It’s sometimes amazing to me how naïve some people can be about the exploits of war, warfare, and the killing of other human beings in attempting to accomplish something that will end up having to be worked out by people in some kind of treaty. What I am talking about is the audacity, or incredible stupidity, of someone like Abu Bakr al-Qayed, the brother of Abu Yahya al-Libi, who was blown up in a drone attack last week. al-Qayed claimed that the US’s use of remote-controlled weapons is inhumane and that doing so makes nonsense of the United States’ claim to champion human rights.
One has to think that this moron of a doctor has lost sight of what predicated most of what’s going on right now. He had the temerity to make the following statement, “I never heard him speak of killing innocent people and don't believe he would ever condone it. He was a Muslim, and we don't kill people without reason.”
Mmmm, now let’s think that one through a bit. It wasn’t so long ago that some group of people opted to fly a pair of airliners into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon. And then there was the failed attempt of the airplane that was forced down in a field in Pennsylvania, which was reportedly destined for the White House. Now, we could say that the attacks on the Pentagon and the White House were military targets, and therefore subject to attack. But the attacks on the World Trade Center killed thousands of innocent people without a minute’s concern over the humanity of killing innocents.
Now, I suppose, using al-Qayed’s rationale, it was OK to knock down the World Trade Center buildings because the planes were flown by human beings, and as he said earlier, Muslims don’t kill people without a reason, right? Well, we are still waiting to hear a reason for that attack. The Pentagon houses a great deal of America’s military leadership, and the White House is the home of the President, the Commander-in-Chief of US Military Forces. So you can make a case, I suppose, that those were legitimate targets. But not so the attack in New York.
Having spent more than a few years in the military, I can tell you that war in general is inhumane. There is nothing humane about napalm, claymore mines, or flame throwers either. But when you are in a jam, they can help out a great deal. Is it more humane to leave an IED by the side of the road and detonate it when a military vehicle passes by? Is it more humane than taking a Western journalist captive and be-heading him on a video? Is it more humane than dousing a child with gasoline and setting him on fire because he believes a slightly different variant of the same Muslim religion you do?
The more I think about it, the more I wonder what al-Qayed means by humane.
War is not meant to be pleasant. It’s meant to be fierce and horrible. It’s meant to be so nasty that you don’t want to continue, at which point a resolution can be sought out.
But to sit there and say that use of military equipment in fighting a war is inhumane is crazy. The only reason to say something like that, in my opinion is because it hit so close to home. And, sure, if you can find any of the pieces of Abu Yahya’s body, then take it on home for burial. But don’t think he’ll be a martyr; all he’ll be is another dead soldier.
No comments:
Post a Comment