General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama vs Hersh [View all]H2O Man
(73,506 posts)I do not think that if a violent criminal is attempting to break into one's home, with the intention of doing harm to one's family, that self-defense is in any way "wrong."
I also remember reading, long ago, where a journalist asked Ho Chi Minh about Gandhi. Ho said that had Gandhi been born in Vietnam rather than India, and had struggled against France rather than England, that he would have died a violent death before anyone knew who he was.
Yet I am convinced that non-violence is the best manner for resolving disputes. And that it provides the most effective tactic for those seeking to bring communities to higher ground.
For a Gandhi and/or King to be effective non-violent leaders, they had to reach the point where they knew that they shared a common humanity with the rest of the world's people, including their enemies. Thus, while their struggles were in the limited contexts of social justice for Indians and black Americans, they were also attempting to improve the lives of all others -- again, including their enemies.
We think of Gandhi identifying himself as Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Christian, and atheist. And of King at the Riverside Church, speaking for not only the peasants in Vietnam, but also the Viet Cong.
Bin Laden was never able to rise above his restricted identity as a Muslim, or to identify the betterment of humanity as a goal. Certainly, as you note, he wasn't responsible for all the suffering that resulted from the violence he unleased -- which he believed was fully justified, based upon the violence inflicted upon his people. But he definitely added to it, no matter if intended to or not.