The Middle East has Nuclear weapons too you.... Mmmf.

Killing Osama makes people happy because:

A: He has killed thousands (indirectly).
B: He inflames as many muslims against the USA as he can, prolonging the bloodshed.
C: He's a ♥♥♥♥ and he deserves it.

/rant

See, this is the thing; I can't justify him 'deserving it' in my head, and have yet to hear a compelling argument as to what sets him apart from other humans. Not being murdered is generally considered a human right; at what point do people that 'deserve it' cease being considered human?

See A and B.

I agree with Allstone, I don't understand why people think they have the right to say who deserves to die.

Once someone dies it's easy(ier) to forgive them.

So mass scale violence and incitation to violence is enough to void one's humanity? Why are allied forces committing similarly large amounts of violence and similarly inciting people to fight for allied causes immune to this voiding?

I don't have the right and I never said I did.
Obama had to make a decision. Should he kill Osama, and thereby try to protect the citizens of the US, or does he sit there saying "Oh no, I couldn't kill him, I don't have the right to and he has a right to live."
He made a choice and I think it is the right one.
Some people, through their actions lose the right to live because of the grevious crimes they commit. Some people will agree others won't, but ultimately it is not their choice. It is the choice of the relative authorities. And even if it was put to the vote, most people would vote to kill him anyway, in the USA and most other first world countries.

Edit: Who said anythin about his humanity being voided? Also, this whole situation started when the UN (This being most of the world) decided to intervene in the slaughter being perpetrated by Saddam on the Kurds, and others. If there had been no retaliation by religious extremists (ie Osama) there would be no need for the occupation of any of those countries and there wouldn't be so much terrorism and, incidentaly, Osama wouldn't be dead.

I find it personally difficult to say that someone 'deserves' death in the way you did in your post, and was asking to see how you did it.

Like this:
I personaly love dogs, I have had Rusty for 9 years now. Doga rare amazing animals and are higly intelligent. But if I were to be attacked by a rabid dog, I would kill it, no questions asked. In this case the dog is innocent, it didn't contract rabies on purpose, but it was a danger to others and could never be cured. Osama on the other hand, fully understands his actions and he revels in them, he has willingly given himself Rabies, and he gives it to others as well.
That is my justification.

I agree on Obama's decision, It would be considered as a form of self defense for the nation, but guilt should still be present, Animal or Human, and if people are celebrating this, then that seems pretty sick in my eyes.

I understand that. I don't take joy in it either, but I do think that he deserves it.

That's what gets at me though!

I don't understand why someone should think someone else deserves to die, whether they killed someone or not. If for anything it should be that person's choice to die or not. Knowing that the world would be a better place without that person is definitely at hand, but that still shouldn't be a good reason why they should die with judgement, nor should any reason.

All in all it just comes down to survivability, taking a life for their own extreme benefit can seem necessary and it should. But when it's someone that thinks someone else should die just because of their judgement, that doesn't seem right. at all..

So what defines him as having willingly taken the ideologies that are likely to cause violence and therefore responsible for it as opposed to someone that has taken these ideologies due to being brought up in them or having experiences which cause him to form them?

@Coops: You're hopless. I just explained my belief on the matter. If you don't understand then just leave it. Although you probably have more compassion than me.
@Allstone: He's the son of a Saudi buisness man, he wasn't raised to be a terrorist.

Then he had experiences which shaped his view of the world.

Edit: Whoops wrong reply.

So let us say that he lost his entire family because of the US (This is HYPOTHETICAL). I would understand him being angry, sad and in a seriously bad emotional state. He could have chosen to try to end world conflict (hopeless as it may be), he could have become a doctor, he could have helped others who lost family members as well, but no. He decided to retaliate against a force trying to rebuild his country, he decided that he would take as many other peoples families away form them as he possibly could. He WANTED to create death. He wanted conflict and above all he wanted people to go through what he went through. As understandable as this may be, it makes him a threat to too many people and he is guilty of far worse crimes than almost anyone else on the planet. He kills, maims and emotionaly damages people all to make himself feel better. He will not change.
He is too big a threat to be alowed to live. So he is killed.
Should we rejoice, no we shouldn't. Should we be happy, I don't know.
But what I do know is that we should not be sad. We should probably be relieved if anything.