Obama Honors Osama Bin Laden As True Muslim Holy Warrior, Gives Him State Funeral

Now, let me get this out from the start: if I were the president, I would have had some real hungry pigs loaded aboard the USS Carl Vinson (ala Silence of the Lambs II), fed them Osama bin Laden’s body, and then invited every single family member of those killed on 9/11 for a barbeque lunch at the White House featuring those pigs that had so recently eaten Osama bin Laden’s body as the main course.  Perhaps we would have dined under a giant banner that read, “Osama bin Laden: he was the most evil human being of the last half century, but now he’s just finger lickin’ good.”

Way over the top, I know.  My main point is that giving Osama bin Laden a Muslim burial – and literally a state funeral aboard a United States Navy aircraft carrier - was every bit as much going way over the top the other way.

As ABC reports it:

The corpse was taken to the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, officials told ABC News. The ceremony, done according to Islamic law, began about 1:10 a.m. today EST and lasted about 45 minutes, according to officials.

Traditional washing of the body was followed by wrapping in white sheets. A military officer read religious remarks that were translated by a native Arabic speaker, then bin Laden was eased into the sea.

Officials said no other alternatives were available.

As for the “no other alternatives were available,” that’s just a load of crap.  Consider my pig-feast, for example.

Here’s the thing.  Barack Obama and too many liberals to bother to mention have repeatedly lectured us that terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are NOT Muslim; they have somehow taken Islam hostage, yada yada yada.

Okay, fine. So DON’T GIVE THE RAT BASTARD A MUSLIM FUNERAL THEN!!!  MAKE HIM PIG FOOD INSTEAD!!!

It seems rather obvious that Osama bin Laden is very much officially a “Muslim” now as far as the United States is concerned, given his method of burial.

And that means that Hairy Back Guy:

Night of the Living Dead Guy:

 And Wascally Wabbit Guy:

Are all real Muslims, too.

And so now and forevermore, please stop telling us they’re not real Muslims.

It has occurred to me if Osama bin Laden was a “Christian,” there is no way in hell Obama would have demanded that the US Navy – which I’m sure has better things to do than wash a scumbag’s body and chant over it for 45 minutes – would have given him a “Christian” burial.

And it flat out amazes me that even the most despicable Muslim who ever lived (with the exception of Muhammad himself) gets more respect by Obama than a Christian ever would.

I couldn’t be more sick of liberals who demand total separation of church and state wherever and whenever Christianity is concerned, and then provide every possible honor to a terrorist slimeball psycho mass murderer of American citizens.

It’s the same phenomenon with liberal “artists” who go the the Nth degree to mock Christianity, but would never dare to do the same thing with Islam.  These hypocrite cowards just make me want to spew.

I’m fine with burying the Osama bin Laden at sea, for what it’s worth.  But as another suggestion to show that another alternative was certainly available, how about bringing a battleship along and stuffing bid Laden into one of the 16-inch guns and firing off a salvo?  And instead of a Koranic sendoff carefully translated into Arabic, the master chief in charge of the main battery could provide a detailed sermon describing just how far over the horizon bin Laden would likely fly on a 300 kilogram powder charge. 

I don’t have a scintilla of doubt that the Navy crewmen wouldn’t have minded spending 45 minutes prepping for THAT funeral at all.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Obama Honors Osama Bin Laden As True Muslim Holy Warrior, Gives Him State Funeral”

  1. Abesian Says:

    Dear Mr. Eden,

    I agree with 90% of what you say on this site, and even some of that remaining 10% I just take as its intended hyperbole. But this is one area where I do not.

    What you call a “state funeral,” I interpret as the lowest minimum requirements of burial that a human being deserves (because as despicable as the man was, he was still a human being). It’s not like they held a formal funeral with a eulogy, flowers, and mournful tears.

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m relieved this man is dead, I’m glad justice was served, and I don’t see anything wrong with how our troops put a bullet in him. But if his body was mutilated and dismembered as a show of vengeance, I wouldn’t blame Muslims for being outraged, because I would be just as outraged as a Christian.

    I see our treatment of his body not as a concession to terroristic Muslims, but as a show of general decency and restraint (the kind of humanity our enemies would have if they possessed even a shred of character).

    If you’re angry because this is a level of respect that liberals would never show to their conservative “enemies,” then that’s a whole different argument (and I would say a well justified one!). But I firmly believe our troops did the right thing in giving him a basic Muslim burial.

  2. HL Says:

    Michael, some times you crack me up!

    The moral confusion and hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    Abesian,

    I was going for hypberole. After mentioning the “pig” thing, I pointed out that was way over the top.

    But giving bin Laden a funeral was way over the top, too.

    Let me give you a quick counter-example as to why it was over-the-top political-correctness wrong to give bin Laden a funeral. During World War II, we killed over 2 million Japanese soldiers. And we weren’t giving them funerals after we killed them. Nor was it wrong for us to NOT give them funerals.

    This was nothing more than the United States bowing down to Muslim “dhimmitude.”

    Wikipedia offers a good definition: “Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands.”

    To wit: if we don’t constantly appease these people, they will go nuts and start murdering. And so our culture appeases at every turn – particularly the left due to political correctness. The far left which constantly attacks Christianity and Christians symbolizes what just happened: they don’t dare offend Muslims or Islam.

    Let me say it again: I was NOT actually arguing that we should dismember etc. etc. Osama bin Laden’s body. But I AM saying his body should have been unceremoniously dumped somewhere like the garbage it was. We offered it to the Saudis, and when they refused it, it should simply have been food for the fishes with no fanfare and no ceremony.

    There are not many people whose deaths should be cheered. But Osama bin Laden is one of those people. He would have gladly set fire to the world if he could have. He didn’t deserve to be honored with a funeral any more than Adolf Hitler did.

    Having said all that, I understand that your head and heart are in the right place, and you are simply trying to apply decent moral values to an extreme situation. And I would also affirm that the values you are seeking to uphold are good ones. But on my view, honoring him was an insult to human life itself, rather than being an act that is honoring of human life. And I would further point out that it was not done to honor human life, but rather as a craven attempt at appeasement toward people who will hate us anyway.

    Just now I thought about “the Red Baron,” who was honored with a military funeral by the British after they shot him down in WWI. Does that qualify as a parallel? No, I would argue. Because while the Red Baron was deadly, he fought by a civilized code of conduct. Versus Osama bin Laden, who is trying to destroy civilization with a nihilism that is simply rabid.

  4. Abesian Says:

    Dear Mr. Eden,

    Thank you for taking the time to further explain your position. You certainly gave me a few things to think about. For instance, I was unaware that the body had been offered to the Saudis. I also didn’t pay enough attention to the details of your article, particularly the fact that his ceremony was over 45 minutes. Just saying a quick prayer for God’s mercy on his soul (dark and twisted as it was) and dropping his shrouded body in the ocean would have been enough in my opinion.

    Of course, the sticky part of the disagreement is not so much the action as it is the motivation. Depending on the motives, giving this murderer a proper burial according to his customs could be considered a noble and admirable act of undeserved kindness. But I am not so naive as to think that was the motive here. I definitely believe this was done to avoid resentment and retribution from the Muslim world. I, too, am tired of the hoops people jump through to appease Muslims while simultaneously insulting and mocking other faiths (especially Christianity). That is cowardice, not consideration.

    I still believe giving him a decent burial was the right thing to do (based on OUR standards of noble conduct, since he obviously had none), and were the decision mine I would have done the same. But I agree with you that the underlying motives are suspect and that it is a symptom of a deeper issue.

    All in all, I still disagree with your position, but I also consider it a valid and justifiable one.

    Have a pleasant day, Mr. Eden. I have immense appreciation for your perspective and your fearlessness in voicing it.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Your final two paragraphs could be mine, as well.

    I understand why you think as you do, and I even agree with your underlying moral premises for thinking as you do.

    Moral reasoning is a fascinating realm, because people can believe the exact same things, but simply prioritize their order differently, and then come up with very different conclusions.

    One of the things that also gets sticky is whether or not one agrees with the following: “Doing the right thing with the wrong motivations is the wrong thing.” And what makes it sticky is that sometimes it IS the wrong thing, and sometimes it’s NOT the wrong thing. And in this case, giving Osama bin Laden a funeral service that honored him for the primary reason of not wanting to offend terrible people who already hate us is the wrong thing.

    Another point of hypocrisy I didn’t mention earlier that also becomes important: is Obama a Muslim or not? Obama has said he ISN’T a Muslim, but rather someone who hijacked and perverted a great religion. Well, that is no longer our official position: because we honored him AS A MUSLIM WITH A MUSLIM BURIAL ACCORDING TO MUSLIM RITUAL.

    Osama bin Laden is now a Muslim for certain, and both al Qaeda and Obama now both agree on that. That was another point I was trying to bring up in my article.

    Now, if you think somebody maybe should have said a prayer, etc., as an unofficial action, fine. I wouldn’t criticize that. But in this case, the United States just practiced an act of Dhimmitude in making itself subservient to another religion’s (and remember liberals always demand secularism unless another religion like Islam is at issue) ceremonies, and we also just officially acknowledged that Osama bin Laden WAS IN FACT A MUSLIM, which would seem to undermine the people who would like to reform Islam.

  6. Jason Says:

    The only thing that really bothers me with everything being talked about here is the hypocrisy in how Christians are treated. We’re supposed to be tolerable of everybody everywhere, as long as we don’t mention Christ, that’s a problem! Why is this???

    My theory on the hypocrisy; Christ touches peoples souls because He is the truth, and the truth hurts! The truth also means responsibility, which most people seem to only want to accept if they feel it will be beneficial to them in some way!

    You mean I shouldn’t just do whatever I want whenever I want because it feels good and its fun!?!?!? correct!

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Jason,

    Your comment made me think of something I wrote recently on a similar topic:

    There is an interesting story that illustrates how the world thinks when it comes to Jesus and the Bible that I heard in a sermon on John 15:18-16:4:

    When missionaries were first going to inland Africa, the wife of an African chief visited a missionary station. Hanging outside the missionary’s cabin, on a tree, was a little mirror. The chief’s wife had never seen her hardened features and hideous paintings on her face. (She was want we would call “one ugly momma!)” She gazed at her own terrifying countenance and then jumped back in horror, exclaiming, “who is that horrible person inside the tree?”

    “Oh,” the missionary explained, “it is not the tree. The glass is reflecting your own face.”

    She wouldn’t believe it until she was holding the mirror in her hand. When she understood, she said to the missionary, “I must have the glass. How much will you sell it for?” The missionary really didn’t want to sell his only mirror, but the African insisted so strongly that the missionary didn’t want to cause trouble, and so finally capitulated and sold the mirror.

    The chief’s wife took the mirror, exclaiming, “I will never have it making faces at me again!” And with that she threw it down, breaking it to pieces.

    And the fact of the matter is that people hate to see what they really are and hate God’s Word because it reveals their true selves. The mirror never changes. Every human being must choose how he or she will react when we take a good look at Jesus as revealed in God’s Word. Either we will repent of our sin and turn to him, or we will reject and hate him.

    I would also say that “tolerance” has been utterly turned on its head by a warped and depraved culture, and Christians have largely allowed it to happen. And it should be no surprise that we would bear the brunt of the tolerancy-tyranny trick.

    Tolerance, properly understood, presupposes a disagreement. The only way you can tolerate someone is if you first disagree with them – and THEN you tolerate them by respecting their humanity and their right to be different.

    Modern “Tolerance” turns that on its head and redefines it into a politically-correct facade of itself. Modern “tolerance” means that we embrace differences, rather than recognize them. And it is vile by nature; as you point out, Jason, the ONLY people who DON’T get “tolerated” on this new, warped standard are the people whom the left actually disagree with. Those people (i.e., Christians, conservatives) experience the full force of the left’s hate even as the left celebrates themselves for being so “tolerant.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: