Writing over on the Corner, I’ve put up a few posts on the hand-wringing in Europe over the allegedly unseemly American response to the death of bin Laden, not to speak of the (manufactured) outrage over the the failure to bring him to trial.
As one might expect, England’s idiot savant Archbishop of Canterbury has been prominent amongst the hand-wringers, but it’s his German brethren who have really taken the lead, prompted, it seems, by a few mild words from Angela Merkel.
The Financial Times has a useful summary here:
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is a cautious and risk-averse leader who normally chooses her words with great care. Above all, she avoids saying anything to alarm the supersensitive German electorate. On the subject of the US operation that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, however, she has risked the wrath of many voters to demonstrate her solidarity with Washington.
It is good news. I am happy that they have succeeded in killing bin Laden,” Ms Merkel declared at a press conference shortly after his death was announced on Monday.
Ever since, she has been the target of criticism from all political parties, including her own, as well as from representatives of leading German churches. Alois Glück, president of the central committee of German Catholics, called her words “mistaken and very annoying”. Martin Dutzmann, army bishop for the Protestant evangelical church, said: “It would have been good news if he had been arrested, leading to a proper judicial process.”
From within her own Christian Democratic Union – a party that boasts strong Christian roots – came sharp words from Siegfried Kauder, brother of the party’s parliamentary leader Volker Kauder, and chairman of the legal affairs committee in the Bundestag. “The principle that the end justifies the means has no legal foundation,” he said.
Eberhard Schockenhoff, a Catholic theologian, whose brother Andreas is the foreign affairs spokesman for the CDU in parliament, said: “The violent death of a man should never be a cause for joy.”
These people really need to get over themselves.
“The violent death of a man should never be a cause for joy.”
Except Jesus, presumably.
I don’t pay a lot of attention to these hand-wringers, but I get the impression it’s OK when those outside the West rejoice over the deaths of others. Is this the soft prejudice of low expectations?
I think we discovered that we are enlightened rubber and these guys are terrorist glue. Unless of course we shot him in the head before he got to Gitmo. Hell seems like a good alternative.
“…but I get the impression it’s OK when those outside the West rejoice over the deaths of others.”
Really? Where do you get that? Certainly not from the actual European left, or the actual American one. My guess is that you listen to pundits whose modus operandi is to drag their political opponents through the mud, and you imagine that such a person would describe his declared enemy in a reasonable manner. That doesn’t happen a lot in this country. I find it almost unimaginable that 95% of the leftists I know gave the crowds in Gaza a pass for celebrating on 9/11, but the talking heads seem to believe this is what we all actually did.
As a bona-fide violence-loathing liberal, I can tell you that I join my many liberal friends in being at least a bit nauseated by any celebration of death. (My take was cribbed from Twain: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”) Why is it so impossible for some conservatives to imagine that some people really don’t like violence, and consider it uncivilized to celebrate the killing of a human being?
I’m kind of curious what, exactly, Mr. Stuttaford objects to here. “The principle that the end justifies the means has no legal foundation” seems pretty unconfrontational to my ears, having grown up in a post-Magna Carta world. “The violent death of a man should never be a cause for joy” is standard humanist ethics. I doubt Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Kant or Santayana would object to it especially.
I get that they’re sanctimonious. I don’t get what’s so objectionable about their opinions. Given the option of a justice system that was more medieval or less, I’ll take less, thank you. Dancing in the streets at the death of anyone falls into the “more medieval” category in my book.
Sean, take your medication.
What OBL did was an act of war. In any sane, moral, rational world it was not only just, but necessary to put the bastard down. This does not mean that tomorrow we’ll be lining up domestic murderers against the wall and shooting them without trial.
And spare us all the fake indignation about the alleged sensitivities of the left. I guarantee that when an IDF soldier is killed in Israel the reaction of most of the Euro left is somewhere between a broad smile and an erection.
What Mr. Stuttaford reacted to was the smarmy, self-righteous, psuedo-pious posturing of those who clearly DO NOT HAVE THE STONES FOR THIS FIGHT. Their hand-wringing, multi-culti, moral equivalence is part of the reason that OBL’s demise is one of the few bright spots in this war.
“Why is it so impossible for some conservatives to imagine that some people really don’t like violence?”
Because these people tend to fall into one of two categories: 1) Liars, who extol “revolutionary violence” or “resistance” but suddenly go Gandhi when the West actually defends itself; or 2) Those who live off the fruits of Western Civilization, but let others do the dirty work of defending it, denouncing them for their effort (or in this case, denouncing those of us who cheer — yes, cheer — that effort).
Sometimes you have to bomb Berlin. And sometimes you have to shoot the bastards. Man up.
Why is it so impossible for some conservatives to imagine that some people really don’t like violence, and consider it uncivilized to celebrate the killing of a human being?
Because “some people” only seem to get animated when they can take shots at Whitey. Otherwise, the most you’ll get out of them grudging assent and some equivocating lip-service.
Personally, as the son of a WWII vet, I’m happy to hear the Germans voice pacifist sentiment. I massively prefer a wimpy, pacifistic, neutered and completely non-threatening Germany to a robust, militarily confident and activist Germany. Let them read Goethe, build luxury cars and eat potato soup. All good things! Let them forever leave military affairs behind.
“I guarantee that when an IDF soldier is killed in Israel the reaction of most of the Euro left is somewhere between a broad smile and an erection.”
This is why I don’t believe you have any claim to speak reasonably about the left: you are as crassly clueless about us as knee-jerk leftists who see racism under every conservative stone. In both cases, the culprit is usually an over-reliance on ideological media to interpret the world for you.
“What Mr. Stuttaford reacted to was the smarmy, self-righteous, psuedo-pious posturing of those who clearly DO NOT HAVE THE STONES FOR THIS FIGHT.”
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!! Really! You’re too much! Did you notice that Bush begged off the hunt for UBL, but Obama got him? No, you probably believe that it was the result of some plan put in place years ago by the people from the approved party for these sortds of things. Go on, keep telling yourself that your simplistic idea that “Conservatives = tough guys and liberals = wimps” is anything more than wishful thinking and in-group behavior. If you type it in ALL CAPS it will seem more true to you, even when the world is busy providing evidence to the contrary.
As for “manning up,” I proved my worth on the battlefield. My guess, based on your bravado, is that you are like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and pretty much everyone in the AEI building: full of macho rhetoric and always ready to “show the world how you can’t mess with us,” but never once so much as laced up a pair of G.I. boots.
@Poli: “Because “some people” only seem to get animated when they can take shots at Whitey. Otherwise, the most you’ll get out of them grudging assent and some equivocating lip-service.”
Huh? “Take shots at Whitey”? WTF are you talking about?
On a general point: all I’d really like to see is some acknowledgement that the bogeyman leftists you’re so quick to dismiss only really exist as straw men for conservative talking points. “Islamophiles”? Dear fucking god, if you can’t tell the difference between respecting others’ views and seeing value in diversity, and positively promoting someone else’s agenda, you’re a moron and a self-righteous boor. Everything’s about “taking a shot at whitey”? If you believe that, you’ve got a serious tunnel-vision problem.
I suspect you don’t actually believe that, but that you get a lot of positive feedback in places like this for making casual, false assumptions that make liberals looks bad.
To the extent Bin Laden is a terrorist, might one label the U.S. to be a terrorist, too? Al Qaeda may have a casual disregard for American life (about 3,000 died in New York), but so does the U.S. have a disregard for Muslim life (110,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, 9,000 civilian death in Afghanistan). Is the coalition a terrorist body?
Those that “profess” that, are guilty of “false analogy”. So without entering into a lengthy forensic analysis, here are the major points of difference:
# Al Qiada INSTIGATED terrorist actions for religious/political purposes.
# The US Admin RESPONDED militarily, to protect non-military personnel.
# AQ continues to instigate & remains un-remorseful and vows endless action.
# The US is and remains, reluctant to continue, unnecessarily.
# OBL’s group TARGETS indiscriminate murder of as many unarmed civilians as possible.
# The US TARGETS terrorist groups only and AVOIDS civilians (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully).
# AQ TARGETS all nationalities (even Muslims), of all ages, in all countries.
# The Coalition TARGETS ONLY the sources of terrorists hotspots.
# AQ operates virtually unilaterally to no rules of engagement.
# The US operates within UN (world body) approved guidelines.
# AQ utilizes largely militarily untrained personnel and happily “sacrifices” them.
# The Coalition utilizes only trained military forces, and lovingly “protects” them.
# AQ’s aim is attention-seeking through mass murder.
# America’s aim is world order, through policing.
# AQ’s aim is dictatorial world domination through harsh Sharia law.
# The US aim is freedom for all men, including Muslims.
# AQ respects martyrdom through death.
# America respects the sanctity of life.
This list is in no way, exhaustive, but I hope shows that this argument compares apples to pine-apples. Great post however, and thanks for letting me share.