Thursday, 12 May 2011

The Fates of Evil Men

I am going to start this article by believing the premise that a team of US army SEALS, acting under president Obama’s specific instructions, did indeed raid a compound in Pakistan last Monday and shot the world’s most wanted terrorist, when the elderly invalid was unarmed and eminently capturable.

I am going to accept that the soldiers took photographs of the corpse, to prove he was dead but that these were later considered too gruesome to release, because they might antagonise his supporters even more than their tender sensibilities might be inflamed by widely circulated film of Infidel youth celebrating the assassination of an unarmed middle aged cleric. (what other explanation could there be?!)

Going further, and for the purpose of argument, I will believe that DNA tests were carried out which showed a direct link with one of the bin Laden’s sisters. The authorities were, no doubt, able to conclusively rule out the possibility they had accidentally shot one of the many other bin Laden brothers instead of Osama.

I will not question the claim that the US administration assumed that quickly chucking the body of the FBI’s most wanted felon into the sea within 24 hours of his death, and before announcing that death to the world, would not raise any suspicions whatsoever.  I am sure that they truly believed that burial at sea was “in accordance with Islamic tradition” (whereas, in fact, burial at sea is only permissible when it is not possible to bury the body in earth before decomposition sets in – which was not a factor in this case)

I will even struggle to accept that the al Quada leader did indeed make home movies of the back of his own head as he watched himself on TV, from time to time zooming in on his own ear as he did so. It follows that the dishevelled and rather pathetic looking figure in the videos released a few days ago was indeed OBL and not some lookie-likie Arab-American from Battle Creek, Nebraska, flown in specially.

Whilst I am in the mood to extend credibility to lengths which would challenge Ping the Elastic Man, I will also believe that it is merely coincidence that the successful climax of the nine and a half year search for Osama bin Laden coincided so closely with President Obama being forced to publish a rather dubious looking document purporting to be his Hawaian birth certificate, whilst the President’s approval ratings were heading below sea level, and that extremely suspicious conflict in Libya was starting to settle into an uncomfortable and very long stalemate.
More difficult for me is accepting the word of the current US Attorney General Eric Holder, a man who makes Alberto Gonzalez appear a paragon of truth and honesty, when he assures us that the killing was not an “assassination”, but heck, if I’ve gone this far, I may as well go the whole hog, as they say.

Not everybody is rejoicing at the death. Various, Mullahs, jihadis and tenured university professors aside, the arch Bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams confesses to a degree of queasiness over the shooting of an unarmed man. However, Rowan has a queasy reaction to so many things it is hard to take his moralising very seriously.

Despite Rowan’s nervous stomach, and any quibbling over the legal definition of what took place, the American government takes the view that they were entirely justified in taking out Osama bin Laden. Assuming, as I have for the purpose of this article, that rather than blowing him to smithereens in Tora Bora in 2002, they really did take him out last week, and then chuck him in the sea, bizarre as that may sound.

In that case, many might conclude that they were justified in that view, and I certainly find myself feeling sympathetic to that argument. Bin laden was the self confessed mastermind of violent acts of terrorism which left many American citizens dead, a man who embraced the ideology of violent insurrection against those he viewed as the oppressors of his people, and someone who was the inspiration for others who went on to commit acts of terrible cruelty and barbarism.

Of course, one might be able to argue the something similar about individuals currently employed, on an elected basis, within the Northern Ireland Assembly, and of course, even more so, about one internationally revered elder statesman, currently enjoying a luxurious retirement in South Africa.

It is true many thousands more died in the World trade centre in 2001 than were killed in the Church Street bombing in 1983, which Mandela freely admits he approved.  However, the victims of Church Street were no less dead, and neither were the 130 left with varying degrees of horrific injury any less the victims of terrorism just because they were attacked in Pretoria rather than New York.

If numbers of victims are anything to go by, although worldwide al Quada has killed more, the ANC, under Nelson Mandela’s leadership were responsible for the violent deaths of far greater numbers of South African citizens, mostly black, than the number of American citizens killed by a bin Laden led al Quada. By the most conservative estimate the ratio is almost seven to one. (and the killing still continues)

Hence if the US government is justified in “taking out” Osama bin-laden in 2011, why would the pre-1990 National government of South Africa not have been justified in “taking out” Nelson Mandela?  Both men led terrorist organisations both were equally guilty of orchestrating acts of violent terrorism against states which they perceived as oppressors, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocent citizens.

These are men of blood with much blood on their hands, it is only the fashionable prejudice of the world, and the outcomes which they faced which differentiates the two.  One, reviled by the West, and dead at 54, now, allegedly, feeds the fishes of the Pakistani coast, the other, still thriving and applauded in his 10th decade, is held up to our children a some form of living saint.       

When I wrote the article “Mandela the legend and the legacy” I started by saying that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, very little illustrates that point more clearly than the differing fates of Osama bin Laden and Nelson Mandela.


Anonymous said...

Sarah, correction, US Navy SEALs. Not the US Army, the Special Forces in the Army are refered to as "Green Berets" or "SF".

The SEALS are part of the Navy.
I knew a SEAL years back when I lived in San Diego, CA (they train in Coronado, CA). One of the cleverest men I've had the pleasure of meeting. I met several members of his team as well. These MEN are very intense people and very smart.
Far from how the media portrays them in the movies. The SEALs I met were very articulate, professional and carried themselves in a razor sharp manor.
One more thing I should add, they were also all White. Practicaly all of our Special Forces and military pilots here in the states are WHITE men. Special Forces only wants the best of the best and they rigorously weed out the weak during the brutal training programs.
You could bet that the team of SEALs that hit Bin Laden were all White Men.

Macaw said...

I just read on that "they" found pornography in the compound...I suppose in a day or so we will be informed that they found a photo album of OBL having dinner with Bush and possibly even a donors list of some sort for kidneys.....

Anonymous said...

Very interesting view.
Like you said, the "new ethic" in society is to "turn the other cheek" and "forgive and forget".
Problem is, while most are forgiving and forgetting, groups like militant Islam and the ANC are laughing their backsides off while they carry on their ideologies and still kill and oppress under the guise of democracy.
Some debts to society and humankind cannot be paid by "I am old" or "I have served my time" or "I am sorry". I am sorry to declare that I believe some debts can only be paid in blood.
If you live by the sword, so you should perish.

PamelaG said...

I am sure the next thing we will hear is that it was "gay porn" or it involved children and animals.

We say the same thing with Jörg Haider and and Terre'Blanche, the moment they were dead all sorts of lies about their sex lives appeared in the press.

Naturally, I am not comparing those honourable men with the likes of bin Laden, but the establishment will use the same tried and tested tricks against him as they did against them.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should reconsider referring to Terre'Blanch as an honourable man. He was as dishonourable as Mandela and Osama bin Laden.

Macaw said...

@anon, regarding what you say about Terreblanche, one thing that you cannot dispute is the fact that he cared for his people. Really cared.

I personally did not agree with a few things he did, but that does not make him dishonourable. If you want to mention him in the same light as Bin Laden and Mandela, you should have added, Mugabe, Castro, Obama, Chavez, Ghadaffi, etc,
I personally also agree that Mandela is a terrorist . You cannot put Terreblanche in the same caratgory as Mandela and OBL.

Anonymous said...

Macaw, you are correct, i have to admit i can also mention those other men and in terms of actions, ET was way below.
However, i do believe if you care for your people at the expense of all others, whatever the cost, you are as bad as the ppl you mentioned.
OBL cared for HIS ppl to the point where he hated all others.
You have to admit that Mandela also cares for his ppl, at the expense of whites.
i am sure the same was true of Hitler.
So, imho, those who hate others in order to care for their own, are evil.
Thanks for your civil and insightful response.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

The trouble is Anon, any white person who declares a love for our race is automatically accused of hating other races.

The only attitudes whites are permitted to take about their own race is to either to be critical of them or totally indifferent to their fate.

All white Nationalist groups are accused of hate, the establishment does not acknowledge any alternative.

Blacks can love their race, so can Asians, Arabs, Hispanics and Native Americans, but not whites.

Anonymous said...

He was 54. Do you consider that "elderly" ??

Many men are starting new families at that age!

Is a woman considered 'elderly' when she stops menstruating in her 40's or late 30's in some cases?

Dr.D said...

Sarah, you started this article with a most comprehensive list of assumptions as to what you are going to believe. I suppose that helps to control the direction of the thread, but it also excludes some pretty creditable possibilities, I think.

misterfox said...

This might clarify a few points -

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Dear Dr. D

I am sure you will have appreciated the irony in what I claimed to "believe"