All Bets Off!
There continue to be reverberations of blame-and-shame directed toward the United States, its executive and the orders given to the Navy SEALs to conduct an operation with the distinct purpose of eliminating the world's foremost terrorist. ...This is not the manner in which a civilized country prosecutes its agenda of forestalling terrorism. There are laws to be observed, international standards of niceties to be acknowledged.
And what the United States ordered be done was to conduct an official assassination. Yes, they did. They did what the Israeli Mossad has long considered to be effective and needfully useful.
Onlookers and bystanders are offended. Of course those who considered Osama bin Laden to be an honoured mujahedeen, a man of principle, a pious man of God, actually following orders from on high to defend Islam from the infidels and Crusaders are beside themselves with rage. Citing their determination to carry on without him, that his precious blood would not be spilled for no cause; he will be avenged.
Even his estranged sons whose own sensibilities were offended by their father's insistence on slaughtering innocent civilians; those of the West and Muslims as well, were dreadfully upset that their father was not politely arrested and placed on trial. Exception is also taken to the fact that his body was buried at sea; had film been taken of a Muslim scholar offering last rites in a land burial many claim they would have found that acceptable.
The burning question is why does it matter what his end was like considering the violence he espoused and demanded in the mass slaughter of innocent people? He was guilty of mass murder, and he continued to agitate for further slaughter in the name of Islam. He posed as a dire threat to the well-being of a good portion of the Globe, given the off-shoots of al-Qaeda posed and determined to terrorize their targets.
The niceties of the law become forfeit when facing up to a resourceful, indomitable, resistant-to-reason adversary who will grasp at any measures, however vile and destructive to wound an enemy mortally. Osama bin Laden was simply treated to his own brand of action in an act of official retribution for the thousands of lives he was responsible for terminating.
The United States is again being treated in some quarters - say for example, Britain, where the infiltration into society at many levels, including politics and academia of tolerance for Islamist rhetoric and claims for justice have been astoundingly successful, as an intolerant brute of a nation. An undercurrent of sympathy for bin Laden and recrimination toward the U.S. for killing the al-Qaeda leader runs through that society.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had a sympathetic take on the situation: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done." Justice? Why justice was indeed done, and seen to be done. It is the interpretation of justice that is at question here. Kill unmercifully and be yourself treated to no mercy.
Osama bin Laden whose sole raison d'etre is the destruction of Western society and the elevation of Islamism had no compassion whatever for those whom he delivered to death. He felt that anyone associated with the West was tainted and had no right to live. He engineered death traps, inspired followers to think of more inventive and useful ways to slaughter people.
Was he really owed the dignity of being handled with respect? His life was to be given the respect and the dignity and the honour that was denied by him to countless others? He used every and any means at his disposal to destroy life, why was his life worthy of special consideration? Those who express reservations about the manner in which his life was taken are clearly confused.
It's the same old story about reservations taken by those who are uninvolved; those who are not threatened, demanding of those who must defend themselves that they do so fully observing the fine points of the law. When you're dead because of a lack of attention to the big picture and too much attention to the fine details, the finality of it all cannot be reversed.
When faced with a deadly venom-spewing architect of death it is best removed expeditiously. Those who speak derisively of the U.S. action in removing any further options from bin Laden, whose voices caress the words "moral obligations", are sadly delusional.
And what the United States ordered be done was to conduct an official assassination. Yes, they did. They did what the Israeli Mossad has long considered to be effective and needfully useful.
Onlookers and bystanders are offended. Of course those who considered Osama bin Laden to be an honoured mujahedeen, a man of principle, a pious man of God, actually following orders from on high to defend Islam from the infidels and Crusaders are beside themselves with rage. Citing their determination to carry on without him, that his precious blood would not be spilled for no cause; he will be avenged.
Even his estranged sons whose own sensibilities were offended by their father's insistence on slaughtering innocent civilians; those of the West and Muslims as well, were dreadfully upset that their father was not politely arrested and placed on trial. Exception is also taken to the fact that his body was buried at sea; had film been taken of a Muslim scholar offering last rites in a land burial many claim they would have found that acceptable.
The burning question is why does it matter what his end was like considering the violence he espoused and demanded in the mass slaughter of innocent people? He was guilty of mass murder, and he continued to agitate for further slaughter in the name of Islam. He posed as a dire threat to the well-being of a good portion of the Globe, given the off-shoots of al-Qaeda posed and determined to terrorize their targets.
The niceties of the law become forfeit when facing up to a resourceful, indomitable, resistant-to-reason adversary who will grasp at any measures, however vile and destructive to wound an enemy mortally. Osama bin Laden was simply treated to his own brand of action in an act of official retribution for the thousands of lives he was responsible for terminating.
The United States is again being treated in some quarters - say for example, Britain, where the infiltration into society at many levels, including politics and academia of tolerance for Islamist rhetoric and claims for justice have been astoundingly successful, as an intolerant brute of a nation. An undercurrent of sympathy for bin Laden and recrimination toward the U.S. for killing the al-Qaeda leader runs through that society.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had a sympathetic take on the situation: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done." Justice? Why justice was indeed done, and seen to be done. It is the interpretation of justice that is at question here. Kill unmercifully and be yourself treated to no mercy.
Osama bin Laden whose sole raison d'etre is the destruction of Western society and the elevation of Islamism had no compassion whatever for those whom he delivered to death. He felt that anyone associated with the West was tainted and had no right to live. He engineered death traps, inspired followers to think of more inventive and useful ways to slaughter people.
Was he really owed the dignity of being handled with respect? His life was to be given the respect and the dignity and the honour that was denied by him to countless others? He used every and any means at his disposal to destroy life, why was his life worthy of special consideration? Those who express reservations about the manner in which his life was taken are clearly confused.
It's the same old story about reservations taken by those who are uninvolved; those who are not threatened, demanding of those who must defend themselves that they do so fully observing the fine points of the law. When you're dead because of a lack of attention to the big picture and too much attention to the fine details, the finality of it all cannot be reversed.
When faced with a deadly venom-spewing architect of death it is best removed expeditiously. Those who speak derisively of the U.S. action in removing any further options from bin Laden, whose voices caress the words "moral obligations", are sadly delusional.
Labels: Security, Terrorism, United States
posted by Pieface | 6:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home