The Black & White

When patriotism goes overboard

By Carolyn Freeman

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






May 1, 2011, was much more patriotic than any Fourth of July I’ve ever witnessed. D.C. residents and college students celebrated in the streets outside the White House at midnight, and newscasters on every channel tried to hide their glee.

That was the day U.S. Navy Seals Team 6 burst into Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and shot him while he was unarmed.

Crowds cheer outside the White House after President Obama’s announcement that U.S. Navy Seals had killed Osama bin Laden. www.cnbc.com.

The people who danced in the streets after President Barack Obama’s announcement seemed unbridled and free from any more worries about the War on Terror. But citizens shouldn’t shout for joy because of bin Laden’s death, and the government shouldn’t promote his execution. The country shouldn’t assume the war is over and that there is no more threat.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,” Martin Luther King, Jr. once said. Bin Laden’s death doesn’t signify an end to the War on Terror or to the fears that have pervaded the country since September 11.

In fact, Obama warned against the threat of retaliation of al-Qaeda forces. Bin Laden’s death may provoke even more anti-American violence from remaining al-Qaeda members, according to a Washington Post article.

On the National Mall, souvenir trucks feature T-shirts with slogans like “Osama got Obama’d,” “Number One Enemy” and “Hide and Seek Champion.” The patriotic shirts  stand out against the usual collage of “FBI” and “I Heart DC” T-shirts. Photo by Julia Berard.

The spontaneous burst of patriotism seen across the country last Sunday was in poor taste. Sixty-two percent of Americans believe that celebrating bin Laden’s death is immoral, according to a survey released May 11 by CNN.

Although bin Laden was responsible for countless terrorist attacks and the deaths of thousands of Americans and other innocent civilians worldwide, cheering outside the White House with vuvuzelas is still inappropriate. Celebrating vengeance won’t return the lives of the departed that bin Laden stole.

The logistics of capturing him alive would have been complex, but capture was the U.S.’s original goal, according to General Stanley McChrystal, former commander of the U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan. Bin Laden could have been arrested, put on trial in the U.S. and held in a containment cell for the rest of his life, a fate some consider worse than death.

The raid was lightning fast, occurring in just under 40 minutes. But it’s not impossible to surmise that the U.S. military could have captured bin Laden alive. Team 6 could have adhered to the stance the U.S. took when capturing war criminals during World War II—better to capture rather than to kill. Instead, the United States essentially violated international law because bin Laden was killed without a trial.

Lethal force is only justified if it’d strictly necessary in order to prevent the loss of lives, according to Anthony Dworkin, an international law expert at the European Council for Foreign Affairs. The administration has provided no evidence so far that says this to be true.

While it is true that he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people worldwide, killing bin Laden without a trial sets a precedent that contradicts the democratic ideals of the United States.

52 Comments

52 Responses to “When patriotism goes overboard”

  1. Unrealistic on May 12th, 2011 12:33 am

    While your stance is not completely ludicrous, I’d like to refute several of your main points:

    Repeatedly throughout your article you say that the United States violated its own principles and international law by killing Osama bin Laden. You also reason that his death would be a more harsh punishment for the founder of al-Qaeda. To reconcile the U.S.’s desire to do justice to bin Laden and its desire to uphold its own principles, you suggest that bin Laden “should have been arrested, put on trial in the U.S. and then sent to jail.”

    This argument seems extremely idealist and avoids pragmatism. You’d like Navy SEALS to enter a fortified compound in the middle of the night and simply “arrest” the most dangerous, and wanted, man in the world. What if, say, bin Laden had been wearing explosives on his person. Or maybe, as has been speculated by the press, bin Laden lunged for a gun immediately before he was shot and killed. By attempting to arrest bin Laden, SEALS would have placed themselves in extreme danger, which was certainly not the point of the mission.

    Further, most analysts say that bin Laden would have never allowed himself to be taken into U.S. custody. They reason that he would have resisted until he was shot. While the idea of giving everyone a fair trial is emblematic of U.S. rights, it’s simply not the reality in today’s world.

    And keep in mind that the United States is in a WAR on terror. Killing is obviously a part of war, and nobody questions the U.S. when it sends missiles into Afghanistan routinely in order to kill terrorists. And of the terrorists who are actually taken into U.S. custody, few (I believe it’s around 5) receive fair trials. Again, in all American wars presidents have authorized the killing of enemy forces, and this is no different.

    Finally, I’d like to comment on your criticism to the burst of patriotism. In America, and in much of the world, Osama bin Laden is the face of terrorism. For months after 9/11, his face was plastered on every news channel. He made a large number of videos repeatedly denouncing the U.S. and threatening additional terrorist attacks. While murder by itself is not a good thing, put bin Laden’s death into perspective: the U.S. has fought a tremendously difficult war on terrorism for almost 10 years now, and while bin Laden’s death by no means marks the end of the war, it is a monumental stepping stone in both defeating al-Qaeda and providing closure for the thousands of families devastated by bin Laden’s terror. The people celebrating express their gratitude for our perseverance in our war on terror and acknowledge that while there is much more to accomplish in this war, bin Laden’s death provides renewed hope to all those who support peace and freedom.

  2. Someone on May 12th, 2011 7:20 am

    He should have been shot, and “But citizens shouldn’t shout for joy because of bin Laden’s death, and the government shouldn’t promote his execution. The country shouldn’t assume the war is over and that there is no more threat.” is STUPID. If people wanted to celebrate, let them, you have no clue if their father or mother or friends were killed in 9/11 or in the military. Should they have been overboard? No, but I’m really starting to hate people saying, “don’t celebrate a man getting killed.” Oh no, I will.

  3. Intellectual British Man on May 12th, 2011 7:29 am

    Right’o Chap

  4. Me on May 12th, 2011 7:34 am

    Your making bin Laden sound like a good guy…

  5. bill jones on May 12th, 2011 7:37 am

    I agree with the person above
    also the helicopter the SEALS were in was forced to make an emergency landing and they had to fight their way out once they were on the ground, there was news last week about the govornment trying to get the tail section back from that helicopter.

  6. "life threatening" on May 12th, 2011 7:51 am

    I think you make a good point. It is inappropriate to celebrate someones death no matter who they are. While I think there is nothing wrong with being relieved that a terrorist is dead, celebrating in the streets is over the top. However, the point about capturing bin Laden alive seems unrealistic. At the end of the article you say that “Lethal force is only justified if it’s strictly necessary in order to prevent the loss of lives”. Although I don’t think that anyone can make a judgement about whether the lives of the SEALs that went in were at risk without really seeing the footage of the operation, I would classify fire fights as life threatening.

  7. Sincerly, Disspaointed on May 12th, 2011 8:01 am

    Patritism=good

    what are you talking about.

  8. Unimpressed on May 12th, 2011 8:07 am

    While I originally agree with your idea that people should not celebrate another’s murder, I believe there are many flaws with your reasoning. For example, you discuss how “Bin Laden’s death may provoke even more anti-American violence from remaining al-Qaeda members”. This is a very valid and well taken point considering the track record of al-Qaeda and the fact they like to strike in symbolic moments. However you later go on to argue that, “Bin Laden should have been arrested, put on trial in the U.S. and then sent to jail”. How could you say that you would feel safer as an American with the head of the most dangerous terrorist organization in the U.S. and his many followers wanting to avenge his death and maybe even free him. Albeit it is extremely unlikely that an al-Qaeda operation would be able to free Bin Laden, but it is not unlikely that they would be able to take many innocent people’s lives. Another key issue in the detainment of Bin Laden would be where we would hold him. Many people would believe that Guantanamo Bay would be the obvious choice, but because one of Obama’s main shortcomings in his first term is his failed promise to close the detention center, it would be political suicide to make one of the administration’s defining moments one of hypocrisy. I believe you are correct in saying that celebration of his death was “in poor taste” and that it was questionable of the U.S. to kill Bin Laden and shortly after drop his body in the ocean, but what other option did they have?

  9. Dissapointed on May 12th, 2011 8:07 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV_eN4YEEI0&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1

    Here is a video of palestinians partying in the streets after the death of 3000 innocent american citizens. Is it wrong that we celbrate the death of a man whose face symbolizes fear in this nation and is 100% responsible for the most devastating attack on American soil? A man who has stated on many occasions that he would like to see every American covered in their own blood? This is reaction is not one of ‘overboard’ patriotism, it is simply an act of passion for all those lost on 9/11, and killed all over the world by someone you have a clearly have a little crush on.

    In a fire fight, bullets are flying all over the place. especially in one 40 minutes long. The smart decision was to shoot Osama on the spot. His mansion was full of weapons and the Seals could not just run through an airfield of projectiles to capture the most wanted man in America. Also bringng osama back to America for a fair trial would be a huge safety precaution. What do you think would happen if the head of the biggest terrorist organization in the world was on US soil. There would definitely be some sort of retalition and invasion by al-Qaeda, as they would stop at nothing to get their leader back.

    Also, why do you make Osama look good and make the Seals look bad?

    “That was the day U.S. Navy Seals Team 6 burst into Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and shot him while he was unarmed.”

    In this sentence the keyword is clearly ‘unarmed’. Why do you make him sound innocent in this situation? Many times in your article you almost protect someone who is guilty of the murder of thousands of your own people. Why? Maybe your editor said “write some article about how patriotism was taken too far in osama’s death.” but i’m pretty sure they didn’t say “write some article to defend the world’s most wanted criminal and make sure you piss everyone off.”

    No. they didnt say that. that would be ridiculous. no one wants to disrespect america. Worldwide bin laden’s death represented the begining of the end of the war on terrorism. we all should support any further advancement in a war against people that want to see us dead. When a man who has that much evil inside him, who has affected america this much, is taken down by our government, i don’t think it’s too ‘overboard’ to celebrate.

  10. Dissapointed on May 12th, 2011 8:11 am
  11. Outraged on May 12th, 2011 8:11 am

    I am outraged. this is disgraceful. are you kidding me right now? where you alive on 9/11?
    Aparently not

  12. average student on May 12th, 2011 8:27 am

    umm do u knw who OSama ben LAden is. He dosnt deserve a trial. ALso a trial would have thrown this country into chaos. And are u actually suggesting that killing the leader of the largerst and dangerous terriost organization in the world puts the U.S. in more danger. HA. And the mission was always a kill mission we all know that. Stop trying to sound smart and put a damper on this historicial moment. This is the most this country has been united since VJ day so dont try to be a philospher

  13. Anonymous on May 12th, 2011 9:14 am

    Things like Osama’s death brings Americans together. It was a glorious day when we learned of his death. I agree that Americans should not think all of their problems are now gone and we are safe, because we are not. BUT the chief operator behind the 9/11 attacks is dead and we should feel happy

  14. Symbolic victory over Pragmatism? on May 12th, 2011 10:23 am

    A trial for such a high profile terrorist would be an extremely long and expensive process. Giving bin Laden a pulpit from which he would be allowed to incite violence and try to rationalize his actions would have disastrous consequences. Also, there would almost certainly have been furious debate over the manner of his trial; whether it should have been conducted by military tribunal or civilian criminal court. Bin Laden repeatedly confirmed his guilt, his trial would have been purely symbolic and would have achieved nothing but unseemly and unnecessary discord. True, the celebrations were not tasteful, but there is no questiont hat justice was served.

  15. Ignorance at its best on May 12th, 2011 11:30 am

    Most people who have commented so far will agree that a celebration of death is immoral, and therefore should not be done. However, this is not a celebration of death, but a celebration of victory. When we celebrated our victory in WWII, to name a war, was it a celebration of the death of our enemies? Or a celebration of a victory for peace. Not everything can be perfect, and I am surprised you would have captured Osama Bin Laden, considering the negatives (which are too many to list becuase lunch is about to end).

  16. Student on May 12th, 2011 1:06 pm

    I don’t belive we are in any place to judge the actions of the SEAL team till we are 100% sure of their actions. They are some of the most trained men in the world, and to belive they made the wrong choice in this situation without knowing what actually hapened would descredit that.

    And coming from the viewpoint of someone who actually has lost loved ones in the war on terror, I celebrated when I had learned Bin Laden was dead. It seems like you are essentially on the outside looking in at the emotions of those that have been effected by Bin Laden.

  17. student on May 12th, 2011 3:25 pm

    You guys are worse than YouTube commenters. Cut her a break.

  18. ... on May 12th, 2011 3:58 pm

    This article presents one side of a national debate, and makes perfectly valid arguments, though many may disagree with them. Attacking the reporter is juvenile, and really just an easy way to discredit an article presenting an opinion on a loaded issue. Of course there are arguments for and against killing Osama and then celebrating his death, but it would be more productive to dispute the *content* of the article, rather than attacking the reporter.

  19. Caro4Prez on May 12th, 2011 4:07 pm

    Okay, so I think the main thing people are missing is that despite Bin Laden’s absence in Al- Qaeda, his presence is still there. He spent time breeding new leaders because he knew he would eventually be killed (or die) and it is obvious that someone will take his place.

    Furthermore, I think Carolyn’s main point is not that it wasn’t good that he was killed but that for us to be devastated by the loss of thousands isn’t a reasonable excuse for killing another, since the lives of the lost won’t be brought back.

    I’d also like to point out to “average student” that the correct spelling in Bin Laden, not “ben LAden.” Also, this young lady is clearly smart and attacking he intelligence is uncalled for.

    Also, this is a blog so you can’t really blame her for expressing her opinion.

    Lastly, my deepest condolences go out to those who lost friends, family or acquaintances on 9/11 or on another date due to the violence of Al Qaeda.

  20. The president’s view? on May 12th, 2011 4:29 pm

    Quote from Caro4prez:

    “Furthermore, I think Carolyn’s main point is not that it wasn’t good that he was killed but that for us to be devastated by the loss of thousands isn’t a reasonable excuse for killing another, since the lives of the lost won’t be brought back.”

    In the words of our president:
    “Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.”

    For a huge number of reasons (many of which detailed above), the death of bin Laden is lawfully and morally justified.

  21. I feel bad about all this but it's just too easy. on May 12th, 2011 4:49 pm

    First of all, If Bin Laden was tried in a military tribunal, he still would have been killed. It just may have taken 5 or 6 years instead of 15 minutes.
    Second, Bin Laden continuing to be a threat to the U.S. Read the Post article here…although he caused discord, he was still trying to plot and carry out terrorism in the US of A.

    Third,what’s all this talk of the U.S setting a “precedent” by killing Bin Laden. Are you telling me that NO country has ever killed a foreign terrorist or individual?

    And lastly, the entire operation WAS a violation of international law because the U.S essentially invaded another country for 45 minutes with zero permission…although one may be able to get by arguing that special circumstances require more divisive action. Why would the U.S care about killing him without a fair trial?

    In addition, there ARE claims that he was resisting and possibly had access to arms. Although everyone understands that this is total B.S (he obviously wasn’t armed) no eyewitness is going to argue contrary, and plus NO ONE GIVES A HOOT. WE KILLED BIN LADEN. GET EXCITED

  22. Student on May 12th, 2011 5:34 pm

    Dear “I feel bad about all this”

    I am sure you understand that if we had told Pakistan of our intentions then Bin Laden would most certainly not have been at the mansion when our forces arrived. There is no possibility that the Pakistani government was unaware, at at least some level of Bin Laden’s location. And even more, a Pakistani tip off may have very well have put U.S. service men in danger. The decision to put Special Forces onto the ground was much better than the alternative, a missile strike from a UAV that would have most certainly killed civilians.

    And I am sure you weren’t there, we have no other word to believe than the White House’s and calling their claims BS is simply ridiculous.

  23. Five Loko 7 on May 12th, 2011 7:34 pm

    Everyone chill. The #1 terrorist “we were looking for” in the world is dead, our nation is safer, and our troops are finally coming home soon. No need for justifying anyones point, just agree to disagree. White house SWAG

  24. Kitten on May 13th, 2011 12:05 am

    Carolyn don’t let these little nasties get you down! This just proves that you wrote a thought provoking article!

  25. napoleon on May 13th, 2011 12:09 am

    I think these comments prove that we should have had planned discussions about bin Laden’s death in school. Most likely these types of discussions occurred after school or in government/social studies classes, but it seems that wasn’t enough. Everyone was affected differently by bin Laden’s death and certainly everyone has a strong opinion on it that needs to be voiced.

  26. bill jones on May 13th, 2011 7:46 am

    to “I feel bad about all this”
    we told Pakistan that if we found out bin laden was there we would go and take him and the said “fine just dont say anything”
    also the US navy SEALS are special operations and special ops forces are pretty well known for going into “special” places and carrying out operations

  27. Student on May 13th, 2011 8:48 am

    Not impressed with the article at all…Osama Bin Laden’s death symbolizes justice and renewed hope for many that lost family and friends to the 9/11 attack. How is it fair that they can celebrate the unjust killing of 3000+ americans, while we cannot celebrate the end of future terrorist attacks on our soil. Put it into perspective. Completely agree with the first commenter, unrealistic.

  28. Funny Poll Results on May 14th, 2011 4:10 pm

    I wanted to point out that on the home page of the Black & White Online, 65 percent of people believe that celebrating bin Laden’s death was okay. Yet, on this article, 72 percent of people report the same thing (as of now). This means that, despite the writers best intentions, her reasoning, and the reasoning of others who share her stance, is just not effective and logical given the circumstances of bin Laden’s death.

  29. Dissenter on May 14th, 2011 5:49 pm

    Several people have mentioned that Osama bin Laden’s capture is not realistic. However, this doesn’t address the idea that the United States’ original plan was to capture him alive. Assuming that his capture was impossible means that either 1) you don’t have the trust in American officials to judge the difficulty of a military operation or 2) that you believe the circumstances were so far off from what American officials expected that the Navy Seals had to kill bin Laden. Obviously since no one here was present at the raid, you can’t just automatically assume that killing him was the only option. While that doesn’t mean that definitely wasn’t the case, it is wrong to judge the idea as impossible.

    Having a trial reaffirms important American values. We don’t decide to kill a domestic murderer in the United States just because people believe that he deserves to die. The way the criminal justice system works in the United States is that everyone is granted a trial. Yes, that rule doesn’t automatically apply to everyone, especially terrorists, but it is still a good principle to adhere to. The United States is a pillar for the international community to look up to, and when we don’t stay true to our values we appear hypocritical as a nation. One person commented that if we tried bin Laden it would still result in his death. But it’s how we get to that decision is what matters.

    On the idea of celebrating his death, students have mentioned that we are simply celebrating the end of the war on terrorism. However, Osama bin Laden’s death by no means means the end of terrorism. The growth of Al Qaeda in the last decade means that its influence is still very much alive. Additionally, Al Qaeda has sparked unaffiliated terrorist activities in other places in the world. Terrorism will not suddenly go away because of bin Laden’s death. The mandatory airport security checks are leaving anytime soon. A victory on the war on terrorism was not what the nation was celebrating on the night of his death. No, people were celebrating the death of an individual. And no matter how terrible the person is, it is still immoral to celebrate the death of someone.

    One person commented with a YouTube link to a video of Palestinians celebrating the death of 3,000 Americans, and rightly thought that it was terrible. The message that should be taken away is not that we should “retaliate” by celebrating the death of someone as well, but that it is a truly horrible thing to actually celebrate someone’s death as a general principle.

    Furthermore, the author in no way attempts to make bin Laden sound good, merely she points out how the celebrating crowd may have gone overboard. Insinuating that the author in unpatriotic and stupid is ridiculous.

    The image of masses of Americans outside the White House makes us appear blood hungry and uncontrollable. That is not the way Americans should want to be presented to the world.

  30. Mr. N. I. Silver on May 15th, 2011 12:38 pm

    Carolyn, I enjoyed reading, though I disagreed with, your blog about killing Osama bin Laden.

    Gigi’s dad

  31. Donnie Karr on May 16th, 2011 1:23 pm

    I couldn’t agree more with everything you have written in this article. A wonderful job yet again Ms. Freeman. 😉

  32. Based God on May 17th, 2011 11:12 am

    This article stimulated my rage for peace-loving, good-natured Americans.

  33. P.D on May 17th, 2011 11:16 am

    Although this blog is solely based of the personal opinions and political ideology of the writer, I would like to point out several flaws. For starters the statement stating “Lethal force is only justified if it’d strictly necessary in order to prevent the loss of lives, according to Anthony Dworkin, an international law expert at the European Council for Foreign Affairs. The administration has provided no evidence so far that says this to be true” completely contradicts your entire article because the killing of Osama Bin Laden was necessary in helping to prevent the loss of lives even though his death alone won’t prevent this from happening.
    I would also like to make the point of saying that the U.S. government did not in fact promote the death of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, White House executive may have been overjoyed (Why shouldn’t they be, they got the head figure of terrorism), but they most certain did not promote murder to citizens.
    It’s also appalling that you referred to a formal U.S. general who was fired after the comments he made with an interview in the magazine Rolling Stone. The comments he made were a while ago.
    “While it is true that he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people worldwide” this contradicts your previous statements.

  34. Agitated on May 17th, 2011 1:03 pm

    First off, Donnie, if you’re done brown-nosing Ms. Freeman, you should take a step back and actually consider what this ridiculous article is saying

    just by adding the word “unarmed” to the description is a gross glorification of Osama, and should never have been included.

    That man was responsible for close to 3000 deaths of INNOCENT American civilians, and now, justice has been served cold. Between the fact that his being brought into our country would no doubt have signaled a response from Al Quaeda, but also have been extremely difficult to pull off, especially in the situation the SEALs found themselves in, but the obvious fact that there is not one patriotic American who would not want Osama dead.

    What those SEALs did is nothing short of heroism, and ANY person who would diminish their achievement is simply acting un-patirotic, even un-American

  35. anonymous on May 17th, 2011 9:29 pm

    the great captain spock of the star trek series once said that revenge is a dish best served cold, but what he failed to say is that cold is the only way it can be served, that is all

  36. Student on May 18th, 2011 8:31 am

    No one’s death should be glorified like this, no matter who it is.

  37. what has yet to be said on May 18th, 2011 11:02 am

    Even the Palistian athority has said this will be good for peace. While there is bad backlash if you actually watch Al jazeera many people think Osama gave them a bad name. If there was an excuse to bring the troops home, this is it. If we had tried to give him a trial the first thing Al Quaeda would have done was to kidnap americans in order to give themselves leverage.

  38. what has yet to be said on May 18th, 2011 11:02 am

    yes I’m going to celebrate, this means family members of mine could come home from war.

  39. Spock on May 18th, 2011 11:21 am

    Unfortunately, when one kills 3,000 in one day and several hundreds more for nothing at all besides having something to do with America and twisting Islam to fit your beliefs, they stop being human and turn into a monster.

  40. Freedom Isn't Free on May 24th, 2011 7:38 pm

    I am not only disappointed but insulted by this article. My brothers have fought and died for the United States of America. Our fellow citizens put their lives on the line every single day for our country. Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the death of countless innocent American lives. To say that patriotism is inappropriate in any regard is preposterous and hurtful. America is the greatest country in the world and it does incredible things for mankind. So to say that it is wrong to celebrate the death of the single figurehead of terrorism in this era is not only wrong but it is unamerican and contrary to the benefit of humankind. May 1, 2011 was a momentous day for the United States of America, and for the world alike. It was celebrated to the full extent as it should have been. God bless America.

  41. Theotis cashflow on May 25th, 2011 9:12 pm

    Its all a conspiracy

  42. #Caro4Prez on June 29th, 2011 3:49 pm

    H8terz gonna H8

  43. Sincerely, A Girl on May 21st, 2012 4:36 pm

    @Freedom Isn’t Free

    Okay, don’t you think you’re blowing things out of porportion. First off, America is not the best country in the world, get that out of your head. A nationalistic inflated ego can only go so far. Our country still has significant coruption. You wanna make this country great, you fight to end the coruption here. Secondly,this is mearly select and choose patriotism. The reason that we celebrate Osama Bin Laden’s death is because he killed thousands of people in 9/11. Now tell me, who is Timothy McVeigh, that’s right most won’t know. He was noted for the Oklahmoa City Bombings, he was eventual arrested and , so why don’t we celebrate his death? Hmmmmm. Is it simply because he only killed a couple hundred people? A terrorist is still a terrorist, and lost life is a lost life. Also average student, lay off she makes valid points. Al-Quadea is strong, do not under estimate them. Thrid, this girl is not un-american, she makes valid points and senseless attacks on her reporting make your arguement less aggreable. Also yes we are in the war on terror, so what about the real home-grown terrorists hm? Those like Timothy McVeigh with none of the supposed pro religoen sentiment? This exaggeration of focus on those of Bin Laden will be an achielles heel. You want to fight terrorism? Fight the other terrorists as well. Don’t celebrate vengance celebrate peace. This blind celebration of hatred over a man’s death will only make us more in-just. Humans will stil be humans, no one gave you some upperhand in deciding what isn’t or is. Yes people died, and trust me I despise the man too, but this blind hatred will not go so far. And hey, do you honestly think America has not killed innocent in this battle? You for the innocent you preach, then why don’t you demand justice for these people? In July 2002, following an American bombing raid in which Afghan officials say 44 people were killed, including many celebrating a wedding and many children, the Afghan president protested to the U.S. military authorities, and urged them to be more careful in their targeting to prevent any more civilian deaths.
    The innocents caught in the crossfires of a NATO night raid, all apart of the War on Terrorism mind you. And that is not all 12,500-14,700 Civillians have died in the Afghanistan War, a mear branch on the War on Terrorism. You claim you celebrate the death of man who killed thousands of American lives? What about the lives spent there hmm? Are they worth less? Our soldiers have died, there innocent have died too. Yes I mourn the loss of those who gave up their lives in 9/11, but we should mourn the others too. Celebrate peace and work for the peace for them too. And I don’t want to hear oh she supports Osama. Please. This man has perversed the name of my religon, he has caused a mass of people to hate, he has attacked my country. Of course I despise him, like anyone else. But I will not celebrate his death, no, no, I will celebrate when true justice shall be reached in taking down Al-Quadea, not just the head of terrorism, but the body too.

    -Sincerely,
    A Girl

  44. Sincerely, A Girl on May 22nd, 2012 6:59 pm

    This is by no means peace or freedom, innocent people are dying in our vengance filled fight against terrorism. You support peace? This is by no means peace.

  45. Sincerely, A Girl on May 22nd, 2012 7:04 pm

    @Dissappointed

    What and you don’t think your own country has commited bad things too? Don’t point a finger at others. Your county has done wrong too. Both parties are in the wrong. And lay off, insinuating the author is protecting Osama in the article is wrong and out of line. No one is protecting anyone here, we are giving out our opinions.

  46. Person Of Interest on June 4th, 2012 1:00 pm

    @Someone

    Lay off she is not stupid. She’s a good author!

  47. Person Of Interest on June 4th, 2012 1:02 pm

    @what has yet to be said

    You’ve gotta be kidding me, you do realize the body of terrorism is still out there, so no ther not coming home, they still need to fight

  48. Person Of Interest on June 4th, 2012 1:07 pm

    @Agitated

    Innocent people die everyday, they just don’t matter to you because they are not American. Your saying that innocence is what your thinking of here? Your really not. What about the kids who died in Afghanistan? Oh they’re not American they don’t mean anything. Innocent people will die for this, but don’t think for a seccond your own country hasn’t done its part in killing ninnocent people too. And those people died for a greater cause? Another arguement, what cuase is this, from what your telling me we’ve caught him he’s dead, so why are they dying now?

  49. Cameron Frank on June 5th, 2012 9:43 am

    @Sincerely, a Girl: Hello. Why have you suddenly been entitled to argue “we’re not the best country, stop thinking that!” after one year of no comments? Osama’s death has come, and pretty much gone, so let’s just focus on the next political events, please!
    PS: I have heard of Timothy McVeigh, and comparing the Oklahoma bombing to 9-11 in any manner is just…absurd.

    @Person of Interest: Same thing here. I understand you two are attempting to prove a point, but this article has alredy been buried. It’s like trying to pull out a 100 year old coffin. It’s musty, dirty, and almost no one will care about it. I know I’m responding to your comments, but I’m trying to make a point. Let the article RIP.

  50. Sincerely, A Girl on June 11th, 2012 8:32 pm

    Cammie,
    The main reason i’m upset is like you, I hate what I feel to be sheer ignorance and intolrence in these comments. It really is terrible. Also so a matter of death tool, just because less people were killed in the Oklahoma City Bombing it is less important? Wow and here I thought innocent lives actually meant something, when clearly they are not

  51. Sincerely, A Girl on June 11th, 2012 8:35 pm

    Also you are continuosly telling others “Freedom to Voice My Opnion” So why shoudn’t I voice mine? Hm just because i’m late doesn’t mean I don’t deserve my fill

  52. Peperes on July 2nd, 2012 11:34 pm

    Hola, soy pepe