Okay, now that's just stupid. You're blaming people for something entirely out of their control. And I'm sure taking up arms was a //last resort// anyway, so it's not like other methods weren't practiced beforehand. Sometimes you have to go to war, and war is hard to contain and micro-manage, especially, you know, in the 1700's.
Originally Posted by Delphinus
Not at all. I'm just refuting your point that Bin Laden was acting on the best interests of the people, which is inherently linked to popularity. Your own fallacy.
Would it be okay for suicide bombing to go ahead if most people in the middle east were for it? Because that seems to me to be what your argument implies.
I don't disagree. I don't demonize him for what he believed, I demonize him for what he did.
Just proving that Bin Laden was of sane mind and had a reasonable personality...
I'm going to leave this as: you're wrong.
You missed the point. "Sin" doesn't materialize unless a sinner commits it. So blaming the act is inherently flawed as the act doesn't do harm without an actor.
Yes, because 'crashing the planes' totally doesn't come under the 'sin' part.
Also, I don't see why celebrating his death was barbaric. It's no more barbaric than the Jihad. And, frankly, it was extremely justified. If we're not supposed to be demonizing the draconian (and, TBH, insane) methods of terrorists, why should we demonize American citizens for celebrating a very justified execution? We should try to "understand" murderers of the innocent but demonize people who wanted to see a ruthless criminal killed? That's totally backwards.