A recent article Nasser
al-Awlaki shows a lot of chutzpah, asking why a drone killed his 16 year old grandson. Drone strikes are much more targeted than
flying airliners into buildings, or bombing subways and busses full of
civilians. Even so, sometimes innocent
people are going to get hurt. That said,
the author says nothing about who else was in the restaurant with his grandson.
Why should we assume the grandson and
all the other patrons of the restaurant were innocent? The restaurant was in the middle of an area
in South Yemen under the control of Al
Qaeda. It was not a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan . By the way, if it was a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan , Al Qaeda would
have considered it a good target for a bombing.
The senior al-Alwlaki
also glosses over the fact that his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, was the main English
speaking recruiter for Al Qaeda on the internet. One of al-Awlaki's recruits, Major Nidal
Hasan, shot and killed 13 unarmed people in the Fort Hood
shooting. Hasan wounded over 30 more in
this one incident. Another al-Awlaki recruit was the underwear bomber. Anwar al Awlaki was
justifiably targeted in a drone strike. As a result, he is no longer around to find more suicidal jihadis to commit acts of
terror.
Nasser al-Awlaki doesn't seem to see the most likely reason for the death of the grandson. Is it possible that Anwar al-Awlaki may have influenced his son to take up jihad like his
daddy? The fact is that Islamist
terrorists have declared war on the United States , the entity they
refer to as the "Great Satan."
They kill without regard to the combatant status of their victims, even
unarmed women and children. They are
also known to use civilians as human shields in an effort to deter drone
strikes. Since this is a war, at least
according to Anwar al-Awlaki, the author's son, it is ludicrous for the author
to expect that all the protections of the civilian criminal courts will be
followed before the US
counterattacks. After Pearl
Harbor , nobody thought we needed a civilian court's permission to
counterattack the Japanese. I fail to
see why unlawful combatants who are at least technically war criminals because
they wear no uniforms, hide in the civilian population and kill
indiscriminately, deserve any civilian court protections. In order to understand this, the author
should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish
or Christian or Hindu. His grandson
might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl. The author, and all Muslims involved with Al
Qaeda, should understand that when Al Qaeda attacks us, we are going to fight
back until we put them out of business permanently.
I can't
sympathize with the senior al-Awlaki at all. In order to understand why, the author
should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish
or Christian or Hindu. His grandson
might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl. Al
Qaeda has no mercy at all for anyone, including Muslims who differ in their
beliefs from Al Qaeda. People who associate with Al Qaeda should not
expect more than ordinary care from us when it comes to retaliatory drone
strikes. They're lucky we are not quite
as uncivilized or uncaring as Al Qaeda. If we were, we would be carpet bombing Al
Qaeda areas in Yemen ,
not sending in very targeted drone strikes.
According to
liberals, drone strikes merely antagonize Islamists and make more terrorists. For liberals, the solution to Al Qaeda
terrorism is to permit indiscriminate slaughter of innocents to avoid
antagonizing the terrorists further. Perhaps
we should have tolerated Hitler's atrocities in order to avoid offending the
Nazis? Sounds like a great plan. Liberals should please visit South Yemen as soon as possible to explain it to Al
Qaeda. They would love to hear from you
in person.
Original Article:
No comments:
Post a Comment