SO IT EMERGES OSAMA bin Laden did not go down in a blaze of ingloriousness after all, but instead was shot while standing, unarmed, in front of his daughter. Perhaps he had it coming – he certainly cared little about the daughters of others – but were there better ways of delivering it?
By DEBORAH ORR [Guardian] – A decade on from the 9/11 atrocities, I had forgotten that the leader of al-Qaida had ever actually existed as a flesh-and-blood person at all. He had become, to me, a cipher representing “evil”, and a cipher, no matter how powerful, cannot be shot in the head (hidden weapon preventing surrender or not).
A lot of people, however, seem to believe that evil itself has been murdered, and not a man, criminal mastermind notwithstanding. Headlines proclaiming “Rot in Hell”? Triumphalist crowing about state-sponsored assassination? A snuff-movie feed to an invited audience at the White House? None of this is seemly. It’s just inappropriate.
Of course, Bin Laden brought his end upon himself. Putting him on trial would have been – well – a headache. But it is – or should be – the enemies of civilisation who exalt at the grave action of killing in cold blood. Bin Laden was one such man, an enemy of civilisation. If he had to be killed, it should have been with the deepest of solemn regret, not to whoops and cheers in the press and in the street. Exalting in killing, exhorting others to kill – that was the atrocious line Bin Laden crossed, and big-time. Some of those who stand against him are rather too cavalier about the fashion in which they cross that line – and big-time – themselves.
Continued at The Guardian | More Chronicle & Notices.
