If the Law is against you, argue morality. If morality is against you, argue the Law.

One can imagine Alan Austins sour face now that he knows that the hated USA has killed his hero. Naturally, he has to dream up something, anything, to try and get some mileage out of.

Alan has chosen to appear the impartial referee, sagely pointing out that killing bin Laden was utterly wrong, because killing peopkle is wrong, it is not justice, blah, blah, blah.

His opinion might make some sense if Afghanistan was a normal country whose police force would have arrested bin Laden and his cronies, and then extradited them to the USA for justice. But Al Qaida is a private army, who's existence was sanctioned by what laughingly passed for a "government" in that blighted multicultural country. The only way that anyone was going to get bin Laden was by military force.

Terrorists are not criminals. Criminals are primarily concerned with self interest. Criminals do not blow themselves up in aeroplanes just to mass murder their fellow passengers to make a religious point. And terorists are not soldiers. They are not representative of any recognised state, they are private armies who wear no internationally recognised uniform, and they have as much right to go to war against the West, as the Ku Klux Klan has to go to war with France.

I am very ahppy that bin Laden is dead, and I hope that the yanks bury him in a pigskin

Hate to break it to you, LEGO, but bin Laden is a Saudi millionaire who has been living sumptuously in a mansion in Pakistan, as the US has known for ages. So, um, Afghanistan?
And ‘terrorists are not criminals’? Try telling that to the victims of the Bali bombings or 9/11.
Excellent article, thank you, Alan. I just hope you are wrong about this barbarous murder by US thugs leading to more senseless killings.

I don’t think either are correct, Obama with (Justice has been done) or Alan Austin with (the murder of Bin Laden). This was just good old retribution and I don’t have a problem with that.

When an angry son of a wealthy Saudi family goes feral and stirs up hatred and inspires atrocities against all creeds, and all nations, the inevitability of retribution is not far away.

It is instructive that against the backdrop of the rising up of peoples against oppression, those who look really out of touch are now squealing; they are the human rights activists.

As our attention is drawn to those really oppressed and largely ignored by human rights activists, we can compare the perceived oppression by the west in general and the USA in particular, with the real oppression.

Osama Bin Laden has done more to damage Islamic Fundamentalism than any other individual. It is now exposed for what it is, Islamic-fascism. We in the west now understand just how sectarian, fractured and conflicting Islam really is. We understand just how the latest breed of totalitarian oppressors has high jacked their religious passion.

More importantly, we now have the comparative understanding that the most dangerous amongst us are those who, under the cover of human rights, support those who threaten our societies from within.

Sorry for your loss Alan, but where have you been for the last 40 years?

“Ending this evil of government-sanctioned murder must require all nations, including the USA, to desist.”

Had only one nation the capability to be really democratic would be a start!

The people of Australia could be the first.

Or is mine the only forlorn hope of a skeptic?

Osama Bin Laden when surrounded by USA armed men was given the opportunity to surrender and be brought to trial same as Saddam Husein; which would have been preferable. He chose to stand and fight as a martyr so there were no options but to shoot.

@ spindoc, you write: "I don’t think either are correct, Obama with (Justice has been done) or Alan Austin with (the murder of Bin Laden). This was just good old retribution and I don’t have a problem with that."
Are you serious or just teasing? Do you really believe it is okay for an armed squad to enter another country and assassinate people they believe are guilty of past atrocities?
Surely this is the moral philosophy which underlay the attacks by Al Qaeda on American military targets ten years ago.
Don't you think we in the West these days should value the rule of law and fair trial above retribution?

Sunflower,

Advocacy and activism exhibit two key characteristics, languaging and adopted values.

The suspension of normal language and substitution with key words is always evident.

In your case we can point to the substitution of “American Soldiers” with “armed squad”, the use of “killing” changed to “assassination”, that they “believe are guilty of past atrocities’ to both raise a question mark over BL’s culpability and to try to pretend that such atrocities are not longer occurring, that it is a question of “moral philosophy” and that it was our western values that “caused” AQ to attack us, you then to suggest only “military targets” were attacked and that this only happened “ten years ago”. Really?

This stuff is “languaging” straight out of the terrorist propaganda manual, were BL still alive he would say to you, Sunflower, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

These are the best examples of “adopted values”. Your opinion is not actually your own, it is “adopted” from the links to which you subscribe and the similar opinions you seek as ideological reinforcement.

Do I “think we in the West these days should value the rule of law and fair trial above retribution?” Firstly, you can cut out the “we”, I don’t think for others and have no interest in imposing my values on group western thinking. I’ll leave that to the progressive HR advocates.

Were I to adopt Christian values I might say “vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord”. Were I Judaic I might say “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Since I’m neither I’ll make my own judgments but I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations.

The most powerful weapon international terrorism has is propaganda. Their greatest joy and delight comes from western “progressives” mouthing the stuff they feed you. It is just “languaging” and it identifies you with those who challenge our values.

Words like justice, murder or retribution are only semantically relevant to those whose trade is “languaging”, HR Activists.

No one else gives a “rats”, another mass murderer dead, get over it.

Hi Spindoc, thanks. Okay, let me ask it this way: Do you really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?
Regarding your philosophy 'I don’t think for others and have no interest in imposing my values on group western thinking' would you accept that finding common ground on issues to do with human rights is a desirable goal?

Sunflower,

Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?”

Yep! Terrorists do it all the time.

Do I “accept that finding common ground on issues to do with human rights is a desirable goal?”

Nope!

Firstly, Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.

Secondly, ignorant, misguided and emotively driven HR advocates have consistently made things worse for those oppressed by despotic dictators. (What it is you seek to avoid, you create.)

Thirdly, having already stated that “I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations”, why would I seek compromise with what I already believe to be flawed and irrelevant thinking.

Fourthly, why would achieving a common “desirable goal” on issues to do with human rights be relevant to absolutely anything or anyone except HR activists?

Fifthly, If you have to ask the same question of me again with slightly varied wording, when I have already given an answer and my reasoning, then you are doing precisely what I said you were, “languaging”. (Which by the way, is a well documented “cult” technique)

Other possibilities include that you did not comprehend my answer; you did not like it, you responded only to the “key emotive” words, you avoided all my assertions or did not read it at all.

I’m being gentle because you said thanks. Likewise thank you for what I believe to be genuine interest. My intention is to engage you to substantiate YOUR position so that we can enjoy a meaningful debate by avoiding link wars and rented opinion.

You can do this by challenging the assertions in my last post, and please do.

P.S You can be rude to me if it helps.

Okay, Spindoc. I will challenge some of your assertions. But first, can you please clarify:

(1) Who you mean by ‘those really oppressed and largely ignored by human rights activists’?

(2)To whom are you referring with ‘the most dangerous amongst us are those who, under the cover of human rights, support those who threaten our societies from within’?

(3)‘Your opinion is not actually your own, it is “adopted” from the links to which you subscribe and the similar opinions you seek as ideological reinforcement.’ Is this true of you and me both, Spindoc, or just me?

(4)‘Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?” Yep! Terrorists do it all the time.’ So are you saying that killings by Al Qaeda and the US administration are morally acceptable to you?

And finally, (5)‘Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.’ Do you accept that in a democracy, governments, including heads of state, represent and should be responsive to the will of the populace?

Sunflower, sure can and thanks for asking.

1. I refer to the victims of the despotic dictators in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Zimbabwe, much of Africa and South America, just to mention a few.

2. Western Human Rights activists (some academics,some media, NGO’s and some politicians) that proselytize propaganda generated by terrorist organisations and are contrary to the interests and security of their home nation.

3. If you have researched a topic and reached a conclusion on your own you will easily be able to defend and substantiate your position. If you depend on information links and supportive opinion of others, you will not be able to debate your position, because it is an adopted position generated by someone else.

4. This is the third time you have put this question and in three different ways. I do not have a moral post status quo position on this, therefore I have no requirement to impose it upon either you, the USA or AQ. If you ask an indirect, pre-loaded question containing “assumption closes” it is not possible to give any answer, let alone yes or no.

(Can I help you sir? yes/no.(closed question) What can we help you with today sir? well actually I was looking for a …….(open question). Don’t try to get cute Sunflower.

5. Only if they have a parliamentary majority (mandate). Rule for the people by the people excludes creaking gate minorities. Sorry but I didn’t invent Parliamentary Democracy. Your expression “responsive to the will of the populace” is a great example of meaningless languaging, you are suspending normal language, the word you are looking for is “mandate”, stop writing uni-babble.

Now can we have some challenges please or is your plan to run me past my post limit?

Spindoc. Some challenges.

'This was just good old retribution and I don’t have a problem with that.'
Problem is that might-is-right creates a cycle of violence where closure is virtually impossible. Rule of law, as defended in the original article, while sometimes inconvenient, often finds closure, and sometimes even justice.

'When an angry son of a wealthy Saudi family goes feral and stirs up hatred and inspires atrocities against all creeds, and all nations ...
This does not characterise Osama bin Laden from what we know so far.

'to both raise a question mark over BL’s culpability and try to pretend that such atrocities are not longer occurring ... and that it was our western values that “caused” AQ to attack us ...'
Certainly, atrocities are still committed by terrorist groups. But the human carnage is far less than that wreaked by the US and its allies.
It is not western values that inspire hatred of the US and its allies, but the West spurning them.

'Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.'
No, striving for a better world for the disadvantaged is for everyone.

'Secondly, ignorant, misguided and emotively driven HR advocates have consistently made things worse for those oppressed by despotic dictators.'
No, I think the opposite is generally the case, though there are exceptions.

'why would achieving a common “desirable goal” on issues to do with human rights be relevant to absolutely anything or anyone except
HR activists?'
Because those goals include safety, shelter, sustenance and freedom which are desirable for everyone everywhere.

'having already stated that “I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations”, why would I seek compromise with what I already believe to be flawed and irrelevant thinking.
Opinions adopted, which most are on any topic, are not automatically flawed or irrelevant.

‘Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial ...'
It is both morally wrong and tactically stupid to do this. Applies to the USA, AQ and others.

Sunflower, when we got to the bit where my description of bin Laden was met by your response of “This does not characterize Osama bin Laden from what we know so far”, I bailed out.

If the basis for your position really is that bin Laden was not guilty of “inspiring atrocities against all creeds and all nations”. Then I’m afraid you are beyond help. Disappointing really as I had thought there was a glimmer of reality in there somewhere.

I don’t even feel like mocking you, I just feel a bit sad for you really.

Sunflower, I have this great relationship with my grandkids. When they are angry, frustrated or confused, I kneel beside them, head on their shoulder and I whisper in their ear. We love you very much; we understand why you feel as you do, we enjoy the time we share, so let’s think about what fun things we could do. The tension subsides, I lean back, hold hands and look then in the eye and say, what are we going to do next?

You are angry, frustrated, very confused and you need someone to do the same for you.

You cannot go through life carrying such levels of irrationality on you own.

Thanks for your persistence but this turned out to be a fizzer.

Greetings all. Well, that was interesting.
Sorry to see Spindoc bail just when it was getting constructive.
Sunflower, if you are still here, I think most of your observations are mainstream here in Europe, but you will probably not be surprised to hear they will be a threat and a bother to consumers of Fox News in the USA and Australia. (I presume you are in Australia.)
Regarding your comment that Spindoc’s “son of a wealthy Saudi family goes feral and stirs up hatred and inspires atrocities against all creeds, and all nations” does not characterise Osama bin Laden from what we know so far, what are your sources?
Cheers.

Hi Alan,
I have read just about everything I can find. The most useful recently has been Ahmed Hashim who teaches at an American military academy somewhere. He writes fairly prolifically so can be googled, I expect. You are right about Fox News. I don’t watch any TV and don’t even own one. Maybe that’s why I am out of step with many people here. Yes, I am Australian.
My view after reading everything I can find is that bin Laden is in the category of, say, Tony Blair or John Howard – a significant player in a process of evil decisions which cost several thousand innocent lives in pursuit of what was genuinely believed to be a just cause. The fact that Al Qaeda started out building hospitals is intriguing. So is his being funded by the Americans to fight the Soviets.
The reality most people miss is that he was actually quite scrupulous in limiting civilian casualties when attacking the military personnel in the Pentagon and the twin towers. They say 50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center, and another 140,000 visited daily. So how were fewer than 3000 killed? Careful timing, it seems.
I certainly agree that was still an evil act and deserves condemnation and the appropriate punishment. I have friends in New York and certainly understand their horror. But George W Bush's futile invasions in the Middle East have killed more than 7000 Americans along with more than 100,000 Muslim men, women and children in a relatively indiscriminate manner. My American friends are aware of this too, but strangely not so horrified. It is a wonderful world …
Cheers, Alan,
Stacy