You're misguided and completely incorrect.

"Educate yourself", brought to you by wikipedia. The term you might be after is sapience, a whole 'nother kettle of fish; the main argument against unnecessary causation of death is the causation of suffering, which almost all animals are able to experience, and thus killing them is of dubious morality.
I'm pro-animal-rights (not hardcore, only vegetarian after all, but still) and to me all of your arguments before seem shortsighted, misguided, and contemptable. Doesn't mean I should hate you, but please take the time to think about what you're saying before you say it.

Furthermore, Bin Laden being dead is of little consequence. Al Qeada are more of a fringe group these days, providing propaganda and training for extremists, sure, but they haven't done anything flashy in ages. 9/11 was terrible, certainly, but that's not exactly recent news, nor does it mean they're still a force to be reckoned with.

I'm not saying I resent his death; I feel that it was fairly unavoidable (you can't realistically harm or influence that many people without copping a bullet one day), it's simply little cause for celebration.

As such, all the people chanting U S A U S A U S A WOOOOOO would you kindly stfu and actually read into the event instead of simply reading a headline and posting knee-jerk reactions all over the place? That way, you don't end up posting shortsighted, misguided, contemptable words and looking like a philistine.

This is the point where my thinking deviates from yours. I don't believe that you take your experiences and then take off on a path at a juncture between life occupations. I believe that experiences shape you continually.
If it really was as simple as him wanting people to have to go through what he went through or even a simple hatred of other human beings, then the reasoning behind it isn't that different. In the former instance, the felt need for people to experience what he went through took precedence over their lives in his mind. In the latter, his feelings took precedence over their lives again.
The default state of a person isn't to regard human life as something that can easily be taken precedence over, and my belief is that it's not something you can consciously decide and, therefore, be responsible for.

Touche, you make a good point. I don't really know what I'm talking about, and I acknowledge that. I agree that our experiences shape us continually and that it would be hard to equate anything to life, but in some cases it may be better for the vast majority of people, for a life to be ended. I support the case that Osama was too dangerous to be left alive and I still respect that other people have different ideas. I think we should just agree to disagree.

So.
Something to get the gears turning:

Questions:
What makes a human decide to take another human's life?
What makes a human convinced that their decision to take the other human's life is correct?
Why do the cause of said decision came to be?
What makes a human 'eligible' to forced death by a fellow human?
How and why did terrorism exist?
Why is total world peace a very hard to reach, if not impossible, dream?

Quotes/sayings/stuff:
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Death is the only everlasting peace.
Stupidity is a disease which can only be curable through death.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
I don't know whether war is an interlude during peace, or peace an interlude during war.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

In war, truth is the first casualty.

@Major I Realize this. The point was to point out the ludacris nature of his statement.

I agree that killing him was the correct action to take, in the same way lethal injection is the way to punish a murderer. Osama was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks and as such should, and did, get the death penalty. In this case there is no way to simply 'talk him down'. If he had been allowed to live then more attacks would have been planned. Even though some other nut will step up and take his place it was a justifiable step in the right direction.

I laughed out loud at the "we had to trow the body into the sea because no one wanted the body". I mean, really America?

This, seriously.

I think that most people that are celebrating don't even know a crap about the actual situation. I bet many of them didn't even remember that Osama was alive until they killed him.

Really, I tried to inform myself as much as I could about this topic, because it's serious business for me. And I think that the thing that actually pisses me off, is not the fact that Osama has died, I mean, got killed, it is the fact that many persons are just like "♥♥♥♥ OSAMA HE IS DEAD HE DESERVED IT ROT IN HELL NOOB LOL HAX TROLL".

And they don't even realise that that part is just a little piece of that entire history, and hell it's a long one.

And a better option would be?

The whole 'burial at sea' thing was because we didn't want to pull a Hitler and have his body become a shrine to extremists.

Is lethal injection the right way to punish a murderer though?He claimed responsibility for it. The group he supposedly headed is vast and sectioned; it could be possible he wasn't directly responsible for it.Even if he had been allowed to live imprisoned and without communication for the rest of his life?You have yet to put forward a reason why killing a person is justifiable beyond what has already been put forward and rebutted.

It's not like he laid down his weapons and surrendered. IIRC, the plan was to take him alive if possible, but, if he was armed, to just shoot him. Which is pretty normal.


How about this: His goal was nothing less than the death of everyone in America. This makes him an enemy of the state. Not all enemies need to be dealt with, but Osama's previous success, combined with threats of further success and his symbolic nature, means that in order for the state to protect it's members, Osama had to be neutralized, either through removal of resources (difficult, but in progress) or the end of his productive life (imprisonment or death).

The number one goal of any nation is to protect it's inhabitants. The US was removing what they assessed to be a very real threat, either directly, or indirectly, to it's inhabitants. I fail to see why this is so abhorrent.

I've not actually ever put forward a value judgement on the killing itself, nor would I have used the word abhorrent if I were forced.
You've put forward the best argument yet: that he had both motive and resources to kill a much significant number of people.
While I certainly still believe it is something to feel happy about, I can understand why you would view an action as necessary.

1. Depends on the person, some people simply deserve to die.
2. Point men aren't always the leaders.
3. I doubt that bin laden was in a huge concrete fortress with guards everywhere, he's more of the person that'd hide in a cave.

Are leaders responsible for their men when they mainly work autonomously?
Would I choose to be a soldier?
Is it fair to put our soldiers in a position where it is necessary for them to kill someone?
If I were forced to be a soldier, I would probably fulfil my duty as a soldier. I would regret having done so for the rest of my life though.

At a basic level, is it right that we actually have to think about human rights? The base idea of a human right is a right that all humans should have access to, so having to think about it implies that you either no longer regard him as a human or that you don't believe that all humans deserve these rights. I believe that both of these are dangerous things to do.