Order of precedence

It goes like this: (1) shoot first; (2) ask questions later. On the question of whether Osama bin Laden was armed at the time he was taken down, Mickey Homsey says basically “Who cares?”

I would argue that it doesn’t matter one bit. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist and arguably one of the worst this world has ever known. He has thousands of deaths attributed to him and were he to have been left alive, thousands more would have died. Media outlets are concerned about the “rule of law.” Well, I would submit to you that Osama Bin Laden was a law unto himself, a man who felt that the only “law” he believed in was that which he created for himself and tried to force on the rest of the world.

I, for one, have adopted the Brooksian stance, best illustrated here:

Bart: Go for your gun.
Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I’m unarmed.
Bart: All right, we’ll settle this like men, with our fists.
Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered … I am armed.

I have to figure that those “media outlets” are mostly concerned with their phoney-baloney jobs.





7 comments

  1. McGehee »

    7 May 2011 · 8:48 am

    He willingly confessed to masterminding 9/11, so I consider killing him to have been simply honoring the confession.

    As for “rule of law,” the Geneva Conventions provide for summary execution of spies, pirates and saboteurs — and bin Laden clearly falls under at least one, and arguably two or even all three of those.

  2. CGHill »

    7 May 2011 · 9:23 am

    For “confessed to,” read “bragged about.”

  3. Jeffro »

    7 May 2011 · 10:30 am

    We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

    They’re watching their a$$es.

  4. Dan B »

    7 May 2011 · 8:44 pm

    I didn’t get a Harrumph from you. I’m keeping my eye on you.

    Armed? Bah, he’s bragged about enough kills of his ‘fellow’ Muslims alone to justify the head-shot, even if he hadn’t conspired to kill a single American.

    I’m still puzzled by the “geniuses” that claim the OBL kill was faked. Not that I trust Uncle Sham or anything ignore like that, but I do trust a politician to engage in actions motivated by self-interests.

    Obama’s declaration of OBL’s death in a political all-in move at a table where limping-in is common place. If OBL shows up ALIVE before Inauguration Day 2013 (or 2017 if Obama is re-elected), Obama’s political career is over. The stakes are too high for Obama to be bluffing, he has to firmly believe the OBL is dead with a mountain of evidence behind the declaration.

    I will bet the mortgage money if OBL wasn’t at least severely incapacitated if not dead, he would have already showed his ugly mug on al-Jazeera. Again this is based on political self-interest. Imagine the propaganda victory for OBL if America with all its resources get something that important wrong.

    I still didn’t get a Harrumph from you.

  5. Dan B »

    7 May 2011 · 8:45 pm

    *anything IGNORANT like that

  6. Nancy Reyes »

    8 May 2011 · 5:32 pm

    What is interesting is that since Osama was eliminated, the Philippine cops have arrested two Abusayyafs terrorists living in the Manila area, one working as a security guard at a local hotel, the other was in a mall when arrested.

    There is a lot of stuff going on that the US press doesn’t even notice….

    as for Obama: not armed? Right. May I quote you?

  7. CGHill »

    8 May 2011 · 5:35 pm

    Quote this instead.

RSS feed for comments on this post