Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Saturday 14 November 2015

Jihadi John Bloodlust Exposed

After news broke that Mohammed Emwazi, believed to be the person more popularly known as Jihadi John, had most likely been killed in a drone strike on Raqqa, the more bloodthirsty part of the Fourth Estate quickly celebrated by telling their readers how wonderful the news was, while gleefully trashing anyone showing signs of being insufficiently bellicose, which meant another hatchet job on Jeremy Corbyn.
Jihadi John. Allegedly

The litany of knee-jerking hacks and pundits contained all the usual suspects: the Sun’s non-bullying political editor Tom Newton Dunn, the Telegraph’s not at all celebrated blues artists Whinging Dan Hodges, the loathsome Toby Young, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, Andrew “Brillo Pad” Neil, and an assortment of other bloodlust seekers, all went after Jezza with a vengeance.

Why did they do this? It was because Corbyn had released a statement telling “it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law”. No matter that he had preceded this with “It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his brutal and callous crimes”: that part is inconvenient to the bloodthirsty mob wanting More And Bigger Drone Strikes For The Benefit Of Themselves Personally Now.

Sadly, the bloodlust tendency, together with those who suggest there is something misguided about anyone saying Emwazi should have, if possible, been put on trial, misses one important point: there is a concept that goes by the name of international law, and the idea of putting on trial those who have been alleged to have carried out the most heinous of war crimes has, within this framework, significant previous.

Perhaps Newton Dunn, Hodges, Young, Staines and Neil have forgotten the recent example of one Radovan Karadzic, who was detained and taken to face trial for his part in acts of genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Dropping a few bombs on him would have been so much more convenient; the press would have no doubt approved. And then there is the clear example set by trying senior Nazis at Nuremberg.

But the example that comes most readily to mind is that of Adolf Eichmann, whose identity the Israelis confirmed before their operatives from the Mossad and the Shin Bet captured him in Argentina in 1960. Why bother with taking him to Israel for a trial, eh? Why not take the nearest automatic weapon and empty the magazine into the SOB? Job done! But the Israelis did put him on trial. And that was surely the right thing to do.

Emwazi was, by those standards, a mere maggot, but the principle is universal, and the sneering of cheerleading hacks does not diminish and certainly not negate it. We show that we have the moral high ground by declining to take part in the auction of bloodlust and instead upholding the rule of international law - by putting those accused on trial, so all can see justice being done. That is what makes us civilised.

What that therefore makes those who trash Corbyn for his statement, I will leave to others to decide.


Unknown said...

They are also disrespecting some of the relatives of the victims of this man. These relatives also wanted this man tried for his crimes. Are these hacks going to go screaming into mothers, daughters and wives faces? When they do, I hope it is televised.

Stephen said...

Max Hastings seems to agree with Corbyn though: "In our enthusiasm for seeing our own foes abroad liquidated, what shall we say if the Russians start killing their identified enemies in Ukraine, or the Chinese beyond their own borders? I suggest we shall not like it. We shall be even less happy when terrorists start using [unmanned aerial vehicles] against us, as they assuredly will." (in the Mail)

rob said...

“it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law”

Well, it's easy for the fourth estate to want to ignore the court of law as we all know from recent trials most of them, especially the owners and their editors, are above the law as they are from self regulation.

So they are able to publish without fear or trepidation their agenda, not caring what retribution their poison might bring, as long as it's to others and not their own.

Arnold said...

What a difference a year makes. September 2014. "David Cameron vows to capture Jihadi John" His advisers probably reminded him of his lack of military experience and dissuaded him from the attempt.

Anonymous said...

"Haines' wife said Mohammed Emwazi's unconfirmed killing brought her no relief - as she wanted to 'look him in the eyes' and see him brought to justice in court."

Would love to see the likes of Hodges tell this woman she's wrong. So many of Emwazi's victims' families have expressed the same opinion as Haines' wife, an opinion simply echoed by Jeremy Corbyn. A politician in touch with the people just won't do though...

Anonymous said...

Shameful, disgusting, lying garbage from the same gang of far right media thugs and Nazis, the same people who want others to do their killing for them.

The same kind of crackpot mindset that created the Paris slaughter and the mass murder in Beirut.

Is it any wonder the homicidal maniacs of Whatever-They-Call-Themselves-Today can propagandise their murdering actions and influence gullible adolescents?

If they behave this way toward a decent man who wants to achieve peace through open and democratic law, what does it say about their likely motives when it comes to other issues?

The cowardice of these far right media madmen is as vile as their inflaming of tragic and dangerous circumstances. If they put one tenth of one percent of that effort into exposing the funders, trainers and supporters of the guilty they might have something that begins to resemble respect. But they don't, and never will. Which is why they are beneath contempt.

Arnold said...

At least the Daily Mail is getting back to normal. Embedded in the articles about the Paris atrocity, we have this - "Newly-single Diana Vickers * laughs her cares away as she flaunts taut abs"
* No, I've never heard of her either.