All Lose if Hatred Prevails

As a Muslim, I am relieved that Osama bin Laden has been brought down and his reign of terror brought to an end.

His death represents a defining moment in the battle against terrorism. A battle not fought by the West alone, but by the majority of Muslims whose faith was hijacked on September 11, 2001.

Despite my relief, I will not celebrate his death, as I do not believe anybody’s death should be cause for celebration. That does not stop me from feeling that justice has been served.

But it prompts the question – when and how will justice be served for the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, from all walks of life and faiths, who have been killed in the process of pursuing bin Laden?

Every time I think about the plight of the Afghan people, I am gripped by tremendous sadness. I am an Afghan myself, who came to Australia at the age of seven.

Although they are a resilient people who have managed to withstand centuries of repeated foreign intervention, the Afghan front in the war on terror has caused great damage to my country and her people. I am cautiously optimistic that one day in the not too distant future we can close this dark chapter in Afghanistan’s history.

Bin Laden represents many things to many people. To me he was the catalyst for a dramatic rise in Islamaphobia, a previously unknown term.

Further, he contradicted the true message of Islam and he violated the sacred Islamic teachings upholding the sanctity of all human life – not just Muslim life. He represented a distorted form of Islam and caused the deaths of countless Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide.

He created so much mistrust and fear of Islam that his actions, message and rhetoric have caused pain to not only those he considered his enemies, but those he, however delusional he may have been, considered to be his friends: The Muslims on whose behalf he claimed to speak.

There can be no question that September 11 had a profound impact on Muslims. On that day, it was not only the planes that were hijacked and crashed into the twin towers – Islam was hijacked and Muslims all around the world were taken as hostages.

The news of bin Laden’s death makes me remember how I felt when I heard about the planes crashing into the twin towers and the terrible aftermath of grief, mistrust and vilification that followed.

I happened to be at my sister’s house in Penrith that night. I was up late watching the news and saw Sandra Sully announce the first plane crashing into the World Trade Center. I felt sick in the stomach, knowing full well what was to come. I knew my life, and the lives of other law-abiding Muslims, would never be the same again.

Being a visible Muslim (I am referring to the fact I choose to wear the hijab) means that many people associate me with what happened on that September day.

As unfortunate as it is, some people cannot seem to differentiate between everyday Australian Muslims going about their lives, and the extremists who choose to commit horrific and unforgivable crimes in the name of my faith.

The crime of 9/11 was committed in the name of Islam and the perversion, dishonesty and distortions bin Laden used to justify the attacks makes my blood boil.

There is no denying that a minority of Muslims are sympathetic towards bin Laden. Not necessarily because they condone his inciting of violence against innocent men, women and children, but because, perhaps, they saw him as an advocate of their political and social grievances.

They saw him as an advocate of a just war, in the same way there are those who defend the death of civilians in the war on terror as part of the wider narrative of a just war. It seems human beings will never learn the senselessness of violence.

There are other Muslims, unsympathetic to bin Laden’s cause, but who are hesitant to accept America’s version of how the battle with bin Laden played out. Given America’s track record with fabricating intelligence to justify wars in the Middle East, the scepticism is understandable. Perhaps, if bin Laden had been captured alive and tried in court, the conspiracy theories would have been put to bed.

I am not naive to think that bin Laden’s death will significantly change his followers’ twisted thinking. Nor has the West scored the moral high ground. We are all losers when we allow violence and hatred to prevail.

If we are to learn anything out of this bloody mess, then let it be that we can and must work collectively to change the narrative that Islam and the West are at war and, in so doing, we will deny a battlefield to those who wish to be soldiers.

——————

Mariam Veiszadeh is of Afghan heritage and a lawyer and human rights advocate

Source:

27 thoughts on “All Lose if Hatred Prevails

  1. Beautifully written you have expressed exactly how I feel about all of it… much more eloquently than I could 🙂

  2. Umm no. The faith wasn’t hijacked, the faith is one of conquest, this started with Mohammed’s battles 1300 years ago, and continues to this day. The terrorism doesn’t look like it’s likely to stop anytime soon. This whole farce belongs in the past, stop believing fairy tales. Islam is also sexist and homophobic, it has been for a long while; think of that whenever you hear of Islamophobia. It’s also hard to consider it a phobia when the bombs, the sniffer dogs, the increased security are real. Society takes the threat seriously, it follows that you should too.

    As soon as news of Bin Laden’s death was released, alleged Islamic terrorists blew up a rival mosque, what does that tell you about religion?

    I suggest all the Muslims and Jews get themselves a copy of The God Delusion then have a little discussion about if God really bequeathed land to anyone.

    • Terrorism grows when we give it oxygen. In 2000 did you know who the Taliban were, or Al-Qaeda? We have given them this attention.

      Terrorist organisations have grown ten-fold and it’s the fault of those who have given them oxygen. There is plenty of information to suggest that bin Laden wasn’t responsible for 9/11, yet we’ve created an enemy out of nothing, and given terrorist organisations the publicity they’ve always craved.

      You only need to take a look at the hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide who do not kill non-believers or homosexuals to realise that the vast majority of them refuse to accept every line and paragraph within the Q’uran.

      Religion sucks, it’s true. Just look how violently we’ve OPPOSED Islam when you’re looking at how violent fundamentalist Muslims are.

      • “Religion sucks, it’s true. Just look how violently we’ve OPPOSED Islam when you’re looking at how violent fundamentalist Muslims are.”

        Yeah, just like those Islamaphobes at Tours way back in 732 and Vienna in 1683! How dare they violently oppose the peace loving Muslims.

        • Hey Daz go and read something a bit more respectable than the Gates of Vienna hillbilly website and the other pseudo-histories you love so much and look at the political situation at the times you mention. That’s what real historians do. It’s called context.

          You are not a real historian, don’t pretend you are.

        • I see, so when considering Muslim invasions we must take into account nuanced political contexts, however the earlier crusades were unmigitaged acts of evil with no contextual justification? amirite?

        • I see so we’ve entered into a childish tit-for-tat, my-dad-is-bigger-than-your-dad debate about who can trawl through the early chapters of history books to discover the ORIGINAL HARBINGERS of evil.

          Was it the Muslims?
          Was it the Christians?
          Was it the fucking Pagan Visigoths?

          Guess what Darrin – if you have to trawl through the medieval history to find your thesis then you have no thesis whatsover.

          Try this one on for size – it’s a bit more modern:

          How about all the Cold War – “let’s sponsor ruthless dictators to maintain control over oil and territory” – has pissed off the locals enough that they’re a little unhappy with us – have turned to Islam – and want to feed some of the shit we’ve put them through back to us…

          How about when they finally have started overthrowing these dictators (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar… shall I go on?) – democracy and human rights and NOT Islam has been the primary agenda.

          Oh shit Darrin – that doesn’t quite work with your EVIL ISLAMIC SHARIA BURQA INVADING HORDES message does it…

          Bugger…

      • Huh? bin Laden not responsible for 9/11? We’ve created an enemy out of nothing?

        Now, I really enjoy this site, and I (bought and) loved reading the book Things Bogans Like, but surely TBL you’re not turning into a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or suggesting bin Laden was harmless? Pftt!

        I’m no fan of the US “war on terror”. But, since when is being anti-racism mean being apologists for mass murder?

        • its the idea that he wouldn’t have done it if he didn’t believe that islam was threatened

        • This was written in a comment, not a post. And yes – it’s the opinion of the TAB admin that bin Laden wasn’t directly responsible for 9/11.

          If you think we’re being ‘apologists for mass murder’, then let the debate begin. What evidence do you have to suggest that bin Laden was responsible?

          Note: we are not associated with TBL.

        • Here, here. There was more influential characters pulling the strings on 9/11 than Bin Laden. The guy was obviously a loon though.. which made him the perfect puppet for the whole operation.

          I don’t buy that ‘they got him’ (or ‘we got him’ if you read the Herald Sun :S ). Bin Laden’s assassination comes at a time all too convenient to Obama’s re-election..

          Fake boogie man, illegal war, fake assassination

        • Firstly, apologies for any confusion on my behalf between TBL and TAB.

          But personally, I think arguing bin Laden is not a terrorist on this site does the anti-discrimination cause a disservice. I’m not about to go out and argue against anti-Muslim discrimination and at the same time argue that bin Laden’s just a cuddly teddy bear set up by Jews, the CIA, or whoever. I’d rather just argue against discrimination against Muslims (or other groups). To pre-empt, I understand that it’s “TAB’s site, TAB’s call”.

          So as for the tangential but curious matter of evidence. I reckon it was bin Laden for the same reason that I’m betting on human-induced climate change – ie, a majority of the relevant experts are convinced. Indeed, I’d hazard a guess that the bin Laden issue has an (even) bigger majority than climate change experts. However, to answer your specific question I don’t have my own evidence (for either bin Laden or climate change). What’s your evidence that wasn’t bin Laden and who do you suggest did do it? I’m not really interested if you don’t believe that a massive fire in a steel structure can’t bring it crashing down. However, if it’s something else, then I am curious in your position because (so far) the only people I’ve come across who don’t believe it wasn’t bin Laden are fruit cakes.

          PS – for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he wasn’t killed by the SEALs last week. However, if I had to put money on it either way, I’d go with the SEALs’ story.

        • I agree Earthling in Australia.

          Whilst a healthy cynicism is a good thing; there is sufficient informed commentary from respected academics, journalists and political commentators from all sides of the political spectrum who appear to be in agreement that there is a direct connection between bin Laden and the 9/11 incidents, for me to be reasonably convinced that it is real.

          By comparison there is a distinct lack of informed commentary suggesting that there is no correlation. It’s mostly conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise. Usually immediately under an article about the fake moon landings and how there is a direct causal link between the invention of microwave technology and ‘weather balloons’ over Roswell…

          Similarly, I’m fairly convinced that the bin Laden assassination took place for two specific reasons:

          1. If he isn’t dead, then Obama and the entire Democratic administration would have just committed the single biggest act of political suicide since Nero played his fiddle, if the ‘truth’ were ever to come out. Honestly, political suicide on a level that would have Richard Nixon and Harold Holt LOLing in their graves…Not to mention the fact that at least one branch of Al Qaida has corroborated the validity of this information.

          2. If he is dead but died a lot earlier then one must postulate that it happened during the Obama administration as this would not be the type of news that the Republicans and good ol’ George Dubya would have sat on. So then what would Obama have been waiting for? Donald Trump to really stick his foot in his mouth? Not really…

        • 1. It has not been argued that Bin Laden is not a terrorist. He is a leader of a terrorist organisation, and is thus, a terrorist. This does not imply that he was responsible for 9/11.

          2. TAB’s site, but not TAB’s call. But certainly a place for TAB to vent TAB’s opinions. And in comment form, not post form.

          3. Climate change has insurmountable evidence to support it. There is little to no evidence to suggest that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

          4.

          * the hole created by the 757 at the Pentagon was nowhere near large enough to accommodate a 757;
          * there was minimal fire damage to the surrounding walls and floors at the Pentagon;
          * the Pentagon was hit 80 minutes after the first attacks;
          * there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital;
          * Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, apparently managed to execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon;
          * the attack struck the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command;
          * there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon site;
          * there is no surveillance footage available of the plane hitting the Pentagon (the world’s most secure head office);
          * Flight 93 crash times vary, and debris remains scattered for several kilometres;
          * the last three minutes of Flight 93 are undocumented;
          * two separate news reports show that Flight 93 was grounded at Cleveland International Airport at 10:00am for fear of a bomb on board, and passengers evacuated;
          * photo evidence of planes that hit twin towers show that planes had no windows, and had large cylindrical objects strapped underneath;
          * flashes of light are seen (from multiple angles) a split second before the planes made contact with the building;
          * many reports from witnesses and firefighters say that they heard multiple explosions;
          * the twin towers came down in the same way that a controlled ‘pull’ would operate;
          * George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers;
          * The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights;
          * Timelines: The various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure;
          * US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon;
          * The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.”;
          * Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001?
          * Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th;
          * The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities – including the CIA, the US military”s “Able Danger” program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others;
          * Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks;
          * Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11;
          * The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had “doubles,” all of which is omitted from official investigations;
          * Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report;
          * US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights);
          * Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out;
          * Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions;
          * The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics;
          * Colin Powell promised a “white paper” from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th;
          * Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year;
          * “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush;
          * “Iraq was connected to 9/11” – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact;
          * The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission”s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn”t the government produce these men and put them to trial?
          * After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives;
          * Hush Money – Accepting victims” compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation;
          b. Judge Hallerstein – Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed);
          * The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Laden Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Laden family fortune;
          * Ptech;
          * Media Blackout: The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the “9/11 Truth Statement,” and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?
          * The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush”s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal;
          * Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the “Project for a New American Century,” and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of “regime change.” After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks;
          * ‘War On TERROR??’: 9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual “War on Terror,” against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11;
          * The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the “Shadow Government” were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades;
          * 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant” (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to “render” such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced;
          * 9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the “new” New Economy of “Homeland Security,” biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc;
          * On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten;
          * Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations? A POTENTIAL STOCK MARKET CRASH…
          * Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?
          * 9/11 possibly an update of the Pentagon-approved “Project Northwoods” plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy;

          And if you couldn’t be bothered reading that list from a larger list, this is good watching:



        • You beat me to it! Firstly no one is disputing Bin Laden was a terrorist and mass murderer.

          I’m not convinced he could get 19 guys trained in the hills of Afghanistan to hijack 4 planes on the same morning and have it (almost) go off without a hitch. That sounds like a conspiracy to me. All without the knowledge of the US government..

          I had a quick read through the evidence TAB posted because I’m pretty familiar with most of it but Operation Northwoods stands out to me as a huge one. They had previously proposed to attack their own citizens in false flag attacks? Nothing is beyond them..

          There was way more powerful bodies behind 9/11 that that nutcase Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

          For what it’s worth-
          Climate change- Human Induced
          Moon landing- We got there.. and if it weren’t for bullshit wars we’d be on Mars by now

    • pretty much everything you said there is either wrong or not exclusive to islam and is common to all abrahamic religions.

      the increased security isn’t to catch just islamic terrorists but any and all terrorists.

      terrorism is not exclusive to islam. or indeed exclusive to religious groups.

    • Leon,
      Why single out Islam? Zulu is right. All you said apply to ALL Abrahamic religions equally.
      I absolutely despise ALL religions equally as man made bull crap, but the underlying racism is something I do not wish to ignore. Most racists use Islam as a means to justify their racism, mainly because most people that practice Islam (born in to the faith) are non-white people.
      You say Islam is sexist & homophobic, so is christianity. Homophobia is in the bible, punishable by death. But no one seems to question that? why? To my knowledge all religions are homophobic &/or sexist. Simply because they were made by men to benefit them.

      Not just Muslims & Jews also the christians should get a copy of The God Delusion and have a read to see how childish & naive their believes are. It will definitely make up a better world for sure.

    • [Right Leon – let’s see what changing half a dozen words does to your overtly-bigotted rant does shall we?]

      Umm no. The faith wasn’t hijacked, the faith is one of conquest, this started with Peter’s battles 1900 years ago, and continues to this day. The terrorism doesn’t look like it’s likely to stop anytime soon (i.e Northern Ireland). This whole farce belongs in the past, stop believing fairy tales. Christianity is also sexist and homophobic, it has been for a long while; think of that whenever you hear of Catholicism. It’s also hard to consider it a phobia when the bombs, the sniffer dogs, the increased security are real. Society takes the threat seriously, it follows that you should too.

      As soon as news of the Good Friday Agreement was released, alleged ‘Real’ IRA terrorists blew up a car bomb in Omagh, what does that tell you about religion?

      I suggest all the Christians get themselves a copy of The God Delusion then have a little discussion about if God really bequeathed land to anyone.

      [bugger me Leon – reads just as well doesn’t it? – How does that fit into your paradigm? Were you meaning to come across as a racist prick or did you just happen to think avoiding Christianity and mentioning only Judaism and Islam would win you friends on this site?]

    • Leon all the major religions are sexist and homophobic and sometimes racist. We try and draw a distinction between individual Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists, the many antiquated teaching of their religions which are mainly ignored by the vast majority of their believers and the political acts carried out by national states or empires which label themselves as [insert name of religion].

      Thus we can condemn acts of the State of Israel but defend Jews against attacks from psychopathic neo-Nazis. We can acknowledge the good work done by Christian charitable organisations and abhor the long and bloody record of Christianity in its eagerly-sought marriage to imperialism, colonialism and the tyrannical ambitions of a large number of despots. We can praise someone like the Dalai Lama yet condemn human rights violations against Tamils in Sri Lanka.

      And we can uphold the rights of Muslims to freely and peacefully practice their religion while condemning terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam. Anything else is bigotry. The Islamophobia of the ignorant is bigotry.

      And yes, I am an atheist.

    • You do realise that bombs, sniffer dogs, security etc as a response to terrorism have been around for decades, right? Long before anyone in the west had a problem with Islam.
      Ask anyone in Colombia, the Basque region of Spain, Sri Lanka etc. Ask anyone who lived in Northern Ireland anytime between the 1960’s and today what life was like with police and army checkpoints, “random” searches based on nothing more than being a catholic or driving a car that had a number plate from the republic of Ireland, where being ‘guilty’ of either meant you were clearly an IRA terrorist or at the very least a sympathiser. Nobody cared about muslims back then because irish catholics were the preferred boogeymen of the day. Try getting a job in London back in the 80’s if you had an irish accent.
      The only thing thats changed today is that muslims are more easily identified and thus easier to discriminate against.

      Whether you agree with their religion or not is an entirely separate issue…the majority of religions are sexist and homophobic, they’re all as bad as each other. That doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to demand that someone denounce their faith or conflate their faith with terrorism when the majority of religious people are just trying to get by, like the rest of us.

      • Although I think its safe to say that relatively few people read their religion literally or word for word. Hence Catholics don’t burn people so much any more and only a few Muslim countries (ie Iran) stone people any more.

  3. Pingback: The 37th Down Under Feminist Carnival « Boganette

  4. I see the celebration of his death bring people down to his level of being happy someone is murdered. Sure, he masterminded 9/11 among other events, but if you’re celebrating his death, you are in a way, celebrating his life and the things he did.

    He died. Al Qaeda didn’t. Justice isn’t served. Personally, justice can never be served for death.

    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

What do YOU think about this?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s