Monday, May 9, 2011

Every man’s Death Diminishes Me… Or Not

"No man is an iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

John Donne (1572 –1631), Meditation 17: Devotions upon Emergent Occasions
Donne's meditation refers to the illness and lingering death of another man, not to the issue of stopping the deaths incurred to the vileness of another man. The Atheo-Left has long wept at the deaths of mass-murdering tyrants while ignoring and even supporting the deaths of innocents yet to be born. The mood upon the death of Osama is being interpreted as blood-lust by the same folk who are impervious to the thrust of scissors into the brain of a pre-born human. If civilization is based on justice, then that is what separates the Atheo-Left from the rest of us. To experience sadness at the death of Osama Bin Laden is uncivilized in the sense of a threat removed permanently and the proper sense of relief and happiness which that threat removal logically brings. To pompously and piously advertise that sadness with widespread distribution of personal self-righteousness is perverse peddling of personally derived morality, a morality which is demonstrably irrational.
“How curious that people would cheer another’s death”.


“Perhaps it is a function of age, but I find no solace in revenge. What I do experience at such times is overwhelming sadness about the human condition, our bloodlust and attraction to spectacle. I have felt similarly twice before in recent memory – on the day when Saddam Hussein was hanged and, and under drastically different circumstances, during the 1998 execution of Karla Fay Tucker in Texas.
In both instances, we millions tuned in to follow or observe the killings. No two people have more deserved the full force of earthly justice. Saddam’s crimes are well known. Tucker murdered two people with an ax.

Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist
Declarations of blood-lust and revenge are false, and Parker undoubtedly knows that - and if not, her commentary credentials should be revoked. Overwhelming sadness? What about watching the butchering of 3,000 people on TV, realtime? No mention of that. To witness deserved justice become justice delivered is not cause for sadness; a vastly irrational and improper emotion can be a sign of emotional problems, Kathleen.
“We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.”

Noam Chomsky,
Chomsky's reaction to 9/11 was that the U.S. deserved it. So his designation of Bush and the USA as war criminals is not surprising. Chomsky is a lover of the dictator, the absolute power bearer, so long as the bearer of power is not the United States. His example of a similar raid on US soil is precisely what the thrust of the war on terror is supposed to prevent. Pakistan was not violated; its terrorist was.

“And while I’m at it, I’m sorry I didn’t go celebrate in front of the White House last Sunday night. I have zero patience for the “every man’s deathe diminishes me” meme, au courant in some (and some surprising) quarters; it is untrue and a disservice to the concept of justice. Unjust aggression, unjust war is a form of tyranny, as Michael Walzer wrote in Just and Unjust Wars.

The tyrant does not have to be sitting atop of one as the dictator in power; today the tyrant can be a terrorist who leverages a small bit of actual violence into a massively tyrannical effect, even from a far distance. And when the tyrant is overthrown, even one at a far distance and in a far country (where he is sheltered and given safe haven by those who are also enemies of ours), we the people rejoice and celebrate in the streets and shout for joy at his downfall and, yes, his death. Why should we not?”

Kenneth Anderson at
Just and Unjust Wars: To the Atheo-Left the only just war is one against modern states, Palestine against Israel; Al Qaida against civilization in general; Che Guevara against unarmed peasants. The true blood-lust is here, not in the celebration of justice.


Martin said...

Hopefully, you can agree with Obama's words this one time:

"I think anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have their head examined."

Stan said...


Ross said...

Am I relieved that bin Laden is dead? Frankly, yes.

Dan said...

While I agree it is sentimental and naive of the grossest magnitude to mourn the loss of a mass murderer, I think it is ambitious to claim all those people were 'celebrating justice'.

On another note: there are very few people who would question a 'perpetrator of mass murder' deserving death (except those you're mocking or those who reject the death penalty no matter what). There is however, much more to issue here if you're going to condemn the left's reaction Bin Laden being killed, under one umbrella: namely: 1. Bin Laden was never shown to be guilty by any method that anyone considers judicial; 2. The hypocrisy of America claiming to uphold international law, in face of it's execution of the War on Terror and this act in particular; 3. The hypocrisy of America claiming to lead the global fight for justice and against terror with its history of state terrorism across the entire globe; 4. The ignorance and stupidity of denying a link between these past actions of the USA and said 9-11 event (which is all Chomsky highlighted by the way; he NEVER said the USA or those innocent people 'deserved it'); 5. The fact that under the definition of those international laws (and common intellectual and moral decency) Bush is 'uncontroversially' a war criminal of a far greater magnitude; 6. Pakistani sovereignty was indeed violated (as was Afghanistan); tbc.. dinner time

Stan said...

1. Bin Laden was at war with the U.S. He was not entitled to a civil declaration of guilt.

2. This might be correct, although in war invasion is to be expected. The war on terror is a war on an ideology which is not identified with the status of a nation. I think it is a matter of requiring updated international law, not of hypocrisy. Pakistan was invaded but not attacked. Pakistani officials very likely knew where Osama was all along, and harbored him.

3. While there is some possible truth to this it has no bearing on the pursuit of the murderers of 3,ooo people on American soil.

4. Chomsky is exactly saying that America deserved it, by making the case for terrorism.

5. Common sense says that the international law must be changed to accommodate international terrorism, and that Pakistan was either impotent or complicit regarding Bin Laden's residency there.

As for Iraq, the threat and actuality of mass murder by Sadam was thought by even Leftists in Congress to be adequate reason for the coalition to stop it preemptively. The delay in doing so actually might have repercussions today in weaponry now available to the Syrian army. If these Islamic dictators would have refrained from killing their own people, there would have been no war. As it is, people are dying in Syria, Egypt, Mali, Sudan, Libya and all around north Africa, not because of Bush but because of Muslim tyranny.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.