Thursday, May 05, 2011

Osama bin Laden and Che Guevara-Murdered Revolutionaries?

I spent quite a lot of time on the road yesterday and Tuesday, so had plenty of time listening to the radio. I have a terrible habit of listening to radio phone-ins. It's a bit like slowing down to look at an accident, you know you shouldn't but...

Anyway since bin Laden was dispatched to join his 72 virgins there has been a strange response from a minority on radio phone-ins and on the internet. It includes condemnation of the US for naked aggression against an unarmed man. Accusations of 'state sponsored murder' by the US. Accusations that the US is no better than Al-Qaeda and that no democracy should carry out executions without a fair trial. Oh, not forgetting the old US warmongering allegation.

To all that I say absolute bull! bin Laden had it coming and got what he deserved. Bloody hell, to hear some of the idiots gassing off you'd think the special forces had swooped on the local bingo hall and taken out a harmless, grey haired old granny. It was bin Laden, responsible for the deaths of thousands, get a grip people.

Is there any doubt of bin Laden's guilt? No there isn't, that's the test in a case like this. Who wouldn't have taken Hitler out in 1940 if they'd had the chance? Leaving the political nonsense about due process and a fair trial aside, more important is the moral question. How many lives would have been saved if Hitler had been bumped off in 1932, 1939, 1940 or whenever?

If bin Laden had been taken out in 2000 there is a great chance that at least 3000 innocent people would be alive today. He showed no remorse, no sign that he would cease his terrorist activities, I would therefore suggest that many more lives have been saved as a result of taking bin Laden out. What was done was a perfectly moral action. For once Obama has done the right thing.

So what's the link to Che Guevara then? It's a long time now since I had a pop at the BBC but they really angered me yesterday, or rather Peter Allen did on BBC5Live. They were doing a piece about dead terrorists and Che Guevara, Ernie to use his real but less appealing name, was mentioned.

Guevara was the Argentinian terrorist who helped Castro build Cuba into a totalitarian police state. Once the people of Cuba had been suppressed and oppressed, Guevara had to look elswhere to satisfy his murderous bloodlust. So he headed off to oppress the people of Bolivia. However, there weren't enough loonies in Bolivia to follow Ernie and he ended up lost in the forest with a small band of misfits. I don't think they had Che Guevara t-shirts on though, not then. To cut a long story short the Bolivian army surrounded the terrorists and Guevara was shot by a young officer. Job done, another dead terrorist.

But oh no, Allen apologised for calling Ernie a 'terrorist' and referred to him instead as a 'revolutionary'. I may have found 'revolutionary terrorist' an acceptable term but not 'revolutionary', I still prefer 'terrorist' to describe people like bin Laden and Guevara.

I wonder how long until the BBC will be referring to bin Laden as a 'revolutionary'?

6 comments:

Sean O'Hare said...

I sort of agree with you, but the circumstances of Bin Laden's death leave a bit of a nasty taste in my mouth. Discounting all the conspiracy theories already circulating I really don't understand why, if he was unarmed, they didn't capture him alive and leave an international court to decide his fate. If proven guilty, which seems highly likely, then his fate would likely have prison for the rest of his life. A far worse outlook for him than the quick ending metered out by US forces.

Gregg said...

I wouldn't risk one more life trying to take him alive, blowing him away was the best and safest thing to do.

If he had been taken there would have been Muslim idiots all over the world taking hostages demanding his release.

Good riddance to him.

kilgore said...

he deserved it? well our own FBI said there was NO EVIDENCE linking him with 9-11.
besides Osama died in Dec 2001 from chronic kidney disease. it's all such nonsense. Israel was the only country that stood to benefit from 9-11. follow the money. don't be so naive. oh yeah his DNA blah blah. I wouldn't believe anything that these wahoos in Washington said. no picture..might offend...since when did they care? besides dumping his body doesn't offend? afraid of monuments? well why couldn't the scene of the "crime, become a pilgrimage spot? but who believes it was OBL anyway? only morons.

Gregg said...

I'm surprised it took so long for an hysterical idiot like you to crawl out of the woodwork Kilgore. Now go and play your banjo like a good inbred.

Sean O'Hare said...

Greg,

As he was unarmed I can't see as the US special forces would have been risking their own lives by taking him alive. I think you are probably right about Muslim extremist reaction if he had been taken alive, but I fear that their reaction to his death won't be that much different. I suppose the argument does come down to whether or not he genuinely and verifiably declared war on the US, or whether it was deemed that he had done so because Bush was convinced that he was responsible for 9/11 and other atrocities.

I hate to agree with Rowan Williams because he is an absolute plonker, but in this case I think he is right in his "Christian" view.

Gregg said...

I don't think Williams is necessarily espousing a Christian view Sean, more a personal pinko-liberal view.

So you would expect unarmed 'British Bobby' style people to knock on the door of his compound and politely ask for a word with Mr bin Laden? Said Mr bin Laden would then politely offer them a brew and a Hobnob while they asked him a few questions.

"Now then sir, do the Twin Towers mean anything to you?".

I don't think so.