Here is a very intellectual comment I got from a Doctor in Calif......
How I processed my emotions Sunday night - A reaction to Osama Bin Ladens demise
5/3/2011
Immediately after hearing the news of OBLs killing, the events of the last 10 years zoomed past by me in a flashback. The memories that included images of our fellow citizens jumping off the twin towers to their tragic deaths, to the outcry from families of the victims of this tragedy, to the catastrophes of subsequent wars and suffering afflicted on Iraqi/Afghani citizens, to the torture and imagery of prison cells like Abu-Gharib and then the numerous stories of serious domestic law enforcement abuses such as that imposed on Fahad Hashmy in NY were indeed very painful and something that I would hate to be reminded of again and again.
My heart was heavy and I felt a deep sorrow for all those that suffered under the rubric of this conflict. But at the same time I was very proud and in awe of the decisiveness and poise of President Obama. His speech gave me much strength. I went to the mosque that night and saw my fellow Muslims with saddened faces lost in deep reflection under the same agony of the traumatizing past decade. I suggested to them, "tonight we must stand with the President and the decisions that he made". They acknowledged and thought about it further, then nodded and all of a sudden it seemed as if they all also found a way to process and place their own emotions accordingly. We all found an anchor to get bearings on our feelings of general sadness, not for OBL of-course, but for feeling besieged for so many years.
The next day when several Muslim leaders and scholars suggested that Muslim community is either overjoyed, ecstatic or happy over this incident, I couldnt get myself to agree at all. It didnt even seem congruous with the emotions of these same leaders as they spoke. It didn't feel genuine. Perhaps because at the moment they failed to address the deepest fear in our community, one of this rising rhetoric of Islamophobia and no one emphatically suggested that it was then time to close this chapter and shut the doors on hate against Muslims in America.
For now it seems like everyone is simply digging into their respective positions even deeper, the right is only interested in perpetuating the threat of radical Islam, the calls from the left to bring troops back home are getting louder, and the response of Muslim leaders is as confused as ever with no indication of owning up to the reasons behind extreme deviations within the faith as in the UBL phenomenon so that it may in turn lead to concrete solutions internally to defeat such an extreme ideological onslaught.
I dont think anyone will hear me when I cry out, at least for now, but I'll say it as loud as I could, its time to let go. The Al-Qaeda story has ended and all that it inspired in terms of war and suffering must end as well. Will the remnants of its ideology survive? Sure, but so did communist parties as they still exist in many countries, neo-Nazism or neo-fascism (seen even here in today's America), but their overall impact on public psyche is none to insignificant. Its time to let go.
5/3/2011
Immediately after hearing the news of OBLs killing, the events of the last 10 years zoomed past by me in a flashback. The memories that included images of our fellow citizens jumping off the twin towers to their tragic deaths, to the outcry from families of the victims of this tragedy, to the catastrophes of subsequent wars and suffering afflicted on Iraqi/Afghani citizens, to the torture and imagery of prison cells like Abu-Gharib and then the numerous stories of serious domestic law enforcement abuses such as that imposed on Fahad Hashmy in NY were indeed very painful and something that I would hate to be reminded of again and again.
My heart was heavy and I felt a deep sorrow for all those that suffered under the rubric of this conflict. But at the same time I was very proud and in awe of the decisiveness and poise of President Obama. His speech gave me much strength. I went to the mosque that night and saw my fellow Muslims with saddened faces lost in deep reflection under the same agony of the traumatizing past decade. I suggested to them, "tonight we must stand with the President and the decisions that he made". They acknowledged and thought about it further, then nodded and all of a sudden it seemed as if they all also found a way to process and place their own emotions accordingly. We all found an anchor to get bearings on our feelings of general sadness, not for OBL of-course, but for feeling besieged for so many years.
The next day when several Muslim leaders and scholars suggested that Muslim community is either overjoyed, ecstatic or happy over this incident, I couldnt get myself to agree at all. It didnt even seem congruous with the emotions of these same leaders as they spoke. It didn't feel genuine. Perhaps because at the moment they failed to address the deepest fear in our community, one of this rising rhetoric of Islamophobia and no one emphatically suggested that it was then time to close this chapter and shut the doors on hate against Muslims in America.
For now it seems like everyone is simply digging into their respective positions even deeper, the right is only interested in perpetuating the threat of radical Islam, the calls from the left to bring troops back home are getting louder, and the response of Muslim leaders is as confused as ever with no indication of owning up to the reasons behind extreme deviations within the faith as in the UBL phenomenon so that it may in turn lead to concrete solutions internally to defeat such an extreme ideological onslaught.
I dont think anyone will hear me when I cry out, at least for now, but I'll say it as loud as I could, its time to let go. The Al-Qaeda story has ended and all that it inspired in terms of war and suffering must end as well. Will the remnants of its ideology survive? Sure, but so did communist parties as they still exist in many countries, neo-Nazism or neo-fascism (seen even here in today's America), but their overall impact on public psyche is none to insignificant. Its time to let go.
Please feel free to comment
Friends....here are three comments:
1.
I think there is a valid point that taking actions like what the US did in Pakistan raises legitimate questions about sovereignty. Unfortunately it gets tangled up when you are dealing with a country like Pakistan. You don't really have a functioning Government, there is total anarchy and chaos, nobody knows who is doing what, there is no accountability and they are harboring the worst terrorists in the world. Clearly there is a dilemma. Does anybody honestly believe that if the US had alerted the Pakistanis, there was any chance of either capture or killing of Osama? Osama has been enjoying the Pakistani hospitality at least for the past five or six years.
The question that troubles me is whether Osama should have been captured instead of being killed. Apparently there was little if any real resistance to the raid, he was unarmed and his wife and child were there. Even a vile person like Osama deserves mercy in these circumstances.
The question that troubles me is whether Osama should have been captured instead of being killed. Apparently there was little if any real resistance to the raid, he was unarmed and his wife and child were there. Even a vile person like Osama deserves mercy in these circumstances.
2.
Thanks. Interesting. Much more coherent analysis than Prashad's interview. I agree with most of it except the use of the word "assassination." which is being used rather loosely these days. It is usually reserved for heads of state and key political figures - Kennedy, Martin Luther, Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi. There is a certain 'reverence' (not the right word but you get the gist) if you will. Which creates certain legal issues and implications.
When they kill a leader of a terrorist organization or a thug or Gadhafi's sons or Sadam Hussein's sons or Usama - I would say they have been taken out or killed in action - which gives it the legitimacy of war or fighting terrorism.
Nobody questioned Israel when the Mosssad went after Eichmann and others who were then living in other sovereign nations?
3.
A very interesting presentation. It reminds me of two people seeing the same accident...One saw the red car hit the black car and the other saw the opposite. Sadly, in either case there was damage done. I believe the permission given for the actions taken are acceptable no matter who criticizes them. A moral pass should be given under a simple statement that 911 changed the rules of engagement, war, killing and recognition of a military enemy forever. I find it interesting in the presentation that the words "religion" or "Jihad" "Muslim Extremist", etc. are never used but rather "Al Queda," and "civilians" etc. ....It is very simple....We are in a religious war "Religious War" with a fanatical enemy and every "non believer" is the enemy. Even though their religion is very strict and well defined there is even a place where Allah grants them the right to "lie" to get an advantage over the non believer. There is not a human being alive that would ever think that "rules of military engagement" would be appropriate in a religious war. If they say that is not true then they are lying and simply want to argue.
Religious wars defined:
A religious war is a war caused by, or justified by, religious differences. It can involve one state with an established religion against another state with a different religion or a different sect within the same religion, or a religiously motivated group attempting to spread its faith by violence, or to suppress another group because of its religious beliefs or practices. The Muslim conquests, theFrench Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista are frequently cited historical examples, especially in History Books. Saint Augustine is credited as being the first to detail a Just War theory within Christianity, whereby war is justifiable on religious grounds.
If you cut away all the rhetoric and bull shit there are no rules.....This is a religious war there will be no truce.
If you cut away all the rhetoric and bull shit there are no rules.....This is a religious war there will be no truce.
In a message dated 5/5/2011 3:16:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, biru@writes:
Ravi:Good point......here is an article (after your comments) from Economist that gives the rationale behind the action.BiruOn Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:46 PM,Your buddy was on the Fox news channel a few minutes ago. He was interviewed today about his strong objection to the US killing Usama. "Illegal and violates the basic principles of sovereignty." US had no business invading a sovereign air space according to him. Did not make his case eloquently, and fumbled his interpretation of the law. Of course the legal eagles at Fox and O'Reilly are calling this chap a Pinhead.I think you could get an interesting discussion of law and raw emotion going on this!!Assassination
A messy businessWhen a state kills its enemies remotely, the law gets tangled
May 5th 2011 | from the print editionKILLING quickly in combat, when large numbers of soldiers are fighting according to the laws of war, is sad but legal. Change any of those parameters, and things get tricky. Some lawyers have denounced the killing of Mr bin Laden, unarmed and in his home, as an extra-judicial murder. Others see it as a wholly legitimate military operation.Every country allows soldiers to use lethal force against a declared enemy in wartime, just as police may, in some circumstances, kill criminals. But America is at war with an organisation, not a country, and though al-Qaeda is not a state it is (by its own account) at war with the United States. Purists argue that the criminal law is the right weapon for defence against terrorists; pragmatists would differ.In any case, America’s armed forces have legal backing for their actions against al-Qaeda. Though a presidential order of 1976 bars assassinations by America’s spooks, an act of Congress in 2001 authorised the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against the perpetrators of the terrorist attack in September of that year.Next comes the category of person killed. Deliberately targeting civilians in any conflict is illegal. But al-Qaeda has a quasi-military structure, and plenty of precedents exist for killing enemy commanders in wartime: in April 1943 America ambushed Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Japanese naval commander, on the express orders of President Franklin Roosevelt. Critics of America’s actions are arguing that Mr bin Laden was no longer the effective commander of al-Qaeda. But that would be hard to prove.Location can be controversial too. Russia sees the émigré Chechen leadership, for example, as legitimate targets and has killed them in places such as Qatar, to the fury of the local authorities. The assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas commander, in Dubai in January 2010, presumably by Israel, aroused similar ire. But Pakistan has itself used lethal force against al-Qaeda and allowed American drone attacks, for all its loud complaining now.Timing complicates the question further. Bombing soldiers in a hospital, or shooting them after they have surrendered, is a war crime. Soldiers are under no legal duty to give their opponents a chance to surrender, though if the white flag is shown it must usually be honoured. Nobody has suggested that Mr bin Laden tried to surrender. But his shooting while unarmed raises questions about the nature of his resistance. Any video footage of the attack will be closely scrutinised to see whether he was a combatant, rather than a prisoner.Behind the controversy is a change not in the laws of war but in the means of waging it. Drone strikes were measured in dozens under George Bush. They number many hundreds under Barack Obama. They allow an official sitting in America to kill someone thousands of miles away. Such killings usually escape scrutiny—and controversy—because they preclude any chance of surrender. Killing someone in the same room is always going to be more complicated.from the print edition | Briefing
Here is a good comment:
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Rove's roll in all this drama, but I am sure it is somebody just as good at work.
I, with my failing eyes saw, the enlargement of the meaning of the word Justice stretched to cover Revenge. Until now a judgment of a court of law carried the honor of being called justice, prior to that it was only attributed to acts of God. The word would have been appropriate had Bin Laden had been struck with lightening - assuming he had truly been the perpetrator of the terrorist acts that are almost universally been ascribed to him, or alternatively, if he had been caught, brought to a court which had jurisdiction over him, given an opportunity to present his defenses, and was then convicted, based on credible evidence in accordance with the universally accepted law of evidence, by competent judges.
This assassination sanctioned by this constitutional scholar does not rise to the stature of Justice by any stretch of legal imagination - at least not in my humble and inconsequential opinion. I can do no more than sit and scratch my balding head in wonder. Wonder at the power of power.
What else is new?
On the other hand, Obama had no choice but to conclude this sordid episode by bring about Usama's death in a manner guaranteed to not to leave him alive, and thereby prevent the opening up cans upon cans of worms that could crawl up to giddying heights and bring down taller personages and institutions then the TTs. The possibility of creating a deafening uproar and the unleashing of god-only- knows-what horrors, had to be avoided at all costs.
This is how the world has always been, and will, in all likelihood, remain.
Wring hands, shake head in unbelief, shed silent tears, choke with grief - that is, and will always be, our lot.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Another comment from a reader:
ReplyDeleteListening to the chattering class on TV, the liberal editorials and our (enlightened) politicians – – – it amuses me how they justify putting 2 bullets into Bin Laden and congratulating each other as a just cause - fighting the war on terrorism.
Yet, in the same breath they have the continuing debate on waterboarding and the justice department trying to prosecute the 5 CIA agents who waterboarded 3 known terrorists, whose testimony helped connect some of the dots which produced the end result.
In other words, the end was JUSTIFIED. But we have a problem with the MEANS!! How intellectually dishonest! If this had happened on Bush's watch. Michael Moore and his cohorts would probably have tried to sue him in court for ordering the hit, or violating some human rights law.