A friend of mine reading my previous blogs asks why I seem to approve the murder of Osama whilst disapproving the murder (or attempted murder) of Gaddafi.
I do not approve of Osama's murder. What I said was that his murder was understandable and excusable. That does not by the way mean I excuse it. Nonetheless there is a difference between the two cases. Osama assumed responsibility for the biggest foreign sponsored attack on the territory of the United States since Pearl Harbour. During that attack 3,000 people were killed. He had previously sponsored other attacks on American targets and right up to the day of his death he continued to call for more attacks. He went out of his way to declare himself an enemy of the United States and he did so notwithstanding the fact that prior to his commencement of his terrorist career the United States had had no quarrel with him. Moreover he was the titular leader of a movement, which still exists and which as I said in my previous post might be expected in the event of his capture to do everything in its power (including the taking of hostages) to secure his release.
Gaddafi by contrast at the time of the attack on him was the leader of a country that was at peace with the western powers. Not only had he put his past sponsorship of anti western terrorist movements far behind him but he had opened up his country's economy to western investment, given up on his nuclear weapon ambitions and realigned his foreign policy with that of the west.
In other words whilst Osama whilst he remained alive represented a "clear and present danger" to the United States, Gaddafi did not. Whilst the murder of Osama can therefore be excused as an act of raison d'etat the murder of Gaddafi cannot. Whilst the action the United States took against Osama can be explained as an act of retaliation the action NATO is taking against Gaddafi is straightforward aggression. The attempts to murder Gaddafi are in fact naked gangsterism with NATO supplying the hit squad.
No comments:
Post a Comment