Picture 2

Picture 2

Jul 23, 2013

Chutzpah from a Terrorist's Family

A recent article Nasser al-Awlaki shows a lot of chutzpah, asking why a drone killed his 16 year old grandson.  Drone strikes are much more targeted than flying airliners into buildings, or bombing subways and busses full of civilians.  Even so, sometimes innocent people are going to get hurt.  That said, the author says nothing about who else was in the restaurant with his grandson.  Why should we assume the grandson and all the other patrons of the restaurant were innocent?  The restaurant was in the middle of an area in South Yemen under the control of Al Qaeda.  It was not a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan.  By the way, if it was a sidewalk cafe in Manhattan, Al Qaeda would have considered it a good target for a bombing.

 The senior al-Alwlaki also glosses over the fact that his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, was the main English speaking recruiter for Al Qaeda on the internet.  One of al-Awlaki's recruits, Major Nidal Hasan, shot and killed 13 unarmed people in the Fort Hood shooting.  Hasan wounded over 30 more in this one incident.  Another al-Awlaki recruit was the underwear bomber.  Anwar al Awlaki was justifiably targeted in a drone strike.  As a result, he is no longer around to find more suicidal jihadis to commit acts of terror. 

Nasser al-Awlaki doesn't seem to see the most likely reason for the death of the grandson.  Is it possible that Anwar al-Awlaki may have influenced his son to take up jihad like his daddy?  The fact is that Islamist terrorists have declared war on the United States, the entity they refer to as the "Great Satan."  They kill without regard to the combatant status of their victims, even unarmed women and children.  They are also known to use civilians as human shields in an effort to deter drone strikes.  Since this is a war, at least according to Anwar al-Awlaki, the author's son, it is ludicrous for the author to expect that all the protections of the civilian criminal courts will be followed before the US counterattacks.  After Pearl Harbor, nobody thought we needed a civilian court's permission to counterattack the Japanese.  I fail to see why unlawful combatants who are at least technically war criminals because they wear no uniforms, hide in the civilian population and kill indiscriminately, deserve any civilian court protections.  In order to understand this, the author should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish or Christian or Hindu.  His grandson might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl.  The author, and all Muslims involved with Al Qaeda, should understand that when Al Qaeda attacks us, we are going to fight back until we put them out of business permanently.

I can't sympathize with the senior al-Awlaki at all. In order to understand why, the author should consider how Al Qaeda would have treated his grandson if he was Jewish or Christian or Hindu. His grandson might have been beheaded after begging for his life, like Daniel Pearl.   Al Qaeda has no mercy at all for anyone, including Muslims who differ in their beliefs from Al Qaeda.   People who associate with Al Qaeda should not expect more than ordinary care from us when it comes to retaliatory drone strikes.   They're lucky we are not quite as uncivilized or uncaring as Al Qaeda.  If we were, we would be carpet bombing Al Qaeda areas in Yemen, not sending in very targeted drone strikes.

According to liberals, drone strikes merely antagonize Islamists and make more terrorists.  For liberals, the solution to Al Qaeda terrorism is to permit indiscriminate slaughter of innocents to avoid antagonizing the terrorists further.   Perhaps we should have tolerated Hitler's atrocities in order to avoid offending the Nazis?   Sounds like a great plan.   Liberals should please visit South Yemen as soon as possible to explain it to Al Qaeda.   They would love to hear from you in person.

Original Article:

No comments:

Post a Comment