Killing the enemy

In a civilized world, humans resolve their problems in a manner that does not involve any form of violence. To me, that even includes the death penalty for criminals.

But the recent statements of Pat Robertson about the current president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, raise an interesting dilemma.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on his Christian Broadcasting Network. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

This sounds and looks a lot crazier at first glance than it actually is. Joseph Farah feels the same:

Can someone tell me it would have been wrong to assassinate Hitler?

Is someone going to make the case that killing Stalin would have been a bad thing?

Given the cost of the war in Iraq, would someone explain why it would not have been better to knock off Saddam Hussein if we had the chance?

Assassinating Hitler was not all that bad an idea, and in fact even some of Hitler's contemporaries thought so. More than one attempt was made, unfortunately, none succeeded.

Should the US - or any other country for that matter - have tried?

Look at present-day Iran. It's recently installed a new government, made up of many of the terrorists who hijacked American embassy personal (civilians) in November 1979 and kept them imprisoned for 444 days. There was no conflict between the US and Iran. The Muslims just felt good humiliating America.
These same criminals are now Iran's government, finance and support much of todays global terrorism and are pursuing nuclear weapons, to be used against (of course) Israel, and for nuclear blackmail against Europe and Iran's neighbouring countries.

What are the odds of the US facing Iran in a war? And if those odds are good (meaning bad), would it not be so much more logical to decapitate a country before it comes to that? Is it only our sense of civility, our demand of proof of guilt, that restrains us?

It comes back to the same question that is crippling the UN, which in theory is a good idea: How can we deal with barbarians as if they're civilized? And if we deal with barbarians as they would deal with us, does that make us barbarians as well? Or just pragmatic?

In the case of Hitler, and Saddam the consequences are clear: Long before there was a war, there were opportunities to intervene, which would have saved many millions of lives. Do we really need to wait for history to point out to us: This monster should have been killed before <enter war that killed millions> took place?

If guns are outlawed...

The Netherlands has some of the strictest gunlaws of the Western world. I don't want to go into too much detail, but trust me when I say that criminals do not turn to gunclubs when they want guns or ammunition.

But the recent unrest and feelings of insecurity mark the perfect time for the Dutch government (never miss a chance to oppress some easily oppressed sheeple) to tighten the restrictions on gun ownership some more.

To prevent criminals from learning to shoot in a club, aspiring members must also be licensed by the KNSA.

Weapons permits will also become easier to revoke. From next year, committing a crime will be grounds for losing one’s licence, as will ‘moving in criminal circles’.

The KNSA (Royal Dutch Riflemen Association) will conduct checks of affiliated clubs and issue licences to individual members.

Prospective members will have to submit a certificate of good behaviour, to prevent people with a criminal record from joining.

Of course, what this means is that it becomes more and more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy and own guns.

If you don't pay the law too much mind however, guns are everywhere and affordable. But actually doing something against those most likely to use ILLEGAL guns against the general population, now that would be asking a bit much, wouldn't it?

Where did Mohammed Bouyeri aquire the gun he shot Theo van Gogh with? Do you think he was a member of a gunclub?

Nice to know who your friends are

In a recent interview on BBC's Radio 4, Sir Ian Blair (Chief of the London Metropolitan Police) said among other things:

Tragic as the death of Mr Menezes is, and we have apologised for it and we take responsibility for it, it is one death out of 57.

In another statement, Sir Ian told the public to put Menenez's death - no matter how tragic - in the context of the London bombings.
Just to remind you, a number of Sir Ian's men walked up to a Brazilian man who was sitting in a subway train, reading his newspaper and generally minding his own business, and shot him in the head seven times.

The Brazilian was completely innocent.

So were the other 56 people murdered on the London Underground recently.

But THEY were murdered by Muslim terrorists!!

Are the MSM really so dumb as not to notice that Sir Ian is in fact equating himself with the worst cancer the planet has ever seen? By equating the victims of the bomb attacks with Jean Charles de Menezes?

How telling.

Sorry...

...for the absence of posts lately. Whatever the reason, I cannot get myself to even comment on the outrage still going on in Gaza, let alone be creative enough to write something of my own. No worries, the anger will surface again.