The Death of a Modern Saint

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by jammy, May 2, 2011.

  1. jammy

    jammy

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Saladin to the left and Osama bin Laden to the right. The men not only resembled each other physically, but shared the same inner beauty and honor.

    We need rallies of Americans protesting the brutal killing of this noble man. To his credit can be laid the toppling of at least one of our great enemies, the Soviet Union, breaking that empire through an exhaustive war in Afghanistan.

    No doubt his acute sense of justice and profound humanity led him to occasionally regret the deaths of the innocent people in the airplanes. But he had no choice. He believed that, for one day, avenging his people was more important than the lives of American civilians. The Pentagon and the WTC represented American imperialism and globalism respectively. Legimate economic and military targets.

    Bin Laden was a romantic-warrior traditionalist who waged a war against internationalism, liberalism and feminism in defense of Islamic culture and the Arab people. Certainly we Westerners shouldn't embrace his values, but his methods, his will, and his defiance against the onslaught of vacuous culture-distorting liberal encroachment in the Middle East should be praised. Americans should respect Bin Laden much like medieval Western thinkers respected Saladin . Bin Laden was a gallant man who fought under great adversity in the face of certain death to liberate his people and re-establish the noble traditions and greatness of Islamic culture. We Americans desperately need figures like him.

    R.I.P.

    Bin Laden was a figurehead more than anything else, his legacy is immortal, for only his flesh has perished today. His struggle has ensured that generations of Muslims will have the willingness to fight against Zionism, Globalization, Liberalism, Interventionism, and Moral Leprosy. While Muslims have no right to inhabit the soil of Europe, Western forces have no right to intervene in the Middle East or to force their deprived and nihilistic beliefs on the proud culture-bearing Middle-Eastern peoples.

    From what has appeared on television, hordes of crazed fanatics are taking to the streets in America and chanting and screaming with glee about the death of Bin Laden in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the way militant Muslims get frenetic in street demonstrations for their causes, which Westerners tend to regard as displays of primitive religious fanaticism.

    Among the differences however is that militant Muslims tend to sacrifice everything for their cause and are more than just big mouths, whereas how many of these jubilant Americans and their counterparts in other countries are willing to do something for any cause other than their own petty hedonism? Most Europeans are no better.

    It is typical of the lack of chivalry in the decadent West, the last manifestation of which was perhaps during World War I when airmen buried their downed adversaries with full military honours.

    Yet the exultation of American crowds does not represent a climax, but rather it is the pinnacle of anti-climaxes. Bin Laden has won his great victories, and just before the public's forgetfulness and old age itself made an end of him, the CIA happens to find him and finish his story. How very anticlimactic. Indeed, he's now a martyr.

    I find it implausible that the USA did not know all movements of Bin Laden and anyone else they wish to target. I suggest that it is more likely they took him out precisely at the time they regarded to be most opportune politically.

    Perhaps his only regret could be said to be not actually seeing the American Empire topple in his lifetime. However, that event may yet be laid to his credit posthumously, as our Middle Eastern wars bankrupt the nation.

    What can also be said is that he died a warriors death, the way he would have wished to die. As for Obama and his ilk, no matter where in the world they reside: may the pox strike every scurvy one of the gloating scum.

    Abdallah Ghalib said when he challenged the enemy: "Why would I want to converse with this world? For the perceptive, there is no good in it. By God, if it were not for my love of facing sleeplessness, laying on my bed with my forehead to You, walking between the platoons and the squadrons during the night, and seeking Your reward and the in-dwelling of Your favor, I would desire to depart from this world and its people. Then he broke the sheath of his sword, advanced and fought until he was killed."

    White Americans apparently are to be hectored about decades-old lynchings of blacks (and only blacks) until we all go hang ourselves to make the voices stop. But Osama Bin Laden can be accused by the government that once fought communism with him, tried in the media, lynched with a hail of bullets, and dropped in the ocean, and Barack Obama thinks that ''justice has been done.'' This is the kind of stupid talk that makes people want to see Obama's law school transcripts. You'd think that the product of an interracial coupling would be more sensitive.

    Earlier on the same day, NATO warplanes tried to assassinate Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi who was visiting the home of one of his sons in Tripoli. Gadhafi and his wife survived, but his son Seif al-Arab Gadhafi and three of his children, ages six months to two years, were killed.

    This is the second time that Gadhafi has lost a child to a NATO (read US) assassination attempt. In 1986, Gadhafi's daughter Hannah was killed when Ronald Reagan had Gadhafi's home bombed. In that case, Reagan was trying to show Gadhafi that he could not sponsor terrorism with impunity, and Gadhafi seemed to take the point. The lesson seems to have been lost on subsequent American presidents, however.

    I remember the killings of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay, as well as Qusay's 14-year-old son Mustapha, in Mosul on July 22, 2003. The whole operation was staged like a mafia hit, and even discussed as such by military officials. An unnamed senior US military official in Iraq told UPI: ''This is a very beneficial hit. They cannot feel anything other than doom, since if we can take down these guys, we can take down anybody.''

    As I listened to the chorus of gloating from Bush and his flunkies Blair, Rumsfeld, etc., I had to wonder: If the 9/11 terrorist attacks meant anything, they meant that the United States is not invulnerable. Yet the entire course of America's reaction to 9/11 was premised on invulnerability. Did George W. Bush ever give a thought to the possibility that if he went down that road, someday the enemy might retaliate, and Americans might be sifting his own daughter's teeth out of ashes hoping to make a positive ID? Has the same thought ever crossed Barack Obama's mind? He certainly deserves it to happen to him much more than Bin Laden does, whose sons also died yesterday.

    One of the most repugnant things about modern politicians are their little gentleman's agreements not to assassinate one another. Instead, when they have conflicts, only the blood of the the little people is to be spilled. But such agreements make perfect sense from the point of view of politicians. If they try to kill their opposite numbers and their families, their opposite numbers might try to kill them and their families back. And that is something they will not risk. Leaders do not regard themselves as expendable. And when leaders play by these rules, they prove that they really are leaders, not merely the expendable front men of hidden powers.

    Thus, when heads of state start acting like terrorists, assassinating other heads of state and their families, you have to ask: Is it just hubris, a false sense of invulnerability that is begging for retribution, human or divine? Or are things not as they seem?

    And can Barack Obama — who by this cowardly assassination in one day has made himself the most hated man in the Muslim world twice over — escape revenge for the rest of his life?



    Hundreds join first Pakistan rally to honour bin Laden

    QUETTA, Pakistan � Hundreds took to the streets of Pakistan's city of Quetta on Monday to pay homage to Osama bin Laden, chanting death to America and setting fire to a US flag, witnesses and organisers said.

    Angry participants belonging to a religious party in Quetta, the capital of southwestern province Baluchistan, were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah. They also torched a US flag before dispersing peacefully.

    It was the first rally in Pakistan after the United States announced that bin Laden had been killed in an overnight commando mission in Pakistan.

    Organisers said between 1,000 and 1,200 people attended the rally, but witnesses put the figure closer to 800.

    "Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed (Muslim fighter)," Asmatullah said.

    "His martyrdom will not end the movement. It will continue and thousands more bin Ladens will be born," he said.

    The marchers also chanted slogans in favour of the Taliban and its supreme leader Mullah Omar who have been fighting across the border in Afghanistan since US-led troops invaded after the militia refused to give up bin Laden.

    "Today's operation shows the US has no respect for international borders and they can violate international laws any time," he added.

    Baluchistan, bordering Iran and Afghanistan is wracked by an insurgency waged by ethnic Baluch tribes seeking greater autonomy from the government and a greater share of profits from the region's wealth of oil and gas resources.

    The region has also been hit by attacks blamed on Taliban militants.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...644f5638e40f182b6d39cbee4b3.21&index=0&ned=us
     
  2. Saladin didnt kill innocent women & children when he captured Jerusalem. Its an insult to Saladin to compare the two.