did America really get out of it? I'm neutral in this whole situation because there are so many things wrong with it....

Honestly, I do not like it when people celebrate someone's DEATH. I'd much rather celebrate someone's LIFE than their death. It's just as cruel. That feeling of "happiness" that people get from killing someone because they just "got the job done", that, to me, is pathetic. I don't get it, and I don't want to. I'm not being ignorant and I am pretty good at feeling how otheres may feel about a many topics/things, but this, I cannot tolerate. (That's just me). I still understand others, but I don't agree with them.

I couldn't have said it any better !!

The whole issue slightly sickens me. My gut reaction to the idea that a group of guys apparently stood outside the White House chanting "USA USA" is that it's frankly tribal and disgusting. I mean yes, they found him eventually, that's good, but celebrating somebody's death like a victory is just screwed up. Let's just take his head, stick it on a spike and exhibit it outside the village gates, after all that worked for hundreds of years! The terrorists celebrating the murder of the 9/11 victims is sick and twisted, and the world celebrating the murder of the man who organised it is also screwed up.

I think part of the reason it sickens me so much is because it seems to me like vindictive hatred and revenge is an American global policy and reflective of the genuine feeling and intentions of a lot of the people of that country. For instance, the Scottish freed the Lockerbie bomber because they believed him to be terminally ill. Of course you can't predict illness (and there're some rumblings that it's part of some oil deal, but to be honest there's not a single thing which isn't labelled conspiratorial so I don't know what to believe on that) but I think it's the best gesture anybody could have made. It's an attitude that I respect.

In response, the Americans started baying for blood, like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is still the way the justice system is meant to operate. Somehow the Scots got over the fact that Scottish people were killed without wanting everybody involved (and ironically, the Lockerbie bomber was never really proven to be involved) murdered, but in the USA there was a total uproar that there wasn't "death to the infidel". It's such a backwards way of thinking. I mean that's why the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan began in the first place, as some kind of crazy cycle of revenge. If Osama bin Laden becomes a martyr to the cause of extreme islamism and people want to get revenge, it would actually be hypocritical to judge people for it because revenge is the underlying motive for everything that the USA & Allies appear to be doing.

T it-for-tat death nauseates me as the ultimate hypocrisy. I very much agree with ocfx. I know bin Laden did terrible things, but doing terrible things back and then having a good old laugh and back-slap about it is no different. Personally I'd like to think that we are different, but reality consistently proves otherwise.

‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." Martin Luther King, Jr

This forum is honestly taking the words right out of my mouth. You have explained everything I have tried to explain but did not know how to. I feel proud that there are people who have sense and actually think about the situation instead of acting impulsively on their instincts! Thank you

I'm not meaning to say that you shouldn't rejoice that some justice has finally come about, but somehow from the perspective of a person who has been an onlooker from the outside to the events, it seems to me almost like falling to their level just murdering him like that. Okay, given the circumstances of a military operation it was probably one of the few options, but isn't it unethical that justice is brought upon him without ever bringing him to real and fair justice of some judicial system. I mean this seems to me almost like asserting the right to have war by bringing justice of one's own hand upon one man. Surely there is significant evidence that Osama was a person who was involved in the planning of numerous terrorist attacks, but wouldn't it have been more just if the evidence had been weighed out in a court

The backlash in America would have been massive had he been tried. Consider the trauma that families of people who died in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, and all the subsequent wars would have felt. The political repercussions of the trial would also be heavily felt in the conservative South-they would say Obama is too soft. Furthermore, the man was implicated with valid and tested evidence in over eighteen mass murders...the dude deserved to die-and I don't dole that judgement out lightly. From the stand point of practicality, if we had tried to capture him he may have had a better chance at escape. Furthermore, the American justice system is really screwed up-not from being corrupt (generally the bad guys get punished fairly), but from being too bureaucratic. It would have cost too much money to put on such a trial.

Lastly, to the ethics question...it may be unethical on some level, but anyone who had their parents wake them up at 6 AM to see men jumping out of a ninety story building to avoid being burned alive that day will probably agree to ignore the ethics of it all.

I do see your point though, but I think that the action that was taken was probably for the best.

This is a gut-reaction that you and almost every other American is feeling right now. Likely the adrenaline and the patriotism is still flowing. You could have stuck to the firefight point; that's a much compelling argument than the one you give above, not to mention simpler and less morally questionable to defend.

Just two things. Americans, of all people, given the founding principles of their nation, should not be taking a stance contrary to the rule of Law, under any circumstance. And in war, casualties are not only sustained by one side.

I completely agree most people in America these days do not think about these things rather they act on impulse...

[dubyawhy]

By watching all the celebrations, I have to say from all my friends, the general consensus is that most Americans are nationalistic hooligans that revel in something as horrible as death. I've normally introduced myself as an American to strangers. Not this time around though. I'm quite ashamed that I share citizenship with these idiots.

But hey, what can one expect? We cheered "YEAH **** THE JAPS" after Hiroshima, so obviously one death wouldn't stop these fools from cheering and screaming "USA! USA! USA!", so long as it seemed to them that the meaningless wars were somehow, suddenly, brought to a measurable and successful goal.

But it's not over. Clearly, the Americans in this forum are somewhat more open-minded and human (teehee - no doubt the doing of the IB ). So, I kindly ask you to talk your(and my) fellow countrymen into some sense.

Americans need to realise that Bin Laden had (somewhat acceptable) reasons for his actions, however gruesome his actions were. I'm not a jihadist, or a follower of Islam, but I just need to (its so sad that this is necessary) point out to Americans that It isn't as simple as "ARABS HATE FREEDOM SO THEY FLEW PLANES INTO US HUURR DUURRR". Every act of aggression by a group such as Al Qaeda has a reasonable and justifiable cause, given enough empathy. They wouldn't commit such acts just out of spite alone.

So, since I'm not at home to ask Americans myself, I'd just like to do it here.

10 years, 80,000 deaths, and 5 billion dollars later, you've caught the one guy.

Was it worth it?

I would really, really, really advise caution when one attempts to associate adjectives like "reasonable", "acceptable" and "justifiable" to the slaughter of innocents.

A man can be reasonable or justifiable in criticizing American foreign policy. A man is not reasonable when that criticism is delivered as the execution of over 3 000 civilian lives.

And really, let's call those adjectives for what they are: subjective. And if you're going to wield subjective adjectives in such a manner, you should make sure to be clear who's viewpoint you're arguing from. I have no doubt that massacres and martyrdoms are "acceptable" for Al-Qaeda and its followers, and I have no doubt that the majority of the human beings on this planet - American, Canadian, or Chinese - will find these acts deplorable, horrific, and every bit as unjustifiable, unacceptable, and unreasonable as I personally do.

Americans have a twisted psychology as a nation; there is not a single other country in the world that is so young, yet has so much power and influence. It is perfectly within your right to call them out on this pathology; it's just not necessary to defend mass murderers to do it.

I was not at all defending mass murder, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I can see why you would be confused though. Admittedly, my post wasn't very well thought out.

I was merely inviting everyone to explore the reasons for his actions. Perhaps if American foreign policy had been more appealing to the millions of foreign citizens we have sway over, then Bin Laden's acts would be non-existent. Bin Laden had, not only in his eyes, millions of others' eyes, very understandable reasons for committing his acts. Perhaps they were rash, perhaps they were overly violent, but they were reasons that could easily be argued and explained. He himself believed that he was committing an act of retribution brought about by murders committed by Americans. It is the fact that the American public refuses to acknowledge these explanations, and continues with them to this date, ignorant of the fact that millions around the world are unsatisfied with American foreign policy, that aggravates me. It is for this reason that killing Osama Bin Laden, will, in my opinion, have practically no effect around the world. The ideals and motives that drove Osama and his allies are still being perpetuated around the world by American soldiers, diplomats and corporations.

If America wants peace, and not blood, then they would do well to stop this hard-line approach to the world and appease the people of the world who clearly oppose America's actions overseas. For now, all they are doing is celebrating a death which is absolutely insignificant, and a celebration that is unethical in its very form.

Terrorists are popularly viewed as either 'Terrorists', or Freedom-Fighters. If we looked at their actions and motives objectively, we find that they are somewhere in between. Their reasons for killing are no different than the reasons for the American soldier himself. In order to fight terrorism, the American government cannot take the obvious approach and just "fight terrorists". Millions are being born into the 'jihadist' ideology, and not even a multinational war is going to solve that. Americans need to get in touch and understand why people are doing such seemingly senseless acts. They are not crazy. They are not less civilised. They are human beings though. All human beings have something to believe and fight for. Something that they hold dear and would defend. Be it a God, a family, or a flag. Americans need to realise that these 'terrorists' are only committing acts of terror because we are endangering these things.

I'm sorry if my post seems inconclusive, and English can barely count as my first language, but all I'm suggesting is that if Americans could live in the shoes of one of these 'terrorists' then they may not agree with their actions, but I assure you they would certainly understand to an extent. And with understanding comes everything else. I believe an appropriate phrase(albeit in a foreign language) is

tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.

I just hope nobody will take this post as a call to support murder or anything like that; that is the last thing I want in this world. I'm quite the proverbial "hippy", but I suppose its hard to get across tone and turn of speech on the internet.

Edited May 4, 2011 by dubyawhy

[Eastcoast93]

he was an enemy of the US, an enemy of the world and an enemy of mankind. it was the only right thing to do! celebrating in the streets is a totally different question and to that i can only say: its not good, it might provoke even more aggression!

[Bartosz jez]

I am sceptical he's dead. Even if so, I doesn't change situation at all. I can have a psychological effect on both sides of the conflict but what I see now in the USA is the civilization of fear. Any action of the US is motivated by the fear: of terrorism, of oil shortage, of financial crisis. People are obsessed with these kinds of "threats". Look at those celebrating crowds - these emotions aren't rational. This is the result of the fear and the huge relief after Osama was killed. However, as I said it is not a turning point of the war with terrorism...

[Proletariat]

I was not at all defending mass murder, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I can see why you would be confused though. Admittedly, my post wasn't very well thought out.

I was merely inviting everyone to explore the reasons for his actions. Perhaps if American foreign policy had been more appealing to the millions of foreign citizens we have sway over, then Bin Laden's acts would be non-existent. Bin Laden had, not only in his eyes, millions of others' eyes, very understandable reasons for committing his acts. Perhaps they were rash, perhaps they were overly violent, but they were reasons that could easily be argued and explained. He himself believed that he was committing an act of retribution brought about by murders committed by Americans. It is the fact that the American public refuses to acknowledge these explanations, and continues with them to this date, ignorant of the fact that millions around the world are unsatisfied with American foreign policy, that aggravates me. It is for this reason that killing Osama Bin Laden, will, in my opinion, have practically no effect around the world. The ideals and motives that drove Osama and his allies are still being perpetuated around the world by American soldiers, diplomats and corporations.

If America wants peace, and not blood, then they would do well to stop this hard-line approach to the world and appease the people of the world who clearly oppose America's actions overseas. For now, all they are doing is celebrating a death which is absolutely insignificant, and a celebration that is unethical in its very form.

Terrorists are popularly viewed as either 'Terrorists', or Freedom-Fighters. If we looked at their actions and motives objectively, we find that they are somewhere in between. Their reasons for killing are no different than the reasons for the American soldier himself. In order to fight terrorism, the American government cannot take the obvious approach and just "fight terrorists". Millions are being born into the 'jihadist' ideology, and not even a multinational war is going to solve that. Americans need to get in touch and understand why people are doing such seemingly senseless acts. They are not crazy. They are not less civilised. They are human beings though. All human beings have something to believe and fight for. Something that they hold dear and would defend. Be it a God, a family, or a flag. Americans need to realise that these 'terrorists' are only committing acts of terror because we are endangering these things.

I'm sorry if my post seems inconclusive, and English can barely count as my first language, but all I'm suggesting is that if Americans could live in the shoes of one of these 'terrorists' then they may not agree with their actions, but I assure you they would certainly understand to an extent. And with understanding comes everything else. I believe an appropriate phrase(albeit in a foreign language) is

tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.

I just hope nobody will take this post as a call to support murder or anything like that; that is the last thing I want in this world. I'm quite the proverbial "hippy", but I suppose its hard to get across tone and turn of speech on the internet.

To be clear, I wasn't the one that was confused. You did admit yourself that your initial post "wasn't very well thought out." I would still vehemently disagree with anyone who chooses to use the words "reasonable", "acceptable" and "justifiable" in describing bin Laden's actions. Don't forget that he didn't just kill American and Canadian civilians; he brought about the deaths of thousands of Muslims through his perversion of Islamic theological thought.

Now that you have clarified though, I will say that this position is mostly in-line with my personal beliefs. Disclosure: had a "heated debate" with History teacher today; was called bleeding liberal, so take my endorsement as you will.

What I would disagree with though is yet another word that you chose to use: "appease." Anyone who's studied the rise of Hitler knows that appeasement is a loaded word today, not to mention it's rather poor record of actually working. I don't think America could have done anything other than invade Afghanistan following 9/11, not with the extent to which the Taliban sheltered and supported Al-Qaeda and bin Laden, even though they have fundamentally different goals/aims. Their mistake is in Iraq, a war that is as politically and diplomatically different than Afghanistan as night and day. This is where the lack of cultural recognition and brusque mentality on the part of the Americans that you mentioned comes in.

However, I would be careful with how one would support or pursue "appeasement" policies. For starters, my teacher, to his credit, did bring up an interesting point: why should it necessarily have to be the West that is doing every act of appeasement? There are obviously radical factions in the Islamic world, but I have no doubt that the majority of the masses in the Middle East do not call for "death to America" on a daily basis. They have reasonable criticisms with Western policies, especially on their support of Israel. But we hear voices in the West calling for "appeasement", understanding, or some other permutation of cultural/diplomatic understanding and military détente all the time. Why are there no vocal activists in the Middle East that is calling for an end to violence and religions radicalization? Are there activists, and we in the West just don't hear about them? Why not? Is it yet another reason for me to subscribe to Al Jazeera English?

An end to violence, and an open-minded recognition of the other side is a plus for all parties, but this isn't a one-way street. Diplomacy needs to be reciprocated to work. America needs to be working a lot harder to improve their international image - starting with a new foreign policy - , but the people of the Middle East need to show the US why it's in their best interest to do so.

In an unrelated note, I got my teacher so fired up in the debate today that he actually called me a "Communist." =( I don't know whether to be insulted, or to feel triumphant in reducing an otherwise intelligent grown man to ad hominem attacks.

[dubyawhy]

The term "appease" has lost a lot of it's legitimacy due to Hitler, but I cannot find another suitable word to describe "let us be reasonable with yonder men; perhaps we can reach a middle ground". I suppose something close would be "negotiate", but I just don't think that applies, given that negotiation is commonly between two equally influential parties that are not ready to lose anything to each other's expense.

Well, personally I believe the burden of "appeasement" lies on the more powerful and developed civilisation. If it were the Islamic world "appeasing" to America, then I don't think that word would be quite suitable. In that case, I believe it would be "submitting" to a greater power which they cannot legitimately sway.

The thing is that when America(or any other Western power) makes demands and tries to voice it's opinion then it is, more often than not, heard and accepted. The rest of the world does not even need to "appease" America's opinions, because they automatically buckle under economic or military pressure whenever America's voice is heard. American citizens hold much more power over the global system, though only a minuscule part of the world's population, when the voices of the less powerful are equally, if not more important, as there are many more of them.

And this is the answer to your question:

why should it necessarily have to be the West that is doing every act of appeasement?

America can afford to ignore the Arab world, but the Arab world cannot do the same, and this is what is the source of most of the problems.

[Proletariat]

The term "appease" has lost a lot of it's legitimacy due to Hitler, but I cannot find another suitable word to describe "let us be reasonable with yonder men; perhaps we can reach a middle ground". I suppose something close would be "negotiate", but I just don't think that applies, given that negotiation is commonly between two equally influential parties that are not ready to lose anything to each other's expense.

Well, personally I believe the burden of "appeasement" lies on the more powerful and developed civilisation. If it were the Islamic world "appeasing" to America, then I don't think that word would be quite suitable. In that case, I believe it would be "submitting" to a greater power which they cannot legitimately sway.

The thing is that when America(or any other Western power) makes demands and tries to voice it's opinion then it is, more often than not, heard and accepted. The rest of the world does not even need to "appease" America's opinions, because they automatically buckle under economic or military pressure whenever America's voice is heard. American citizens hold much more power over the global system, though only a minuscule part of the world's population, when the voices of the less powerful are equally, if not more important, as there are many more of them.

And this is the answer to your question:

why should it necessarily have to be the West that is doing every act of appeasement?

America can afford to ignore the Arab world, but the Arab world cannot do the same, and this is what is the source of most of the problems.

If you look at human history, the "more powerful and developed civilisation"s have never, I repeat, never attempted anything that could even be remotely called "appeasement." History has shown its victors to be pursuing policies more akin to subjugation. The first time that the victor of a conflict aided its recently defeated enemy was the United States with Japan following WWII, and even then its motivations were certainly not mere altruism. It is a fair for one to hold the opinion that the more powerful civilization should be the one to shoulder the burden of appeasement; I just don't see much evidence that suggest its frequency. In fact, I would even say that it might be incongruous with human nature itself, and when we extrapolate this to the United States, its democratic system and its relatively youthful national identity, I'm just not sure how pragmatic and realistic such an opinion is.

The assertion that the United States is "a greater power" which the Islamic world "cannot legitimately sway" is also a bit problematic. It is obvious that the Americans do not want to be in the Middle East militarily if they did not feel the need to do so. It is the same with the Korean Peninsula. Bin Laden and the resulting War on Terror has resulted in significant financial, diplomatic and human losses for all sides of course, and America is just as interested in seeing conflict brought to an end as Middle Eastern populations. There are also other reasons for the United States to pursue diplomacy in that region of the world, religion and economics, for example. If anything, the Middle East (together with China, perhaps) are, out of any region/nation in the world today, the most influential in the United States, so to say that the Islamic world cannot influence the United States is simply not true.

What troubles me the most though with your position is that there seems to be an undercurrent of thought that suggests the concerns of the United States are not legitimate (apparent in sentences like "the rest of the world does not even need to appease America's opinion.") Terrorism and Islamic extremism, now that it is channeled with the specific intent to damage the United States, is very much a legitimate concern. What would the reaction of the Chinese have been had Al Qaeda hijacked planes into Shanghai? The French and Paris? The English and London? The beginning of the end to this conflict is a fundamental recognition of the concerns of both sides, not the appeasement of one from the other.

America can afford to ignore the Arab world

They tried that in the '70s, then the Soviet invaded Afghanistan. The result was the birth of Islamic fundamentalism.

They tried that again in the late '90s. 9/11 happened.

I seriously, seriously doubt anyone is prepared to suggest America should be willing to make the same mistake one more time.

[dubyawhy]

The term "appease" has lost a lot of it's legitimacy due to Hitler, but I cannot find another suitable word to describe "let us be reasonable with yonder men; perhaps we can reach a middle ground". I suppose something close would be "negotiate", but I just don't think that applies, given that negotiation is commonly between two equally influential parties that are not ready to lose anything to each other's expense.

Well, personally I believe the burden of "appeasement" lies on the more powerful and developed civilisation. If it were the Islamic world "appeasing" to America, then I don't think that word would be quite suitable. In that case, I believe it would be "submitting" to a greater power which they cannot legitimately sway.

The thing is that when America(or any other Western power) makes demands and tries to voice it's opinion then it is, more often than not, heard and accepted. The rest of the world does not even need to "appease" America's opinions, because they automatically buckle under economic or military pressure whenever America's voice is heard. American citizens hold much more power over the global system, though only a minuscule part of the world's population, when the voices of the less powerful are equally, if not more important, as there are many more of them.

And this is the answer to your question:

why should it necessarily have to be the West that is doing every act of appeasement?

America can afford to ignore the Arab world, but the Arab world cannot do the same, and this is what is the source of most of the problems.

If you look at human history, the "more powerful and developed civilisation"s have never, I repeat, never attempted anything that could even be remotely called "appeasement." History has shown its victors to be pursuing policies more akin to subjugation. The first time that the victor of a conflict aided its recently defeated enemy was the United States with Japan following WWII, and even then its motivations were certainly not mere altruism. It is a fair for one to hold the opinion that the more powerful civilization should be the one to shoulder the burden of appeasement; I just don't see much evidence that suggest its frequency. In fact, I would even say that it might be incongruous with human nature itself, and when we extrapolate this to the United States, its democratic system and its relatively youthful national identity, I'm just not sure how pragmatic and realistic such an opinion is.

The assertion that the United States is "a greater power" which the Islamic world "cannot legitimately sway" is also a bit problematic. It is obvious that the Americans do not want to be in the Middle East militarily if they did not feel the need to do so. It is the same with the Korean Peninsula. Bin Laden and the resulting War on Terror has resulted in significant financial, diplomatic and human losses for all sides of course, and America is just as interested in seeing conflict brought to an end as Middle Eastern populations. There are also other reasons for the United States to pursue diplomacy in that region of the world, religion and economics, for example. If anything, the Middle East (together with China, perhaps) are, out of any region/nation in the world today, the most influential in the United States, so to say that the Islamic world cannot influence the United States is simply not true.

What troubles me the most though with your position is that there seems to be an undercurrent of thought that suggests the concerns of the United States are not legitimate (apparent in sentences like "the rest of the world does not even need to appease America's opinion.") Terrorism and Islamic extremism, now that it is channeled with the specific intent to damage the United States, is very much a legitimate concern. What would the reaction of the Chinese have been had Al Qaeda hijacked planes into Shanghai? The French and Paris? The English and London? The beginning of the end to this conflict is a fundamental recognition of the concerns of both sides, not the appeasement of one from the other.

America can afford to ignore the Arab world

They tried that in the '70s, then the Soviet invaded Afghanistan. The result was the birth of Islamic fundamentalism.

They tried that again in the late '90s. 9/11 happened.

I seriously, seriously doubt anyone is prepared to suggest America should be willing to make the same mistake one more time.

No, friend, you misunderstand. With the sentence "the rest of the world does not even need to appease America's opinion.", I don't mean that America's opinions and concerns are not legitimate; but rather, I am referring to the fact that whether or not the world agrees with America's concerns, it really does not matter significantly, as they will have to play along anyway. It is not necessary to appease American opinion. They do not need to "appease", because they are subjugated just the same. America's concerns may very well be legitimate and on sound judgement, but the actions they take to deal with those concerns are taken with or without the world's input. This is what I meant.

"If you look at human history, the "more powerful and developed civilisation"s have never, I repeat, never attempted anything that could even be remotely called "appeasement." History has shown its victors to be pursuing policies more akin to subjugation." -- And so this means that this should continue? If you look at human history, rape and pillaging used to be the norms of war. Subjugated nations became vast supplies of slavery. Norms are being changed! For most of human history we did not have the United Nations, we did not have such a thing as Democracy, or peace treaties! It is possible! Yes, it has rarely happened, but the world is young. America is young.

"America is just as interested in seeing conflict brought to an end as Middle Eastern populations" -- I'd like to agree with you, as this is a very optimistic statement, but that is simply not true. Perhaps the highbrows of American society as well as the liberals, but let us be clear: there is a significant population within America that does not want this conflict to "end" peacefully as you put it. They do want it to end, but in a irrevocable and clear American military and political victory, which will take many years.

"Terrorism and Islamic extremism, now that it is channeled with the specific intent to damage the United States" -- At first, perhaps. But you will find a string of terrorist attempts made against other Western nations in the 21st Century: this is not just an American issue. Yet we see America's actions against extremism the most bold and daring.

"The beginning of the end to this conflict is a fundamental recognition of the concerns of both sides" -- In an ordinary bilateral conflict like territorial claims, or a non-guerilla war, maybe. But not in this case. If you look at Islamiyat-American relations before 9/11, it is clear that every single concern was on the Islamic side. America had no concerns, and thus no motive or rationale to even stop their actions in the Middle East. It was not until Extremists had to use violence that America was even slightly bothered.

It was a Catch-22 for Islamic extremists either way; do not commit acts of terror and stay on by while America murders their brethren, or, fly a plane into New York City and get pummelled into hiding, all the while America continues murdering their brethren. In the end, human anger won, but they have changed nothing about what America does. To this day, America abuses those that it can, and I believe that way of doing things should end with our generation. It saddens me that Al Qaeda even saw a need to commit 9/11, but unfortunately there was no other way to have their voices heard. Do you think CNN, Fox or ABC would air special investigations into America's presence in Israeli-Palestinian affairs? Do you think the vast majority of Americans even had a clue why Al Qaeda did what it did? It all comes down to ignorance.

I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. I'm only promoting a more egalitarian system of global politics.

[Proletariat]

I'm sorry to say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue on several accounts.

First, your attempts to paint America as the bully of global politics may carry weight in certain segments of the population in a select number of the world's countries, but it is really nothing more than mere fearmongering. If you look at facts, the last time the United States attempted unilateral action (which was only unilateral in the sense that it was conducted outside the UN, an organization that has failed its security purposes ever since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the late 20th century) was in Iraq; it turned out disastrously for the US, and was an embarrassment for the country on the global stage as well as domestically. If you look at logic, you'll see that in the globalized economy of the 21st century, there isn't a single country in the world that can take international action with no consequence of other nations, not even North Korea, and certainly not the United States. If you want to view the foreign policy of the United States as being taken "with or without the world's input", you're free to do so. There are many who would see this interpretation as incorrect, and would point to Libya and Egypt as the clearest, most recent examples for such.

Secondly, you've misquoted me when I talk about the role of victors and the history of appeasement in human history. No doubt you have the moral high-ground in calling for international solidarity and peace-and-love. If you read on past the quote that you have chosen to take, you'll see that I wrote: "It is a fair for one to hold the opinion that the more powerful civilization should be the one to shoulder the burden of appeasement; I just don't see much evidence that suggest its frequency," something which you really made no protest to in your rebuttal. Your argument instead accepts what is and has been, and instead proposes what idealistically should be. I would then point you to the Wikipedia pages on "realpolitik", as well as Hume's "is-ought problem", which should clarify the fallacy of your position.

Thirdly, you dispute my claim that both sides of the conflict want to see an end by suggesting that the only end the Americans are interested in is a victory. All I have in response is, "well.... yes?" Are the Americans supposed to want to lose? Do most individuals in your country enter disputes in order to lose them? Or is your view that only the Islamic world should achieve victory? If that's not prejudicial, then I'm don't know what is. Even if you would like to make some retractions, I would point out that it is entirely false to suggest that the only victory America wants is a "military and political" one. How would you, personally, even define military victory there? You evidently didn't stop at bin Laden's death. Where do you draw the line? Al-Qaeda's disintegration? Most Muslims would support that. The independence of the Afghan military? Certainly what Afghans what as well. There is also no evidence, either existing or offered in this discussion, to indicate that both forms of victory, rather than just one, are necessary, nor even desired.

Thirdly, while it is correct to note that there are terrorist attacks against other Western nations, you must have no doubt who the fundamental targets of these attacks are. Firstly, you must eliminate regional/national groups like Chechnyan rebels; no doubt their attacks are against a "Western" nation other than the United States, but that is because their conflict is confined within regional/national borders. If you look at international terrorist groups - aka groups that actually attack these foreign targets in Western nations - , and specifically Islamic fundamentalists/extremists, as I made sure to note in my previous post, their attacks are all either on America or its allies. And when their attacks have been on these other allied nations, the response from these nations have been adamantly on-par, on-side the United States, the UK being the clear example. No one should really be fooled that attacks on the West by these groups are anything but attacks designated to ultimately hurt the United States, either directly or indirectly through economic and/or political means. Canada made Al-Qaeda's list of potential targets a while back, but I don't think there's a single Canadian who believes this threat is for any reason other than our close alliance and proximity to the United States.

Fourthly, there are two comments you've made that, quite simply, defies both logic and history (recent history at that.) You write that "America has no concerns", then a few sentences later you write that Al-Qaeda only committed 9/11 because it could not "stay on by while America murders their brethren."Are you saying that America, pre 9/11, was murdering (loaded terminology right there) individuals in the Middle East, with no reason or purpose? This makes me wonder how familiar you really are with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the Gulf War, or even Israel, the root of all this conflict and which all else is either misdirection or tributaries.

I know you like to say that you want to make global politics "egalitarian", but let's not mince words about what you're really trying to say. As a Canadian, I have never had a particular fondness for the United States, and I've even written above: "Now that you have clarified though, I will say that this [your] position is mostly in-line with my personal beliefs." Our disagreement had funneled down to the issue of appeasement, which was why I was so disappointed when I saw you attempted to drag all these various other issue in during your last post, to dubious levels of effectiveness. From your terminology used throughout the thread, it's pretty clear that you're writing with a personal bias against the USA, and it takes a very special kind of bias to convince someone who is typically anti-American to have to defend them, if not for the US itself, then merely to dispel myth and misconception on the issues. There is very little point in continuing this debate should those be insisted to be pursued; the scope has already been blown from bin Laden into American-Middle East relations, and the perpetual introduction of tangeant ideas will result in an ad infinitum, ad nauseum discussion.

[Chris Kuno]

It was sort of a love hate reaction for me. I was glad we killed the leader of Al-Qaeda etc etc. But my other thoughts were about

1. Retaliation from Al-Qaeda

2. Reaction from the "Muslim" World

3. Dismay at the reaction from the general population

I put Muslim World in quotation marks because I don't agree with the broad sweeping statement of an entire people.

I mean kids in my school who have no idea about the true picture of things other then someone got "BOOM HEADSHOTTED" by the USA - it is incredibly strange when people state that the world is a "safer place" not to be pessimistic but the likely hood of dying from a terrorist attack in North America is much less likely then a person getting hit by a car or being stung to death by bees.

Just my 2 cents.