Weekly Question: Are We Safer With Bin Laden Dead?

Some people feel that now the “head” of Al Qaeda is cut off, we’re all the safer.  Others think that violence begets more violence, and that we need to be prepared for a counter-attack.  What do you think?

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Weekly Question: Are We Safer With Bin Laden Dead?

  1. I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER-ALL I KNOW IS THE COUNTRY STILL ISN’T PAYING, TRAINING, ARMING, AND BACKING SECURITY WELL-AND LESS THEN JUST LAST YEAR. SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT IS WAY HIGH, AND DESPITE VISUAL WINGED-MONKEY SHOWS AT SENSITIVE FACILITIES (BY THE WAY-A FEW AK-47 COMMANDOS WITH GRENADES COULD PUSH ASIDE THESE COPS AND ARMY TROOPS EASILY)-THE BULK OF AMERICA’S CHILDREN, CITIZRNS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ARE WIDE-OPEN TO TARGETED TERRORISM. THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING DAMNED DISHONEST-AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHY AMERICANS STILL LOOK AT SECURITY AS THE DOG-CRAP ON THEIR SHOES? PERHAPS-WHEN LITTLE SMASHED ARMS AND LEGS ARE PHOTOGRAPHED AT A MASSACRE OF TERRORISTS-THE PUBLIC WILL CRY OUT AND DEMAND MORE DUE DILIGENCE FROM POLITICIANS AND ADMINISTRATORS. YOU CANNOT BLOT OUT THE SUN, NOR DANGERS, WITH A SINGLE DIGIT EXTENDED , TO HIDE BEHIND.

  2. Yes we are much safer. Anytime you cut the head off of an organization the people below will spend time fighting for position. While they are fighting each other they won’t be fighting Americans. Besides, OBL was a symbol of evil and the world itself is better off without him. Fortunately the saying “violence begets more violence” isn’t entirely true. The current enemy we are fighting is at a huge disadvantage in capability. If our fellow Americans ever get tired enough of their treachery and violence we can easily end their ability to make mischief albeit with some collateral damage of course 🙂 The fact remains that this trouble with islamic extremism could all be ended in our favor quickly. We just have to turn over a new leaf, become less sensitive to world opinion, and pull the trigger.

  3. Thanks for your comments guys. I don’t think the saying “violence begets violence” means what you say, Brooks. If one party defeats another, the conflict is theoretically over, but you haven’t taken into account the indirect influences of such violence, such as a child that will one day seek revenge or something else like that. But more importantly, there is also such thing as a culture of violence, which is fed every time violence is committed whether in the name of good or bad. So if two parties are used to negotiating, chances are they’ll negotiate in the future. But if there’s a violent history, violence will most likely be the tool of choice. The saying is more philosophical in nature, I understand; and maybe it’s idealistic. But such events like OBL’s death gets us thinking about principles like this, I think.

  4. I agree completely regarding the usefulness of negotiations. But we always have to take into account cultural differences as well. Where sitting down at the negotiation table may be perfectly acceptable in the West or Asia; it is seen as a sign of weakness in Africa and the Middle East. I think aside from empathizing with those people in that part of the world, more importantly we need to be educated in-depth about their culture rather than looking at things only through a Western or Asian lense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s