Free Markets, Free People

Europe’s reaction to the death of bin Laden – predictable

Allahpundit provides a roundup of quotes out of Europe concerning the celebration here of the death of Osama bin Laden.  As you might expect, the latent anti-Americanism isn’t so latent anymore and the incident of bin Laden’s death provides the superior Euros a chance to do a little self-serving moral preening.  For instance:

“At a press conference at Lambeth Palace, The Daily Telegraph asked [the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan] Williams whether he thought the US had been right to kill bin Laden.

“After declining to respond initially, he later replied: ‘I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances.’”

Really?  It doesn’t?  How does one define “justice” then?  Certainly Europe doesn’t think “death” is justice regardless of how monstrous the deed is.  Kill 3,000 people in NY plus Khobar Towers, two African Embassies and the USS Cole?  Oh, and those subway deaths in London?  Those deeds obviously don’t justify what just happened.

Nope -  we should have caught him, tried him (and given him an international platform to spew his hate) and then locked him up?  How’s that anymore justice than what happened?  We have a mad dog on tape bragging about being the man responsible for all those deaths.  We have intel that says he was going to kill more (attacking trains in the US on the 10th anniversary of 9/11).  If ever justice was served anywhere, it was served on the night of May 1st in a compound in Pakistan.  And no, I’m not uncomfortable in the least about that.  Someone needs to remind the Archbishop that “justice” isn’t a process, it’s a result.

Next come those who would like to ignore the elephant in the room and those celebrations simply won’t let them do it:

“Nicolas Demorand, editor of the left-leaning French daily Libération, on Tuesday bemoaned the ‘toxic rhetoric’ of the campaign against terrorism. From that rhetoric, he wrote, stems ‘this base, uncomfortable joy, unprecedented in a democracy, that blew yesterday over the streets of New York.’

“Even the editor of the centrist weekly L’Express, Christophe Barbier, cautioned, ‘To victory one must not add provocation.’ He added: ‘To desecrate the cadaver or the memory of Bin Laden is to revive him. To cry one’s joy in the streets of our cities is to ape the turbaned barbarians who danced the night of Sept. 11. It is to tell them the ghastly competition continues between them and us.’”

Someone get a clue bat for Barbier will you?  The “ghastly competition” does continue.  Because they initiated it and haven’t said “uncle” yet.   And it will continue until the murderous organization that has killed thousands over the years – primarily Muslims, btw – is destroyed, root and branch.  Sniffing at the celebrations and calling them an “aping” of the barbarians is to use an equivalence that indicates moral cowardice that would welcome submission before resistance. 

Finally, perhaps the most ironic condemnation comes from the country that was on the wrong side of two world wars, one of which required the civilized world rid itself of a monster that country put into power:

“The fashionable critique of Obama and the U.S. achieved its purest form on ARD Television, Germany’s equivalent of the BBC, where commentator Jörg Schoenenborn pompously observed that nothing good could come from Obama’s Bush-like breach of international law. ‘Al Qaeda will seek revenge,’ he asserts, ‘so, is the world any safer? No.’ Yet Americans dance in the streets, which Scheonenborn attributed to something essential, and essentially primitive, in the American character. The USA is, after all, ‘quite a foreign land to me. What kind of country celebrates an execution in such a way?’

I’ll take “primitive” over “barbaric”, “anti-Semitic”, and “murderous” any day.  And no, Germany, you haven’t lived down your reputation yet. Not enough to take this sort of a position.

Of course AQ will seek revenge.  But as mentioned above, they planned to attack anyway.  So should we just sit back and let it happen?  Would a few thousand more deaths have soothed your conscience enough to have you condone aggressive and justified action against the murderer?  Or would it still have been considered a “primitive” action driven by blood lust?  Instead, obviously, we should just roll over and allow these murderers to have their way.  Apparently, that’s the European way.

There’s even more irony in this reaction though:

“[N]ow many of Obama’s erstwhile Euro-fans are feeling a twinge of buyer’s remorse. By ordering a covert raid on Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALs, Obama has earned the kind of condemnation [from] Europe’s cognoscenti once reserved for his predecessor, George W. Bush…

I’m waiting for the first mention of “cowboy” to come floating across the Atlantic.  It does make the point though that as long as you’re submissive and not aggressive in pursuing the best interests of the US, Euro’s will sort of, kind of pretend to like you.  And we’ve all seen what that will buy.  I wonder when the first calls for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize to be withdrawn will begin?

I think Jonathan Tobin at Commentary best summarizes the reasons for Europe’s false and snobby self-righteousness:

It’s true that European snobbery is silly. But the factors underlying the Euro unwillingness to treat the battle with Islamist terrorism as a fight to the death are anything but a laughing matter. As Erlanger notes, the Europeans are genuinely afraid of the Islamic world, something that may have a great deal to do with the growing and increasingly assertive Muslim populations in Western European countries.

But the disdain for American joy about bin Laden’s death goes deeper than mere snobbery or concerns about local Muslims. It’s not just that Western European intellectuals don’t like the United States—they never have—but their unwillingness to countenance aggressive Western self-defense against Islamist terror is a function of their loss of belief in Western civilization itself. Many on the continent seem to have lost any sense that their countries and way of life as well as their faith is something worth defending. When it comes down to it that, and not the faux sophistication of Euro elites, is the difference between America and Europe these days.

For all of our problems and divisions, most Americans still believe in their country. All too many of our friends across the pond have lost faith in theirs. And that crisis in confidence, not good taste, is why Americans and not Europeans are celebrating the death of bin Laden.

It is a form of capitulation.  If they can successfully continue to delude themselves into inaction by condemning our methods while draping themselves in false moral outrage, they can safely ignore the threat, even as it continues to build and subvert their own cultures.  They don’t want to fight.  They’ve already given up.  All they want now is a way to justify their craven surrender.  And that damn America keeps doing things that make that more and more difficult to do.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

23 Responses to Europe’s reaction to the death of bin Laden – predictable

  • I think the bombing in Libya had them calling for his peace prize already.  

  • ‘I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling
    But we seldom find it wise to arm someone about to be executed.  What are people using for brains?

  • Would these be the same Euros who are also basically saying we should off Qadaffi?

  • I notice France wasn’t reluctant to  flex a little muscle in Ivory Coast and Libya, I guess in the name of ‘justice’.  But Eurp justice doesn’t extend to Syrians.  How very continental.
    Nor do I notice the hesitation of the NATO collective to um, suggest maybe they’d be okay with the ‘cowboys’ comin back to the town of North Africa to help clear the Libyan Saloon.

  • Dear Europe,

    F*ck you.


    Uncle Sam

    McQGermany, you haven’t lived down your reputation yet. Not enough to take this sort of a position.

    Many of the Euros have reps that they haven’t lived down yet.  The French, Italians and Belgians especially were rather brutal colonialists in their day.  They haven’t had to be brutal lately because WE have kept the peace.

  • And now for something completely different –

    The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and the announcement of the death ofOsama bin Laden, and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.”  Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.”   The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.  Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

    The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.”  They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

    The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.”   The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.”  The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

    Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.”  Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

    The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.”  They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbor” and “Lose.”

    Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .

    The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.  These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish  navy.

    Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.”  Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey!  I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is canceled.”   So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final  escalation level.

    – John Cleese – British writer (of Monty Python fame), actor and tall person”

  • Of course they are against the killing of OBL. To support it would be anti-Muslim hate speech and subject them to legal penalties.

  • Memo to would-be terrorists: Acts of malevolence against this nation will induce great risk of High Velocity Lead Poisoning.

  • “After declining to respond initially, he later replied: ‘I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances.’”

    This certainly explains why so much of Europe gave up capital punishment.  I mean, either the guy goes defenseless (a very uncomfortable position) or they give the sentenced man a weapon so he can fight it out (something that even liberals could never shallow, as they might be injured).

  • Meanwhile, in Iran, they’ve arrested Onmydinnerjacket’s associates for charges of ‘sorcery’ and ‘invoking djinns’.
    No, really

  • I can’t believe the folks who post here aren’t in total agreement with our much wiser brothers across the sea.  Pool OBL wasn’t even armed.  To that I agree with Docjim, f**k em.  And I offer up this web link from “The Unforgiven” which offers critical advice OBL should have heeded.  He must not have watched that movie.

    • Act of war, we were at war with this guy – except for the differences in damage potential,  I fail to make distinctions between atomizing him with a 2000 lb GBU and shooting him directly with a 9mm.  The difference to me is purely feel good semantics (and heightened risk for the shooter of course).   At least this way, we didn’t atomize his kids and his wives too.
      Note, the Euro’s have been mumbling recently about the necessity of doing precisely this, assassination, to Q-daffy in Libya because he won’t roll over and play dead for them.  But I guess it’ll be different if it’s done with continental flair and panache instead of cowboyish hooliganism.

    • Face facts, Usama’s wall had broken their helicopter, he had to pay the ultimate price.

      • I like the original Pakistani version better, that one of their helicopters came under fire from the compound and went down and they were forced to attack, and when it was over, poof!  Miracle!  they found they had killed Osama.
        I think we should pedal them back to their original story and ask if it still works for them.

        • Can we all agree that Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan,has shown himself to be .. inadequate .. and should see the door ?
          Then again, if be inadequate is the measure of becoming a “redeployable human resource” then Obama would be on the street as well.

        And I hardly EVER say that…

  • I have no moral objection to killing him on sight. But I would have preferred classified capture; thorough, detailed interrogation; classified battlefield military tribunal; classified execution; announcement of capture, tribunal and execution a month later.

    Not sure how the Archbishop of Canterbury would feel about that, but it it was my call my conscience would be clear.

    Bin Laden is/was a historic personality, along the lines of Hitler or Carlos the Jackyl or Che, but with a lot larger following/cult and in an active asymmetrical war against Western civilization and modernity. A special case, he needed special handling.

    So, killing him on sight was a mistake, but there was nothing morally wrong with it. It was fully justified and it was justice. Given who is in charge in the Executive Branch, it might have been the best we could get. He’s a special case too.

  • A point about all this that just came to mind. Why did we shoot first and then ask questions? Because we know for a fact that this organization is capable of suicidal killings. Its basically their M.O. So taking this into account, I think its was wise to shoot first instead of arresting him (other reason not withstanding). The real story for the lowly peons of AQ is that killing him was unnecessary for the safety of the soldiers. He literally had no intention of dying for Allah, but intended to run like a coward with some cash and a few phone numbers. If the people of AQ are paying attention, I think this speaks volumes to them about their leadership.

  • First rule of understanding our relationship with Europe:  They only love us when they percieve us to be weak.

    • Modify that a little shark … “as weak as them“. In their eyes, that makes us equal. They don’t like the competent and aggressive US that can pull off missions like this. They prefer the Desert One/Jimmy Carter version much better.

  • I don’t recall every seeing a photo of Adolf carrying a firearm. So if the Allies had managed to kill Adolf without giving him the option of surrendering, would the Euroweenies have cried?

    • Hitler actually did frequently carry a handgun. It’s a detail. I’m not clear on how frequently he did so after he took power. And I’m not absolutely certain of this, because I forget whether I heard/read/remember this correctly or not, but I think he might have actually shot one of those executed during the Night of the Long Knives.

  • The real truth of the matter it is that these stuffy Europeans never has forgiven the US for being more successful in every possible way than they are. We are the younger cousin that beat them at everything and they resent us for that. I have visited Europe and there in nothing like the USA. Their hotel rooms are tiny, there you have to pay to use a decent clean bathroom, because if you don’t you take the risk to found pee all over the floor. Our universities are better, our arm forces are better, and on and on.