Just when I thought some sanity was being restored to the world, the lead human rights official at the United Nations is now asking questions about the manner of Osama bin Laden’s death.
Are you kidding me?
I do not care if Osama was waving a white flag and singing Kumbaya.
He gave no quarter to civilians. Therefore, he deserved none in return.
Additionally, there would be no benefit and great risk to capturing bin Laden.
For one thing, it would provide Islamic terrorists with an excuse to take American hostages to demand bin Laden’s release.
Such is the hypocrisy of the far left. They pretend to acknowledge the necessity for the military on the one hand and say they “support the troops”, yet they condemn every single thing those troops do on the other.
Furthermore, your comment about taking him alive is bang-on, but will undoubtedly be considered “inhumane” and “barbaric” by many of those said people on the left.
I am still trying to get over having an Islamic bural at sea.
What the hell?
They should have had his body drawn and quartered. Then they should have sent his four limbs to the four corners of the United States. They should have put his head on a pike, bronzed it, and displayed it at ground zero. Then they should have buried his torso in pigskin.
What the hell?
Osama stepped into the arena of war. While he may have failed to play by the rules of honorable warfare, we shouldn’t make that same mistake.
A warrior knows his risks, his gamble. He may be willing to parlay his honor for hollow victory. Or not.
It is not cowardly or dastardly to shoot this bastard in his home. However, it is proper to bury the dead.
“However, it is proper to bury the dead.”
OK, maybe the burying his torso in pigskin was a bit too much…
Also, mutilating his body after death really doesn’t harm him — he’s dead after all! But it might incite anger and arouse sympathy for him, which could have negative consequences. So in terms of both pragmatism and honor, the burial was the right thing to do.
The United Nations Commission on human rights has a record of focusing purely on human rights principles regardless of whether its left or right. I would be shocked if it didn’t question the way Bin Laden was treated. In this case, the principled human rights advocates have a strong argument that we violated human rights, and thus they should make that argument. As a pragmatist, I respond simply that “yes, his human rights were violated, but it was the proper thing to do.” I find no joy or celebration in his death, rather a sense that this was a job that had to be done, and it was done properly.
“Also, mutilating his body after death really doesn’t harm him — he’s dead after all! But it might incite anger and arouse sympathy for him, which could have negative consequences.”
I completely agree. Alas, sometimes I like to make references to obscure Anglo-Saxon medieval and colonial practices when I get fired up. ;-).
The English had drawn and quartered Scotish rebel William Wallace after his death and put his head on London Bridge. The British Army put down a Sudanese Islamist revolt in the late 1800s by dipping their bullets in pigs’ blood and burying the bodies of the rebels in pigskin. The rebellion ceased shortly thereafter.
“I find no joy or celebration in his death, rather a sense that this was a job that had to be done, and it was done properly.”
Unfortunately, I did find joy in his death.
This animal set off a chain of events that resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people. There is a special place in hell for demi-human creatures such as bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin.
Speaking of the death of an animal, did you ever watch *Downfall* about the final days of Hitler’s regime? If it’s accurate (and supposedly most think it’s pretty close) Hitler went through weeks of psychological hell as his world collapsed around him and he realized he lost it all. In that sense, Bin Laden’s death was a bit too quick and painless.
I did. Very disturbing, especially the poisoning of the Goebels’ children.