When James Bond, 007, gets his license to kill and is sent out to find the evil enemy we sit back and enjoy the drama of the movie. His foe gets a few chances to be ruthless and unsporting, but James Bond wins the day. But when US forces go out and do the same in real life it seems that it is less acceptable. What is the difference? Is it that James Bond is more-or-less alone and in spite of the odds he is the hero and saviour of the world? (Felix Leiter might have been a better choice to go after bin Laden?) Is it that we all recognise it as fiction and realise that it is ok to suspend reality for a while? Is it that Bond's enemies never have followers who will rain retribution on the survivors?
Whatever the reason, I can see that there is a difference between Bond vs Blofeld and Obama vs Osama.
The thing that bothers me most is that I see both sides of the argument but can not see the solution. I don't like the notion that it is OK to go out to kill the baddies without offering them a fair trial. But I don't like the idea that the baddies get away with it all the time either.
Perhaps there comes a point where it is necessary for the western world to draw a line in the sand and defend it, and perhaps this is the point. I'm sure of one thing.
Islam, the religion of peace, is a force that we will soon have to reckon with.
(Thanks again to Sarah for the link to the photo.)
2 comments:
There's no easy answer to this one, but I think that what has happened is the least worst option. Imagine what a circus a Bin Laden trial would have turned in to. This way at least it's over with - unless you're a conspiracy theorist - and let us just hope there aren't reprisals.
Some falacies
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#pity
End justifies the means....
Appeal to adverse consequences....
How many more can you spot?
Post a Comment