As IF Times

Source: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Washington Post criticized for austere headline

There’s an old saying that goes, “when your adversary is digging himself into a hole, stand back and let him finish”.  The amusing headline from the Washington Post characterizing the death of the top ISIS leader at the hands of US forces was a backhoe’s worth of dirt, even considering the tons of earth they’ve moved over the years.  Wanting to be known as the beacon of truth, their masthead’s byline reads, “Democracy Dies In Darkness”.  Well someone had better find the light switch over there, because they seem to be vying with the satire of The Babylon Bee for the most preposterous headlines and stories.

The obituary reads, “Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”

We know that very soon, the meme machine will be working overtime on the internet to come out with some other re-writes of famous historical figures.

“Adolph Hitler, Thoughtful art collector and eloquent speechwriter found dead in apparent murder suicide with his wife Eva in the basement of his quiet home”

“Benito Mussolini, journalist, good friend of the art collector Adolf Hitler and respected leader of the Italian nation through the tumultuous years of World War 2,  passes away from assassination by disgruntled soldiers at the end of the war.  A public funeral was held at the Piazzele Loreto in Milan. He was only 61.”

“Mao Tse Tung, leader of the most populous nation on earth passed away at the young age of 82. He was an accomplished  demographics expert, managing to cull over 20 million people from the nation of China during his reign.  He commanded respect from his people and many in the nation took to wearing clothing that emulated his grey tunic during his life.  Actually, everyone did.  To this day, his ideology is celebrated by politicians, basketball players and actors in many western nations.”

“Jeffrey Dahmer, noted gastronomic adventurer, dies at the age of 34 while living in a state sponsored home.  He was apparently killed by a roommate in a dispute over differences of food tastes.”

“Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge dead at 63.  The Khmer Rouge pioneered the mass deployment of approximately 3 million people into the fields of the country to ease the stress upon the big cities.”

“The Washington Post, in the midst of a protracted death from massive declining readership and interest in fantasy literature.  The writing was on the wall when people stopped keeping birds and no longer required cage liners.”

link George Bush’s torture admission is a dismal moment for democracy | World news | The Guardian.

Usually topics such as this don’t particularly lend themselves to skewering humor.  What does however, are the people who portray a disturbingly invalid perspective of such a topic.   Thankfully, over in this part of the world, we are spared from having to read the nonsense that emanates from the U.K.’s  rabidly left wing bird cage liner, The Guardian.  Over here, we know that op-eds in The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and most amusingly, The Huffington Post, are so outlandishly left wing in their views as to be comical and dismissed as delusional prose.  In Canada, we have of course, The Globe and Mail.

Today, when reading an ‘inflammatory’ headline, all you need to do is check the source to determine the general bent of the article and then virtually dismiss its contents if the source is any of the above publications.  The gentleman writing this particular article printed in The Guardian is by profession an academic and a lawyer no less.  On the heels of the release of George Bush’s memoirs, Decision Points, this Phillipe Sands latches onto the President’s admission of allowing waterboarding as evidence of international crime:

“…George Bush’s straight admission that he personally authorised waterboarding – an act of torture and a crime under US and international law – marks a dismal moment for western democracies and the rule of law. When again will the US be able to direct others to meet their human rights standards? Certainly not before it takes steps to bring its own house in order…”

People like Sands and academics in general are ground zero for the  disease that affects much of western society today.  The inability to distinguish the big picture from small minutiae hampers them from advancing  intelligent thought and in fact detracts significantly from their credibility.  What most academics lack and thus mitigates their views,  is much real world experience.  Cloistered as they are in their circle of peers, the predictable result is what is clinically referred to as cluster coitus.  Actually, it’s a more earthier expression, but most will get the drift.  Ideas and theories are circulated, propagated and validated in their community, which sadly, are then transmitted to the fertile minds of naive students as being gospel.  Once some intellectual dogma is anointed as inviolable truth, there can be no questioning of its merits.  Sounds eerily similar to a certain religious group. An obvious example of this misguided mindset is the acceptance of socialism as the desired model for societies despite having zero evidence over the history of mankind as to its effectiveness.  It’s forgotten that they live in a world of academic theory.

Another concept so roundly embraced by all ‘civilized’ societies and brought to issue here by Mr. Sands, is the rule of law.  I’m all for it. Laws generally protect the public from the individual and the individual from the public.  In an ideal world, everyone lives and lets live.  No one encroaches on someone else’s property, no one tries to convince anyone else of the superiority of their faith.  No one tries to convince anyone else how peaceful they are under threat of being subject to being bombed if they don’t believe it. Tell that to the erstwhile Cat Stevens. 

One of the principles most people would easily subscribe to is, thou shalt not kill. Sounds good on paper.  In real life, there are those whose crimes against the humanity of their own people are so heinous that a few years of hard time, counselling and then a stint in rehab just isn’t adequate.  It’s possible that guys like Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and Saddam Hussein were just misunderstood, but on the weight of the evidence, is the world really worse off without them? 

 In the case of being ultimately responsible for the welfare of hundreds of millions of people, a nation’s leader has the obligation to consider their interests above the comfort of a few enemy combatants.  Especially during the course of war.  I think we can all agree that President Bush did not take the task of questioning the Al Queda captives lightly and presumably not for any personal amusement.   During that time of duress when nothing was known as to scale or type of impending threats, it defies common sense to worry about the sensibilities of some combatants versus the safety of an entire nation.   I think most people would consider that not dying in a fireball is preferable to a few guys getting a bit wet and offending the philosophical convictions of some academics. 

So spare us the moral tsk tsking of guys like Sands.  It’s fine to pretend to champion high minded principles, but in the real world, there are those who view ill advised application of principles as a weakness.  I don’t know who first expressed the saying that if people were willing to be sheep, there are many others who are willing to be wolves. 

This whole diatribe brings to mind the classic and best scene from the 1992 movie, A Few Good Men, featuring Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup when interrogated on the witness stand in the death of a young marine.  From the website IMDB.com:

“…Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to… “