Was the assassination of Osama Bin Laden correct?

After the assassination of Osama Bin Laden that occurred on 2 May 2011, a debate rose up around this incident, One side of the debate felt that the decision to assassinate Osama was correct, as he was a threat to countries and innocent citizens, but the other side maintained that Osama should have been given a fair trial, just like any other wrongdoer, as every human deserves the right to have a fair trial. I feel that the assassination was the correct decision, as Osama was a threat to the world, and him living would cause the al-Qaeda terrorist group to have hope. Additionally, Osama tarnished America's reputation as a superpower, as it managed to cause such a massive destruction and kill so many lives in the 911 incident.

Firstly, the reason why Osama should not live is that the fact that he is alive, can give hope to his terrorist group. the very aim of capturing Osama is to get rid of him so that al-Qaeda will be forced to disband due to the lack of a leader. However, if the USA actually just captured him, he can still inspire followers due to his very presence, and thus it will be impossible for al-Qaeda to disband. Therefore, Osama should be assassinated.

Another reason why he should be assassinated is that through the 911 tragedy, Osama and al-Qaeda had actually disgraced the USA's reputation as a super power, as they got affected so much by a terrorist group. If Osama was not killed, the USA would have shamed themselves even further, and thus the only way to repair their tarnished reputation for once and for all was to get rid of the leader of the group, who was Osama. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary for the USA to kill Osama.

Finally, Osama should be killed, as if he was merely captured, there would be a chance of him escaping again. This would motivate the al-Qaeda group to increase their rate of bombings on USA, which would not help anyone. In fact, the al-Qaeda may put so much pressure on the USA and cause them to actually release Osama. This would not be beneficial for anyone at all, and thus the simplest and quickest way was to kill Osama.

Shylock: Victim or Villain? (MOV)

           Shylock, a major character in Merchant of Venice. However, should he be classified as a bloodthirsty villain seeking for revenge, or a victim of the Christians' bullying? There is much debate about this topic, but I feel that Shylock is a victim. He lost his daughter, religion and money all due to the Venetians, and in the end, when forced to convert to Christianity, he would be shunned by both the Jews and the Christians. 

           I feel Shylock is a victim, as at the end of Merchant of Venice, he is only person with a bad ending. His entire fortune was given to Antonio, the one who insulted Shylock the most, and Lorenzo, who stole his only daughter. This makes him a victim, as in addition to not having his revenge on Antonio, Shylock is forced to give away his money, the only possession that he really loved, to his arch enemy Antonio, who insulted him and his religion, and Lorenzo, who stole Shylock's daughter who was the second most important in his life. That was like adding insult to Shylock's injuries, as he had to give his most precious possession to two people in the world that he hated most. Therefore, Shylock is a victim.

           Additionally, Shylock was also forced to convert to Christianity. In addition to being the religion that his enemies have, converting to Christianity also turns Shylock into a "in-between", as his Jew friends will desert him, but the Christians would also not want to associate with him. Even his daughter, who was once always by his side, would no longer be seen as related to him any more, being on the side of her lover, Lorenzo. Therefore, Shylock has truly been turned into a lone man, whom no one would want to know nor like. Therefore, Shylock is a victim.

Cyber bullying

In today's society, cyber bullies are everywhere, hiding behind a mask of anonymity and sending hurtful comments from behind a laptop/desktop screen. It is a very serious problem, and can cause much psychological harm to the victim, resulting in effects such as depression for the victim. The victim would also certainty suffer from low self esteem, a long term effect which will affect the victim's future life. Therefore, I feel that it should be stopped at all costs.

Firstly, cyber bullying can cause problems such as depression in the victim, which might then lead to a suicide. In recent years, there has been an increasing spate of cases of suicide, due to cyber bullying by classmates. Sometimes, the bullying is due to the pent up anger/stress inside the bully, and thus he/she releases it by taking pleasure from hurting others. However, this is the wrong way to relieve stress. Though the bullies might feel relieved, the victims do not. Action must be taken against cyber bullying, to ensure that this is prevented.

Additionally, the victims suffer from long term effects such as low self esteem, which can then affect them in their future, causing them to become timid or affecting their school/work performance. Also, the victims sometimes turn into bullies themselves, due to their low self esteem, hence they want to establish superiority over something to prove that they are strong. This will not be good, as how can our society progress if it is made up of just bullies and victims? Therefore, cyber bullying should be stopped.

In conclusion, bullying should be stopped at all costs. It harms our society by reducing the number of talented workers we have, as well as cause tragedies to happen, in the form of suicides or shootings.Quoting Randy Harrison,"The bullying stopped once I claimed myself and proved that I wasn't afraid. A lot of it was when I was hiding when I was younger." If the victims of bullying stop hiding and start seeking help, bullying can be eliminated.