I don’t care what you believe, what awful things you’ve seen to make you hate - if you think an aeroplane ploughing into a skyscraper full of civilians is a good thing there is something seriously wrong with you.

Osama's death has not put an end to hatred. Photo: AFP.

So what was wrong with Osama bin Laden?

Like Muhammad Atta, the pilot of the second plane to strike the World Trade Centre, bin Laden was an educated man from a privileged background.

He was not a trained religious or military leader and struggled to gain recognition from other militant Islamic groups. He began his new life sponsoring foreign mujahedin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

He then spawned al-Qaida apparently to rid the Middle East of the toxic anti-Muslim influence of the United States and to establish Sharia law in the region. Its acts of public terror were designed to draw the US into a war of attrition and, it seems, to exercise some old fashioned barbaric revenge (“It occurred to me to punish America so it could taste some of what we are tasting”).

Al-Qaida though has never had a clear ideology, and membership required swearing allegiance to bin Laden personally - a prerequisite that dissuaded many potential suitors.

He could have been a true fundamentalist, sickened by his own decadent upbringing, or simply a kid on a power trip escaping his father’s shadow.

Perhaps he was just bored. “Life is first boredom, then fear”, wrote Philip Larkin, and there is a common element to all armies - from African revolutionaries to jihadists to the US marines: bored boys with guns.
Whatever his motivations, his actions were to make him a “targeted kill”.

Earlier this year my young daughter started school. She entered further into the public and social sphere where there exists the real prospect of harm coming to her. You become more aware of what is referred to as “stranger danger”. 

She has already heard such strangers screeching about in the streets where she later discovers their tyre marks.

I wonder if even the unintentional killers of children realise what a parent is capable of; that there are placid people behind staid suburban frontages who would gladly kill them, chase them down the street and murder them.

The thought of a child not reaching adulthood is unbearable, and most parents would sacrifice their own lives to prevent it happening.

There are some seriously dark minds, including those belonging to serial killers of adults, that can’t abide the death of children, or people who harm children.

And that’s why the deliberate killing of children put bin Laden into a special league. A league where torture is condoned and the firing of a bullet to your chest to immobilise you and another to your head to kill you is celebrated in a Presidential Address. 

The Navy SEALS came for him in the early hours, when sleep is deepest.  But it wasn’t just the late hour that caused his fatal lack of preparedness; he simply wasn’t prepared.

He had an eternity to ready himself for a confrontation with the approaching combatants who were “methodically” working their way through each segment of the compound.

Reports stated he had an AK-47 and a handgun and yet he didn’t use them. By the time they reached him he was just standing there in the main bedroom. Perhaps he’d had enough of caves to want to dig an escape tunnel. Perhaps he’d had enough of escape.

His fame ironically had made him a recluse. He couldn’t revel in the presence of sycophants: his main company being his less easily impressed family. He knew, if he wanted to stay alive, he could never venture out.

Footage shows a stooping, prematurely aged man surrounded by clothes and children’s toys.

It was as if he wanted to die - to escape his domestic prison, to achieve martyrdom, to reach Paradise. Or was it dread, at that fearful hour, of the horrible acts he was responsible for?

Martin Amis tried to describe the last moments of Muhammad Atta’s existence:

American II struck [the North Tower] at 8.46.40. Atta’s body was beyond all healing by 8.46.41; but his mind, his presence, needed time to shut itself down. The physical torment - a panic attack in every nerve, a riot of the atoms - merely italicised the last shinings of his brain.

What were bin Laden’s last thoughts when that slug from a 9mm pistol (or an assault rifle) entered his brain above the left eye obliterating the frontal lobe - the seat of his murky mind, the home of his ruthless ideas?

Was the gunning down of an unarmed man in front of his family a good thing? Probably not. But, and I know this is an unfortunate thing to admit, if he had been responsible for the death of my young daughter I wouldn’t have shown the professional restraint of the Navy SEAL who stopped after firing two rounds - I would have emptied the magazine.

Such an instinct for revenge, of course, is the reason the killing won’t end soon. 

It also must be remembered that even bin Laden said in 2004: “stop killing our children and women.”

Do CIA directors and US military chiefs wake up at night haunted by reminders of their “collateral damage”?

We’re still living with the guilt of our own civilian terror campaigns of World War 2 like the firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden, and the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Watch a small child being blown apart and suddenly, causes like Islamic extremism and even the good old US of A, can all go to hell.

84 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave says:

      05:43am | 17/05/11

      Get ready for all the bleeding heart lefties defending scumbag bin laden…

    • Paulb says:

      09:26am | 17/05/11

      You don’t read much do you Dave.

    • MegaLawlz says:

      11:05am | 17/05/11

      Um you may have misunderstood the general idea…

      One person’s wrongs don’t make another person’s equally wrong actions any closer to being right. Regardless of which side you’re on, no one has the right to involve children. And if you’re fighting for an idea, then maybe you should apply that idea to your own actions too. Killing an unarmed man for killing other unarmed people is ironic but doesn’t quite fit the bill for justice.

    • Tom says:

      11:35am | 17/05/11

      @MegaLawlz, “justice” is in the eye (excuse the pun) of the beholder.

      @PaulB, I heard that Dave reads a lot. Where did you get your information from?

    • MegaLawlz says:

      12:06pm | 17/05/11

      @Tom I see what you’re saying but surely there is some common landmark we can use (i.e. Geneva convention, charter of human rights, plain common sense)? If someone commits atrocities which they believe are in the name of justice, are we supposed to accept it? If the OBLs say 9/11 was justice, are we supposed be cool with it? Surely using the ICC and a proper trial would be a more satisfying way of dealing with issues in the long run instead of blowing one guy’s brains out? That way everything is out in the open and no on can refute the evidence.

    • what human rights? says:

      12:36pm | 17/05/11

      @megalawlz bin laden didnt deserve any human rights or any other law he got it easy he should have been dealt with more slowly he is lucky 2 bullets is all he got

    • Tom says:

      03:21pm | 17/05/11

      @MegaLawlz “common landmark we can use”? ... “turn the other cheek”? I think Jesus said that and we are a Christian country?

      I personally would find a “lawyer’s grande boueff” (trial) obscene. It might keep the grubs in the media happy. Imagine the headlines “Todd Carney, Lara Bingle and OBL - Together at last” and it might also get some jerk re-elected.

      Most people who don’t wear tin-foil hats, reckon OBL’s guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. The rest becomes the subjective question of “what next”. Karma? Satisfaction? Pragmatism? Many reckon that all that was achieved.

    • Front Row says:

      07:43pm | 17/05/11

      MegaLawlz,
      I can see where you’re coming from, but I suspect there’s a bit more to all of this.
      The death/vengeance thing serves a couple of purposes.  It removes a malignancy from humanity, but it leaves a seed of that evil in the person who did the killing.  In some ways it seems better to leave the malignancy in a controllable form, banged up in a hole somewhere, than to risk spreading it into otherwise good people.

    • John C says:

      05:47am | 17/05/11

      I know that the result is the same but there is a difference, however slight between somebody who intends to kill civilians and does so, and somebody who does not intend to kill civilians but does so. Clearly, if you are the one killed or injured, or someone bereaved, the difference is immaterial. That said, there is still a moral difference.

    • BTS says:

      05:52am | 17/05/11

      How many small children have you seen being blown apart Andrew?

    • Erick says:

      06:14am | 17/05/11

      There’s a big difference between deliberately targeting children, and killing children by accident when targeting an enemy. Many people choose to ignore this difference for the sake of rhetoric.

    • MK says:

      08:51am | 17/05/11

      Byut if you accidently kill heaps of children,
      and keep doing the same things that lead to such accidents,
      .....

    • Reggie says:

      08:56am | 17/05/11

      I don’t see how this can fail to turn into a anti-religion topic but at least it is gender free, unless we choose to condemn men as the perpetrators of most of these horrors.

      The ability of the human mind to obsess over a matter is well identified, as that awful murder in Queensland shows and although the various middle-east groups like to present a simple “stop killing our children” argument, it conceals the wider resentment of abuse that is a product of the first world. European and US grain price agreements that effectively lock third world countries out of the market and condemn them to poverty are another example that kills children. We should not be deceived by the simplification of the objection.

      Similarly with Gender and Divorce laws. It takes a strong minded person to dismiss the hurt inflicted in many of these situations and a large portion of the population cannot do it. It festers and the law is powerless to intervene until after the tragedy. An obtusely strong-minded person would carry through the process of revenge. So perhaps some of the ladies who are inclined to frivolous sexual harassment charges should give it a second thought. wink

    • AliceC says:

      09:12am | 17/05/11

      “There’s a big difference between deliberately targeting children, and killing children by accident when targeting an enemy. Many people choose to ignore this difference for the sake of rhetoric.”

      So if your child was accidently killed, as they were near a target, you would be fine with this?

    • fml says:

      09:35am | 17/05/11

      There is more than one way to skin a cat, how many children have died due to sanctions imposed by the west on the middle east?

      What has this got to do with war?

    • James1 says:

      11:47am | 17/05/11

      Of course there is.  But you are kidding yourself if you think that makes a difference to a bereaved parent.  However, that is something only a parent can understand.

    • Reggie says:

      01:24pm | 17/05/11

      James the First. “But you are kidding yourself if you think that makes a difference to a bereaved parent.  However, that is something only a parent can understand.”

      I’d like to think we are different from the Russian guy who stabbed the air traffic controller to death two years after the crash that killed his wife and children. The poor bugger over-rode the directions of the collision avoidance equipment and got it wrong.  It’s never that simple.

    • James1 says:

      02:52pm | 17/05/11

      I’d like to think so too Reggie, but not having found myself in that position, I really couldn’t say.  My instinct tells me that, should someone kill my child for whatever reason of lack thereof, I would not be averse to seeing physical harm inflicted upon them in return.  My point was that any perceived moral distinction between deliberate and unintentional killing would undoubtedly break down when it is your own children doing the dying.  It is more than simply a debating tactic, as Erick characterised it.

    • TChong says:

      06:21am | 17/05/11

      The OBLs have their equivalents . GW,.Cheney, senior members of the IDF etc have no problems in indiscriminate killiing - eg 500kg bombs to destroy entire blocks of home units, killing many , in order to kill one suspect.
      How is that any different?
      It aint .
      The only difference is “our” side is far better at the mass killings.
      3000 murdered sept 11, 3000+,+,+murdered ( or in Orwellian denialialist speak - “collateral damage”) in Fallujah, and many other places, where ever the US has trod.

    • Barry says:

      09:12am | 17/05/11

      @TChong
      3000 murdered September 11 . . . .Really.  You 9/11 conspiracy theories are like AGW deniers, or creationists.  Science has spoken.  Please go back to your cave now.

    • Paulb says:

      09:27am | 17/05/11

      You don’t read much either do you Barry.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:06am | 17/05/11

      Fallujah? Are people still peddling this fallacy? You do realise that Fallujah was empty of civvies when the US moved in after weeks of announcements and the US cordoning the place off and allowing ALL civilians out?

      Whats next, a redredging up of the bullshit about Napalam and WP again? This crap was shown up fo rthe bullshti it was 7 or 8 years ago…who are you trying to kid?

    • Barry says:

      10:43am | 17/05/11

      @Paulb
      Nah Paul I actually read a decent amount.  It’s the reason I am informed.  What were you referring to though Paul?  AGW?  9/11?  Please say 9/11 I could do with some amusement this morning.

    • Eskimo says:

      06:42am | 17/05/11

      Probably 5.56.

    • Christopher says:

      06:50am | 17/05/11

      To answer your question, yes i would gladly end the person who hurt my child or anyone in my family for that matter. Would make it an exceedingly painful death at that too.

      In response to Osama’s statement of “stop killing our women and children”, is it not he who is using women and children and suicide bombers?? There is always going to be collateral damage in war, it is not all black and white.

      I am still at a loss as to why they are fighting their so called religious war when their religion preaches peace and tolerance as much as any other religion.

      Did he deserved to get shot though?? No, no right then! He very much deserved to have some unthinkable things done to him for all that he caused. A bullet to the head is what he would of been praying for, he got off way to easy.

    • fml says:

      09:38am | 17/05/11

      The law is supposed to transcend religion, why is it only people who kill in the name of religion that deserve to die horrible deaths? what about inthe name of hegemony and colonialisation?

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      11:06am | 17/05/11

      “hegemony and colonialisation”

      What are you studying next semester at UTS?

    • fml says:

      11:26am | 17/05/11

      SSR,

      no just the newspaper.

    • Daniel says:

      08:18am | 18/05/11

      To answer the original question…No not cheerfully…but i would make it my life’s mission to hunt them down and kill them in the most painful way possible. Cold heartedly certainly, cheerfully no.

    • Mother Love says:

      08:35am | 17/05/11

      Bin Laden and his cohorts were only doing what their holey book told them to do.  Everyone should read the Koran from back to front to understand the minds of these men-tal funda-men-tal-ists to protect our children from the next awful disaster.

    • Paulb says:

      09:28am | 17/05/11

      Read a Talmud lately Mother Love?

    • fml says:

      09:35am | 17/05/11

      There probably saying the same thing about the bible in some blog in the middle east.

    • MegaLawlz says:

      11:11am | 17/05/11

      @Mother Love Yep, educating yourself would be a great idea. Great advice.

      Also, *holy. Soz, couldn’t resist.

    • Aaron says:

      01:03pm | 17/05/11

      Ahhh yes it was a great book too and fit well with the history of Islam moving throughout the Middle East without killing anyone, simply converting people through peace, leaving Christians and Jews alone as they also believe in the One True God, oh and Islam has the extra tick that they recognise the teachings of Jesus and while they don’t believe he’s the son of God they believe he was a prophet on the same level as Mohammed. It was Christians who took the war to Islam from the first declaring them to be infidels and non-believers.

      So if you want to bash an entire religion based on the actions of a few people by all means, I would like to see posts by you bashing Catholicism, Shaoism, Anglicism and Buddhism to name a few.

    • James1 says:

      03:37pm | 17/05/11

      Why is it when someone criticises Islam, there is always someone saying “bet you won’t do the same for Judaism and Christianity.”  Likewise, whenever someone criticises Christianity, people line up to say “why don’t you criticise Islam too”.  Similarly, whenever someone criticises Israel, people are very quick to question why they are not criticising Arabs, and vice versa.

      Is there some universal law that when you criticise something, you must also mention everything else in a critical fashion?  Don’t such standards destroy any possibility of debate?  Given that is it always necessary to choose your facts in such a way that they support your argument (be honest - we all do it no matter which side of politics we come from), isn’t such a standard totally useless?

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:29am | 17/05/11

      Interesting article. Whilst I agree with the sentiments I am conscious of the fact that you seem to delibertaly use Dreden, Hamburg, Nagasaki, Horishima as lessons of ‘bad things’...whislt ignoring, maybe deliberately so, what we were fighting agaisnt during that time. Namely the aggression of totalitarian regimes that committed the genocide of 6 million Jews, the genocide of millions more Russians, Homosexuals, gypsies, the disabled etc in Eastern Europe, brouhgt terror to the homes of millions of civilians with their bombing campaigns, blitzkreig. It was the totalitarian regimes that brought the concept of ‘total war’ to the table. Whilst in the Pacific we were fighting the Japanese who were culling millions of Chinese and indigenous peopels of South East Asia and commiting acts of barbarity that make Dresden, Hamburg etc look like after school romps. Acts like the Rape of Nanking, more ‘Death Marches’ than you can poke a stick at, the systemic torture, brutality and murder of tens of thousands of caputed allied personel, civilian men, women and children.

      Why is it so? Sadly, all this article illustrates, in the end, is your own inherit biases instead of the point you were trying to make.

      ALL sides have their bad points, even ours. The difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ is that ‘we’ do our utmost to protect not only our childrens lives but ‘theirs’ as well. Whilst ‘they’ use their childrens lives up and spit them out. ‘They’ use them as human shields. ‘They’ strap bombs to their chests. ‘They’ bring them up to hate.

      Of course, now I expect some anti-US tool to wade in and chastise me re my comment that we seek to protect their childrne as well with some googled stats about ‘collateral damage’ or ‘civilian deaths’. Le tme stop you in your fit of angst. Yes, tragically it does, can and will happen. No matter how ‘smart’ our wweapons are. No matter how well trained and how professional our servicemen and women are ‘shit happens’ as someone famously said. Its not a glib throwaway line. Despite technology and training mistakes and accidents can and will happen. Our military strive to limit these accidents and mistakes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an unmitigated moron. Looking at stats and reports since the US led invasion of Aghanistan, from multiple sources show that of the civilian casualties across both Iraq and Afghanistan you ar elooking at around 20% of ALL civilian casualties being attributed to Western/Coaltion forces. Thats 20% too many I, and many other people, say. But its a far cry from the general anti-us muppets would have you beleive. Around 80% of ALL civilian casualties can be directly attributed to Taliban/Insurgent/Milita forces. Remember that. Yes, we should be better than those we fight, and despite opinions to the contrary we are doing our best to be that.

    • fml says:

      09:39am | 17/05/11

      Well thats alright then, we are absolved from liability because we kill in the name of freedom. Whose freedom again?

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:13am | 17/05/11

      Where exactly did I ‘absolve’ anyone?

      EVERY single civilian death is abhorrent. Despite the shrill handwrigers decrying otherwise there is one side out there doing its best to stop it from happening whilst another side at best doesn’t cvare and at worst is actively killing innocent men, women and children to terrorise the rest of them.

      Lets see if you can work out which is which.

    • Reggie says:

      10:14am | 17/05/11

      I am reminded of General Carruthers having to decide whether the town of Cleve should be obliterated or not in WWII. It was full of women and children but the German Army had to advance through it. With the welfare of his own men as the priority he said YES, he wanted Cleve wiped from the map.

      It was part of Hitler’s reasoning that he was guarding the rear from the oncoming Russians. Having moved his strength from the Russian Front he had ensured that Russia would over-run a major part of Europe with inestimable harm to the women and children. In effect the French women and children were sacrificed to the advantage of the Russians and to the years of Russian domination of the civilians in the East.

    • Mark says:

      10:45am | 17/05/11

      Often the allies have defend thier terror bombing by saying “they did it first”. In the words of “Bomber” Harris. “The Nazi’s had this strange idea that they could go around bombing everybody else & nobody would bomb them, well they have sown the wind let them reap the whirlwind”.

      It is a lie. The Blitz happened becouse bomber command bombed Berlin & Hilter demanded vengeance. The Germans & Japanese went into WW2 with airforces of small aircraft designed to bomb enemy armies. The allies had airforces with large bombers designed to bomb cities.

      But it is true that nowadays the West ties it’s hands behind it’s back, with lawyers in staff positions overiding targeting decisions. All done to make war more humane (bah impossable). Like trying to put a bandaid on the gaping wound you have just hacked into the flesh of your victim.

      But this is a mistake, war is a horror & it is good that it is, least we grow to fond of it.

    • stevem says:

      10:48am | 17/05/11

      We were appalled in the past few days with Iran’s plan to burn a man’s eyes out with acid based on the literl “eye for an eye”, but this sort of punishment was commonplace. People were literally dismembered or burnt at the stake as punishment. We are disgusted by water boarding, yet accepted the Spanish inquisition’s use of torture.

      Time moves on and, hopefully, society improves. What was once commonplace becomes abhorrent as out values evolve. We must all strive to improve the world and fight the push to take the world back to a more barbaric time. It just requires constant vigilance to ensure we don’t drag the world down in the effort to lift it up.

    • fml says:

      11:23am | 17/05/11

      Arguing that we “try” to kill less civilians when invading another country is absolution of our guilt.

      “Yes, tragically it does, can and will happen. No matter how ‘smart’ our wweapons are. No matter how well trained and how professional our servicemen and women are ‘shit happens’ as someone famously said.”

      Another example, “Shit happens”.

      You can also argue that the 80% of deaths that occurred due to Insurgents in Iraq would not have occured if The allies did not invade. What was the purpose of invading again? removing a saddistic totalitarian leader? The number of deaths in Iraq was considerably less due to saddam compared to what they are now. Instead of having one leader who killed occasionally we have created a vacuum with a number of fundamentalist fools who are know vying for power.

    • NGE says:

      12:17pm | 17/05/11

      @ Mark: I’d like to point out, before anyone takes your argument seriously, that those facts you are quoting are incorrect.

      Bomber Command never ordered an attack on Berlin. It’s acknowledge in almost every history book that mentions this event that Allied bombers accidentally hit Berlin whilst attacking strategic targets. As a result, Hitler ordered revenge attacks.

      The Luftwaffe employed the Heinkel He-111, Dornier Do-17, and Junkers Ju-88 for level bombing. Level bombing aircraft are designed to attack large ground targets i.e. Cities or large military formations. Don’t give me this crap about how they were designed for different things. It’s all BS.

      I don’t want to comment on the topic at hand; I have my own opinions, and nothing I say or do is going to change anyone’s mind, however I will not stand by whilst people warp basic history to give their argument credibility. Besides, we do not live in the past, we live in the present, and the world is definitely a different place than it was 60 years ago.

    • Reggie says:

      12:44pm | 17/05/11

      Alright, thank you for not correcting me. I remembered half way down the street that it was Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Gwynne Horrocks, KCB, KBE, DSO, MC (7 September 1895 – 4 January 1985) who made the Cleve decision.

      It is significant that the first big bombing raid on Germany was on Cologne on the 31st of May 1942. Two and a half years after Germany demolished half of Europe.  The accidental bombing of London by German bombers in 1940 resulted in a puny raid on Berlin. Just enough to get Hitler into the TOTAL war mode in which civilians were disregarded. Hardly a new situation considering what his forces had done to civilians in Spain, Poland and Holland etc.

    • fml says:

      12:54pm | 17/05/11

      before the typo police get to me,

      *now, obviously not know.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:11pm | 17/05/11

      The Allies did not build Heavy Bombers until later in the war when the existing medium and light bombers were found to be unsuitable. For the first few years the Germans had heavier bombers with larger payloads and much shorter ranges to drop them….and a lot more of them.

    • Reggie says:

      09:28am | 18/05/11

      Well I can’t see how you can consider 1941/42 to be late in the war TRD.

      The Halifax in it’s early form was on the drawing board in 1939 and the advanced form became operation in early 41. From memory the first thousand bomber raid on Cologne had something like 300 or 400 Lancasters in May 42, two and a half years after the start of the war and and three years before the German surrender. When America entered the war in December 1941 the British were way ahead in heavy bomber development. Notice also that Dec 41 was squarely in the middle of these heavy bomber operations from Britain.

      The other consideration was that German bombers were intrinsically short range. Their trip across the English Channel from France was considerably shorter that the trip from England to Berlin or from England over the Alps to bomb Italy and then to fly on and refuel in North Africa.

      Bombing concentrations achieved by the Germans and thus casualties would have been greater at the hub of England requiring a far larger Allied air wing to achieve similar concentrations of bombing at the radius.

      Succinctly, British targets were more concentrated and therefore more easily devastated while Axis targets were considerably more dispersed.

    • Blackadder says:

      12:41pm | 18/05/11

      My daughter is travelling to Japan soon and part of the trip is a visit to the memorial centre in Hiroshima. At school, their on-line learning in preparation for the trip covers this.

      My comment to my wife…“I hope the education also covers the tens of thousands of Allied POWs murdered by the Japanese as they attacked southwards, the rape and murder of tens of thousands of Chinese in Nanking by the Japanese Army” and so forth.

      Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the results of events over the previous years. If you can’t comprehend and understand why the Japanese initiated the attack on Pearl Harbour, why they invaded China, and what occurred from a military, economic and diplomatic perspective in the Pacific, you can never understand the end result.

      It’s all fine and well to point at Hiroshima, and raids such as the firebombing of Tokyo and point out the “evil Americans”, but unless you understand the “whys” as to how they came about, and for what reasons, I find it difficult to respect some posters ill-informed views.

      PS. There seems a lot of mention of Hamburg, Dresden etc. I notice that Coventry and Rotterdam are omitted ? Which came first in terms of being mass-terror bombed for the express purpose of killing the civillian population, folks ? And who was the perpetrator ?

    • Phil says:

      09:46am | 17/05/11

      His goal was to terrorize, he has been successful in doing this given people are still scared and talking about it.

      War and terrorism does not usually discriminate so wanting to end someones life because they a child was a victim in an attach during a war or part of a terrorist attack (collateral damage) is very different to if some random person came up to a child in the street and killed them.

      The end result for both is tragic no doubt but there is a difference between the two, the second would be the one where I’d be happy to find the person and then go to work on them.
      The same thing goes for pedo’s and all those type, if i had kids and found that to be happening even God would turn a blind eye to the horrible things id to to that person.
      There is no point in letting it get to court as the courts \ judges dont do anything about it.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      09:58am | 17/05/11

      What kind of a sick individual could “cheerfully” murder someone, for revenge, or any other reason? Are you a psychopath, Andrew Sutherland?

      There is a place where psychos who want to slaughter people usually go to, and that place is the US Army.

    • TheRealDave says:

      10:16am | 17/05/11

      yes, only psychopaths join the army

      *rolls eyes*

    • Sherekahn says:

      11:06am | 17/05/11

      Genetic engineering is the only cure for the Human demise.  Please hurry up!

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      11:35am | 17/05/11

      Not only psychopaths. But plenty of them too.

    • Sharon says:

      02:04am | 19/05/11

      Are you a parent Thomas Anderson? I can’t help but wonder if you have someone in your world that brings out a pure animal instinct to protect them. Is there no one that you would throw yourself infront of a bullet for?
      I have twin boy and girl, my son has a disorder that very slowly weakens every muscle in his body. At the age of 13 he is no longer able to walk, by the time he is in his early 20’s his diaphram, heart and digestive system will be unable to function properly on thier own. His life expectancy at its very best is late20’s.
      If his doctors told me that they could positivly change the course of my sons condition but to do so they would have to give him my heart, I would ‘cheerfully’ hand them the scalpel.
      I tell you this only to assure you that I am no stranger to the mortality of my offspring.
      Would I ‘cheerfully’ kill someone who hurt my child? Hmmm.
      Further down this array of comments Dick says “most of us will comply with the law of the land and seek justice rather than revenge”
      From a justice system that trends toward leniency, rightly so most of the time, unfortunatly these ‘psychopaths’ who intentionally harm our children sometimes reap the benifits of this system.
      If I had to hunt down the killer of my child and plan his murder in cold blood I would probably join this majority Dick speaks of and hope that justice does not let ‘me’ down.
      That said, place a gun in my hand and the killer in front if me when I found out, I believe I would use it and walk away with a smile on my lips.Perhaps not a ‘cheerful’ smile but certainly the satisfied smile of a job well done.
      Andrew Sutherland is not a psychopath, he is a parent.
      I would not like to see Andrew join the U.S. Army, I would rather see him in the judges seat at the trials of these baby killers and molesterers.
      What do you think Andrew? Is it too late in life for you to consider a career in law?

    • Mark says:

      10:03am | 17/05/11

      Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki where the deliberate targeting of civilian woman & children. They were called “dehousing” attacks, as if only the houses were burned, not little girls & boys screaming as the fat melted from their bones. By the way the Toko firebombing called more then either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki nukes. I have read the words of old airmen describing the smell that wafted up from the flames, but I know not if the smell was really there or if it is their guilt torturing them.

      Our Guilt, as in our societies in general? I doubt it, not many in our society have the wish to investigate what really happened. Or indeed what is worse understand why it needed to be done. One loses an innocence when one does that can never be regained.

      The odd thing that took me ages to understand was why after this the peoples of Germany & Japan were so peaceful & revenge attacks by ex soldiers on those who burned their familes to death where so rare.

      The writer may think he would cheerfully kill, but for all but a small portion of people killing is very hard & never cheerful.

    • baal says:

      11:15am | 17/05/11

      It is estimated that only about 2% of soilders enjoy killing and therefore suffer no trauma from the taking of a human life.
      We are social primates, more like Bonobos that Chimps. By that I mean Bonobos are sex mad party monkeys whilst Chimps are violence mad and dangerous.
      We are party primates more than war monkeys.

    • Dan says:

      12:10pm | 17/05/11

      Love that comment baal. But unfortunately I think at least some of us, and they tend to be the powerful ones, are war monkeys. But I love the idea of humans as party primates - thats cool.

    • Tchom says:

      10:09am | 17/05/11

      Thankfully with Australia’s birthrate approaching 0, we won’t have to worry about child-murdering anymore. And with all the money we can save from not having to hand-out baby bonuses, free digital set top boxes for all!

    • Paul Wilson says:

      12:13pm | 17/05/11

      I have no time or sympathy for Bin Laden but the lack of compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men women AND children killed by coalition forces during the criminal invasion of Iraq sickens me.

    • Reggie says:

      05:32pm | 17/05/11

      Depending who you listen to, the deaths in Mexican drug wars are between twice and six times the loss of life in Afghanistan. Whole families wiped out and yet my US Mexican friend say don’t believe all you read. Then we have this family tragedy in Southern Queensland that makes you wonder at the mental balance and values of some of the people close by.

    • MisterCliff says:

      12:18pm | 17/05/11

      It seems to me that the headline and content of this article are at serious odds, and that the headline is mostly a sensationalist grab for readership (to be expected, I guess). Bit of a shame really, as the two topics (i.e. child murderers/abusers (from the headline) and the horrors of war (from the content)) are both worthy of in-depth investigation in their own right.

      However, to answer the question posed by the headline: you bet I would, in a New York minute and in the slowest, most painful way possible.

      To respond to the article content: ever since there have been wars there has been collateral damage, i.e. innocent civilians killed. This doesn’t make it right in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, due to human nature, wars are a fact of life and no amount of sentimental hand-wringing will change the fact. Shame, really.

    • SAW says:

      01:28pm | 17/05/11

      Who cares? You have all formed your own opinion and not one of you is actually going to properly read anyone else’s comments, nor change your own OPINION. SO I ask again - WHO CARES? My opinion (but even I dont care about it), regardless of who is actually right or wrong, is a dead Osama is a good Osama. My side says he was evil, thereore he is evil!

    • Stones says:

      01:45pm | 17/05/11

      Everyone is an historian these days.  Which is ironic, considering we keep repeating historys mistakes.  The 20th Century was the bloodiest in human history and more people were killed with AK47s than by Nukes, Area Bombing, or Smart Weapons and Missiles.  If you are seeking answers as to why then I suggest you take a look at Prof Niall Fergusons excellent and well researched series, War Of The World.  Where all will be revealed to you, about how and why we humans kill.  And why we enjoy it.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:14pm | 17/05/11

      Its easy to be a historian with the plethora of information avalible at your fingertips nowadays. Actually, we should ALL be historians with the amount of info we can access instantly and now no matter where we are with mobile internet devices. But instead we still have far too many sheeple that beleive any old line thrown at them because it suits their own inherit biases. I despise people that don’t take the 5 seconds it takes to look something up.

    • Reggie says:

      05:59pm | 17/05/11

      Pardon? Are you referring to the product of someone’s imagination when 9/11 has taught conclusively that truth is stranger than fiction?

      My interest in history dates from snippets of information encountered during and after WWII and I’ve spent my life filling in the gaps from various sources and from various angles. I find myself tearing my hair out at the casual assertions about battles and equipment as if the people simply didn’t matter. It gets worse as the actual participants fade away. One of the programs I viewed was film of the normal day had by a family in Cologne prior to the first 1000 (1023) bomber raid. Plans for the next day that could never happen. I forget how many times it was bombed but 43 springs to mind. Then there were the shots of American troops clearing the Germans out of the same city while the residents clung to their faith in the Fuhrer, regardless of the pain it brought to the innocents.

      It seems there are many on both sides who cannot handle the truth.

    • Dick says:

      02:28pm | 17/05/11

      The world is probably a better place without OBL, but in the end I doubt it will make much difference.

      As to your speculation about what I would do to someone who harmed one of my children, of course our immediate reaction is, no mercy for the bastard. This is reflected in many responses above. The reality is, though, that most of us will comply with the laws of the land and seek justice rather than revenge. The chest beating heroes here are probably wimpy nerds who would cower at the first sign of violence, and would probably stand no chance against a mongrel who would willingly harrm a child. Sorry.

    • John says:

      02:34pm | 17/05/11

      Osama Bin Laden is meaning less figure, just a fictional create boogie man right out of 1984 Novel. He was just a creation to justifie the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. We all know how meaning less he is and his fictional al-qaeda group, we know this because of the physical evidence that explosives bough down WTC 1,2 and 7. The US government and the media have been lying all along and committed high treason against the American people.

    • Josie says:

      03:12pm | 17/05/11

      The trend of positive psychology is bloody dangerous. People who choose to forgive perpetrators of crime are held as the ‘right approach’ instead of wanting retributive justice. Domestic violence victims are admired for forgiving their partners to keep the family together. Parents are praised by judges for forgiving their childs killer. And priest are forgiven for raping kids. Terrorists are forgiven for their actions as you cannot revive the perished. Well I do not forgive and I resent the current approach of forgiveness. This will become the standard and anyone who does not comply will be considered wrong. Nature not nurture propels feelings which this forgiveness ignores and further victimises people into silence. Well if you do the crime you do the time, as families forgiveness is influencing court decisions and is not in keeping with societal values.Those who are wanting saint hood can forgive, I chose not to and do not condemn other normal thinking people.

    • The Mechanic says:

      03:41pm | 17/05/11

      The State sanctioned assassination of a known terrorist has nothing to do with seeking revenge for the murder of children, or any, “Yeah, but they started it,” argument. A crime was committed - a culprit admitted responsibility - a sentence of ‘death’ was handed out as a measure of justice - the sentence was carried out. The same as any other court case, except there was no trial. Sure, some criminals get off because they have an excuse such as insanity, or they never had a teddy growing up, or whatever else lame excuse gets you off taking responsibility for your actions these days. But ordering the hijacking of four planes for the purpose of crashing them into buildings requires a better excuse than, “Yeah, but you guys started it first,” or “I’m not happy with the current form of Government that doesn’t allow me to choose my own form of Government, which wouldn’t allow anyone to choose anything,”

    • Mike says:

      05:00pm | 17/05/11

      I think Shakespeare put it best and so simply. ‘I can smile, and murder while I smile.’

      I think there’s something in that for all of us, don’t you.

      P.S. We are all of us killers, given the right circumstance and frame of mind. It’s in our nature to kill our own kind.

    • Liam says:

      05:02pm | 17/05/11

      I put it to you all that we know next to nothing about Bin Laden, his morality,  what he stood for, the negative or positive things he achieved, and the context of his assassination by the US Government.

      The proliferation of all these “informed” opinion pieces since his death is a worry. We should know better. The third last and last sentences are the only pars that make any sense to me here.

      And by the way this is a neutral comment - I’m not a bleeding heart and i’m not smoking a bong.

    • Rob says:

      05:08pm | 17/05/11

      Theres an interesting situation with a former police officer in NSW called Said Morgan. Essentially, he killed someone who had sexually abused a relative of his, andwas caught, on parloe, and about to do it again (IIRC).

      Said killed him, it went to trial, and he was exonerated.

      I believe this is one example of where this type of action (I dont know if I should use pejorative words like “murder”) was seen as being justified.

      As a parent myself, thankfully I have never been in this situation. I have no idea how I would actually react, but I’m pretty sure I would totally lose it.

      As far as the above discussions go regarding OBL, and the US, etc etc etc, my only real feeling is that the story did not start on September 11. There was obviously a looooooong sequence of events before this. Who was right, and who was wrong, almost dont matter, because history is written by the winners.

      This isnt meant to be glib at all, but its just a sad reflection of the truth.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      05:57pm | 17/05/11

      Great article!

      “I don’t care what you believe, what awful things you’ve seen to make you hate - if you think an aeroplane ploughing into a skyscraper full of civilians is a good thing there is something seriously wrong with you.”
      —I could not agree with you more.

      “He then spawned al-Qaida apparently to rid the Middle East of the toxic anti-Muslim influence of the United States and to establish Sharia law in the region.”
      —I am sorry, but you can keep this Islamophobic propaganda to your BIBLE STUDY.
      Robin Cook, who was head of British Foreign Office (you know, the dudes who run the British Secret Intelligence Service), nicely explained how Al-Qaida was “spawned” in The Guardian only weeks before his death.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

      [Quotes you should focus on:
      “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”

      “Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur’an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.”]

      “Do CIA directors and US military chiefs wake up at night haunted by reminders of their “collateral damage”?”
      —That all depends on how lucrative the contract.

      “Watch a small child being blown apart and suddenly, causes like Islamic extremism and even the good old US of A, can all go to hell.”
      —Word! Love the parallel AND the common destination. wink Especially considering that the latter recruited the former into a “database” known as “Al-Qaida”.

      http://www.suite101.com/content/afghan-fighting-season-2011-the-new-tet-offensive-a370697

    • TheRealDave says:

      06:45pm | 17/05/11

      “http://www.suite101.com/content/afghan-fighting-season-2011-the-new-tet-offensive-a370697”

      A new Tet Offensive?

      You mean another humiliating total defeat of insurgent forces deliberately misrepresented as a victory by the media?

      So like every other ‘fighting season’ that Taliban and anti-government tribal militias poke their heads out only to get stomped on time after time, yet have the media glorify them as military geniuses of Caesar like status?

      I’ll be wishing my little brother a safe deployment and hope he can do his professional best to bring all the Diggers of his platoon home safely and can help out the Afghanis they will be training during this ‘fighting season’.

    • Mensur Cehic says:

      10:01am | 18/05/11

      @TheRealDave

      I hope your bro comes home safe.

      The article clearly states:
      “The widespread massive attack was repelled by U.S. and South Vietnamese forces and the Vietcong were defeated. However, the North Vietnamese inflicted a massive shock on American public confidence, considering that General Westmoreland’s delusion of grandeur led him to convince Americans that the war was nearing its victorious end.”

      and the parallel is:

      The Insurgents in Afghanistan are pulling off a similar (however smaller scale) effect, considering the unrealistic and misguiding ‘report’ recently released by the Pentagon on “progress”, which as much of lie as recent years news that the Insurgents had been routed, which shows a lack of understanding of asymmetric warfare. Furthermore, the ‘report’ states that the Insurgents’ capabilities and momentum have been greatly limited - which was proven wrong in an unprecedented manner. Failure to interpret it as for what it is and making huge efforts to convey it down the chain and to the public as anything different, as vexing as it may be to you, is a complete lack in Military Logic. In other words, not wanting to hear BAD NEWS and ‘shooting the messenger’ is something that makes Sun Tzu roll in his grave. It also makes matters more difficult and dangerous to our troops (including your brother) as they are exposed to an enemy that the top brass isn’t capable of countering accordingly.

      I hope this helps, mate. Hope your bro stays safe. 

      http://www.suite101.com/content/experiencing-melbourne-australia-chapel-street-a370480

    • Labor Ruined this Country says:

      06:07pm | 17/05/11

      Although I found this to be a thought provoking piece by the author, I note that he fails to mention that Palestinian terrorists sometimes use children as suicide bombers, sometimes handycapped children at that. Some years ago I remember reading an article about a handicapped youth who had been strapped with explosives and sent on his way to an Israeli checkpoint. A stand off ensued and the boy was finally talked out of it. I guess my point is, that first you must love and respect your own children and unfortunately I don’t think this is high on the list of priorities for jihadists and so their mock outrage at the deaths of their women and children is hypocritical at best.

    • TheRealDave says:

      06:38pm | 17/05/11

      I remember reading a quote many years ago along the lines of, ‘There will be no peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews.’

      Very very appropriate.

    • Peter Hinton says:

      06:56pm | 17/05/11

      We like to think that we’re an evolved species, don’t we. That, somehow, we’ve managed to uncode hundreds of thousands of years of animal instinct. The truth is, despite our iPads and iPhones, we’re still animals with basic needs and desires. I firmly believe that one such desire is for vengeance when wronged. We see it everyday, when the irrational part of someone’s brain kicks in and says “fuck it! I know this is only going to make things worse but he’s got it coming to him”.

      We saw this realization within seconds of the news of Bin Laden’s death. We knew that our legal system demanded that he be brought to trial. We knew that execution is abhorrent and so damn uncivilized. But I challenge anyone reading this to look honestly at their reaction just a week ago and ask “wasn’t it a relief! Didn’t that feel like real, unadulterated, primeval justice”!

    • CynicalGoatWA says:

      07:01pm | 17/05/11

      In response to the title of the article….yes I absolutely would. If anyone touched a hair on my 3 year old little girl’s head, I would kill the motherf**ker with barely a second thought.

    • Chris says:

      09:32pm | 17/05/11

      Protecting freedom through the use of lethal force is fine by me, although in Australia, as a “free” country we have become highly skilled at banning everything and anything that may hurt our feelings or give us a scratch.  It seems more and more a faux freedom that we kill for, which makes it a little more meaningless than I would like. 

      To answer the question though:  yes I would happily butcher or shoot any piece of filth that would hurt my child.

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      02:08am | 18/05/11

      The stupidity is this,,,what’s the difference between a war criminal/terrorist/freedom fighter who is executed and a scumbag who is part of a pack rape gang that finaly kills their victim for their troubles EG: Anita Cobby… Six billion people on this planet and I’m living in one of the best countries in the world, now all I need is a hand full of softcock treehugger wannabees to stuff it up, with no regard for the freedoms and priveleges paid for with the blood of the brave and sweat of the weary to arsekiss every so called assylum seeker coming to Australia to start “a new life”, one question though plagues me day and night, if these assylum seekers / immigrants / wannabee Australians woudn’t stay and fight for their ancestral homelands with our soldiers by their side supporting them, then what would they do if Australia were to be attacked especially from a muslim country. The most dangerous of the nut job extremeist muslim thinking though is the whackjobs that beleive it simply was a conspiracy to destroy two airliners into buildings deliberately to create war with the intention to control and steal the OIL from Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the same breath they praise bin laden for being anti western while they live amongst us mocking our way of life disrespecting and harming our women and children in the most heinous ways, but would I “cheerfuly”  kill someone for harming my children? the short answer is YES but I ask you this Andrew,,,,as a complete stranger woluld you appreciate and acknowlege me if I were to kill for your children for their safety or vengance? or maybe a free homeland? as Australia was before the softcocks/nococks took over.

    • Liam says:

      01:41pm | 18/05/11

      Methinks someone has a size issue

    • Kevin says:

      07:53am | 18/05/11

      Bin Laden was a mass murderer. Have we forgotten the videos of beheadings of journalists performed by his operatives. Have we forgotten the use of children being used as suicide bombers that deliberatly targetted areas where women and children were present. Have we forgotten 9/11 etc etc etc. Lets look at his death. The US special forces were operating at night in a hostile situation. Bin Laden was standing in a room that had weapons inside. The soldier acted on instinct and double tapped the guy. This is exactly what he should have done in a situation where a standing oponent had access to weapons that could be used against himself or other members of the team. I bet the soldier did not know it was Bin Laden till after the event and the lights were turned on.
      In my opinion, the world is a better place without Bin laden and his ilk.
      Would I kill a person who DELIBERATLY hurt or killed my children-You Bet!

    • OchreBunyip says:

      08:27am | 18/05/11

      Because many people believe they are civilised they under rate their own capacity for violence. It might not be the smoothly organised and slickly presented violence of say Dexter, CSI or Law and Order but amateurish yet terribly effective violence is latent in every human. We are socialised to believe we are not capable of it but if that were true otherwise ordinary mothers and fathers would not torture or kill their children, glassings would not occur in pubs, DV would be a non-issue Clearly, since these assaults do occur we are quite capable of violence, all it takes is the right motivation which varies from person to person.

      The key point is never to admit it in case at some point in the future it becomes necessary to do the unthinkable.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Punch on: Open thread 28/05/2012

Punch on: Open thread 28/05/2012

There were two skydiving incidents reported over the weekend. VIDEO: Granny’s shocking skydive…

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter