Posted on 05/22/2011 5:11:53 AM PDT by GonzoII
The death of Osama bin Laden did not end the war against jihadism, a war bin Laden had declared against the United States in a 1996 fatwa that mandated the killing of Americans wherever they could be targeted. But it did take one key leader of jihadist Islam off the global strategic chessboard.
The death of Osama bin Laden did not end the civil war within Islam over the proper interpretation of Islamic law and the right relationship of Muslims to those who are “other.” But it did continue the dymythologization of bin Laden and his alleged invincibility, a myth that was no minor factor in his faction’s power within that intra-Islamic struggle, which long ago spilled out of the House of Islam to shake the rest of the world.
The death of Osama bin Laden did not cure the social and political pathologies of the Arab Islamic world. But it did remove one obstacle to those pathologies being addressed by the democrats within 2011’s “Arab Spring.”
The death of Osama bin Laden did not resolve the intellectual dilemma of Islam in its confrontation with modern science and modern methods of reading ancient texts. But it may have hastened, if only slightly, the day when Islam confronts the intellectual fossilization that has made its lands cultural backwaters for centuries.
The death of Osama bin Laden will not bring the European Union out of its postmodern cultural funk (for bin Laden’s wickedness was rarely grasped in Old Europe), and I doubt that it will have a decisive effect on 2012 presidential politics in the United States. But it did create a moment in which to reconsider and recalibrate the full menu of methods the West uses to confront the ongoing jihadist threat, and that reconsideration might lead to wiser security policy. Perhaps that moment will be seized by public authorities who care more for good governance than for good polling numbers. Perhaps.
What the death of bin Laden did demonstrate unmistakably is just how poorly many religious leaders and religious intellectuals think about the new kind of war in which we have been engaged for more than a decade and a half (although most of us only recognized that after 9/11). Which is to say, the death of Osama bin Laden demonstrated yet again how badly the just war tradition has been received by the men and women who are supposed to be its intellectual custodians.
Thus from some religious quarters came laments, not over the ongoing damage that bin Laden’s evil network causes, but over the fact that he was killed and the method used to kill him. It seemed as if, at various divinity schools, bin Laden was a gangster writ large who ought to have been dealt with by law enforcement agencies and methods and, after apprehension, read his Miranda rights and given a trial by a jury of his peers.
This is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. As I told one reporter, attempts to portray what happened to bin Laden in Pakistan as the equivalent of the Chicago police department breaking into a Milwaukee crack house and gunning down a crack-cocaine dealer are preposterous; they completely misconstrue the nature of the conflict between bin Laden and the United States since the mid-1990s. To say it yet again: In dealing with the bin Ladens of this world, we are engaging in war, not police work; and the relevant moral standards are those derived from the just war tradition, not from the U.S. Criminal Code as interpreted by the Warren Court.
As usual, Rutgers University’s James Turner Johnson got it exactly right: Bin Laden’s death was “an execution of justice, plain and simple, carried out under the authority of the one who can properly use bellum (war) in the service of good.” And why is it important to grasp this? Because if soft-minded and ill-informed religious leaders and intellectuals succeed in gutting the just war tradition and loosening our public culture’s grasp on it, the only alternative will be a raw pragmatism that justifies any end and any means.
George Weigel’s column is distributed by the Denver Catholic Register, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Obamas Capricorn One moment.
Building a mass produced event only some time later the truth reveals the total farce it realy was.
Yeah...they likely knew where Osama was for years. This was Obama’s wag the dog moment to deflect maximum attention from his fake birth certificate.
BTW there are reports elsewhere on this site that ugly viruses are being attached to Birther sites. The Dems and their minions in the MSM are doing everthing they can to close the issue of Obama’s NBC.
Obami is a fake but even Hannity and Fox are going to protect him...they don’t want blood in the streets...to heck with the Constitution.
Ifr I were to stand in protest somewhere one of my signs would say to the effect of this:
Obama: Wagging the Goat upon America
Anyone seen the body?
The left, for obvious anti-military reasons, has been trying to make the Islamist threat out to be a police matter since the start. The Islamists declared war on us, and we are simply responding in kind. The same kind of tactics should be used on the drug cartels if they start their murderous tactics in America. Shoot them on site, which is something the Mexican government should be doing.
... ain’t it weird ?
That the “Peace Now !”, revolution in the streets, “We Can Change The World” hippies all got old and now embrace WAR ?
... just sayin
This is neither hugh nor series
just puzzling
this is utterly ridiculous!!!
“the war against jihadism” ; “ the civil war within Islam over the proper interpretation of Islamic law and the right relationship of Muslims to those who are “other.” “ ; “the intellectual dilemma of Islam in its confrontation with modern science and modern methods of reading ancient texts. “
Jihad is an ESSENTIAL, BASIC part of Islam. 1300 years of history, and Islamic law, proves this! ...this author
clearly believes the liberal interpretation and taguiyya proganda.
I was INSIDE a Masjid, learning from a “moderate” Imam, a boardmember of CAIR. there is no “intellectual dilmemma. there is no “civil war”.
...the difference even between Sunni and Shia, is LESS than the difference between Catholic and Anglican. (actually, is very similiar. is mostly a debate on who is the legitimate leader).
“proper interpretation” in Islam was officially theologically “closed” centuries ago!
If even Christian leaders, can’t admit the truth about Islam, and believe their taquiyya and kitman, how do they expect any honest discussion will occur?
‘Kill the Jews wherever you find them “, isn’t a “misinterpretation” by a “tiny minority”.
It is from the Holy Quran... Muhammad (pbuh) himself, OWNED black slaves. and ordered Jewish men killed, and took the dead wife of one as his property. And as the “most perfect man”, he is supposed to be emulated!
(my Imam also admitted that Aisha was age nine, when she began married life with the Prophet...
contrary to the taquiyya about her being 14 or so...)
...and if you get that far with liberals (which you never do...) they say, well, Islam just needs to go throught their own “reformation”, which will happen after they are “educated” and lifted from poverty...
except reformation of Islam, is impossible.
because the Quran is the LITERAL word of God.
(liberals detest fundamentalist Baptists... now, think Baptists taking the Bible literally, on steroids !!!)
it is absolutely impossible to change or “reform” Islam. Again, the statements about women and Jews, are IN the Quran itself... literally from God himself. Anyone “criticising” God and wishing to alter his words, IS a blasphemer and apostate. ...for which the penalty is death.
...so, the elephant in the room, is Islam itself. ...which cannot be criticised or stopped, because of “Freedom of religion, etc. (in Canada, you can be arrested, simply for criticising Islam, even if you only use the Quran itself!)
The Quran specifically instructs Muslims to NOT be friends with kuffirs. So, if a muslim is your friend, they are either lying to you, or they are violating their own book.
In words, the “good” Muslims, are the ones who follow the rules. A Catholicm might rationalyze about abortion or birth control. But the rules ARE the rules.
The “moderate” Moslems, believe the SAME things as the radical ones! they are just lazier, or choose more gradual methods, as the Muslim Brotherhood. But the basic beliefs, and interpretation of the Quran, are IDENTICAL.
The 2 widowed mothers in India, who recently helped each other, to strangle their own daughters (because they had eloped with Hindu men who loved them, even without a dowry), were MODERATE Muslims. Until their daughters ran away.
(and i learned all this, because of a moderate Muslim family here in America. Who’s daughter, with a Master’s degree, was terrified to be seen in a Chucky Cheese with me and my young child. When she finally said goodbye, she said -exactly- “Now they are watching me more closely than ever”. ...there are 1000 women like her, who submit and live in fear, for every honor killing.)
When push comes to shove, there are NO moderate Muslims.
They are only moderate, until there is a conflict with Islam.
The words of the Quran cannot be changed. To a Muslim, they ARE the literal, eternal words of God.
as Sun Tzu said, it is difficult to defeat an enemy, if you refuse to understand them.
centuries ago, Charles Martel objected to 50,000 Muslims invading France. today, there are 10 MILLION Muslims living in “no go” zones, virtually Muslim colonies paid for by the jizra of kuffirs. ...what is their future? bets?
Churchill understood. Jefferson understood. If we don’t, then our descendants will be praying 5 times a day, and practicing Sharia...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.