Tuesday, 3 May 2011

On the other hand - via Jerry Coyne

Another point of view has to be considered.

Bin Laden was not armed is an article from Jerry Coyne.  He has a point.  Truth and justice should not be subverted.  Criminals are entitled to a fair trial aren't they?

This point of view arose during today's discussions at work too.  If we adopted the Queensbury Rules it might be a reasonable argument.  But those who fight by other rules might not deserve to be tried by convenient and compassionate (??) Western legal systems.

Bin Laden presumably believed in the system of sharia law.  Under that system, those of us who do not accept Islam have no rights at all.  We are classed as some kind of lesser being.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I feel that truth would actually be subverted if a notorious terrorist like Bin Laden was taken to trial.  It would waste another $100 million and take another 5 years, by which time he could be like the Lockerbie bomber and claim to be dying and therefore be allowed to go free.

Just as sharia has no respect for me, I have no respect for islamic terrorists.  They offer me no rights, and I feel that equality is a good thing to aim for.

As for justice?  Perhaps the justice has been done now - nine years too late.  Today's political leaders are the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century.  Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?  Somebody has to resist the 'third islamic invasion'.  (Cue for another blog post soon I think.  Namely the significance of 11th September for Islam - and I am not talking about 2001 but a much earlier date.)

Small note:  I didn't really intend to get drawn into this!

1 comment:

Kenny Wyland said...

Criminals deserve a trial, but Bin Laden wasn't just a criminal. He had declared open war against the US, so he waived any claims to trials and such.