Respect for the Dead, Even the Caliph of the Islamic State

This is a very interesting discussion from Dutch television about the demise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of the Islamic State. The older gentleman who is so forthright in his opinions is Peter van Uhm, the former Commander in Chief of the Dutch armed forces. The translator notes: “Judging by reactions on Twitter, many people were flabbergasted.”

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   Another question for you, Mr van Uhm. Trump also
00:04   thanked his allies: Russia, Turkey, Syria, the Kurds.
00:07   I believe Russia said, “We don’t know anything about this, why are we being thanked?” which is odd.
00:12   Is it wise to also mention allies, when it comes to such an operation?
00:16   Well, you saw that Obama talked about “We, the United States”,
00:20   so it’s not customary to mention allies. And if I may interpret the Russian reaction,
00:27   then there hasn’t even been any deliberation to decide whether these countries should be mentioned.
00:32   And that’s just… in diplomatic interactions it is customary
00:36   to inform other parties if you plan to mention them.
00:39   On the one hand, Iraq has confirmed they helped.
00:43   But, well, the Russians claim they haven’t taken any action,
00:48   and we have no proof that it is al-Baghdadi. So, you also give
00:52   another world power the opportunity to question your claims.
00:56   It’s ironic, of course, that parties took part in this operation that Trump had previously dismissed.
01:01   The American intelligence services were very important, for example.
01:04   The Kurds contributed. While Trump had of course just pulled out.
01:08   So, even though he… because he’s the commander-in-chief, and the way it works in the US,
01:12   if things go wrong, you are blamed. For example, Jimmy Carter and the hostage situation
01:16   in the US embassy [in Iran] in the late ’70s; Carter got all the blame for that.
01:20   A success like the death of bin Laden or Baghdadi — the President can claim it,
01:24   but there’s a disclaimer, you could say that the actions of Trump the last few weeks
01:32   didn’t exactly make this operation easier.
01:37   He’s more often compared himself to his predecessor, as he does again in this situation.
01:42   Let’s have a look at what he had to say about OBL and that affair.
01:50   Bin Laden was a big thing, but this is the biggest there is. This is… the worst ever.
01:57   OBL was very big, but OBL became big with the WTC. This is a man who built a whole…
02:04   as he would like to call it, a country, a caliphate, and was trying to do it again.
02:12   He has the right to be satisfied, but to have a pissing contest over who was the most important.
02:19   But is it true? Is it true? —Well, look at the American people. How would they feel about it?
02:25   They still have 9/11 on their minds. So I think this message is not well-received in America.
02:35   And apart from that, my attitude is: you serve your country,
02:39   so give the credit to the people who did it,
02:43   and show some humility. And I also think we don’t have to
02:48   lower ourselves to the level of ISIS in its publications.
02:53   So, have a down-to-earth attitude.
02:56   And even when you don’t have respect for what the Islamic State, or IS members do…
03:01   after that [the death of al-Baghdadi], you can still treat the dead with respect.

5 thoughts on “Respect for the Dead, Even the Caliph of the Islamic State

  1. “And even when you don’t have respect for what the Islamic State, or IS members do… after that [the death of al-Baghdadi], you can still treat the dead with respect.”

    I respectfully disagree.

    With a worthy opponent who treats those captured in battle decently and avoids deliberately targeting non-combatants there can be grudging respect and even honorable treatment in death, but this does not remotely describe the islamic monster that was al-Baghdadi. I would have fed the parts of his corpse that were scraped off the walls of the tunnel after he blew himself up to some hogs, and then proudly let it be known that that was how he met his ignoble end.

  2. Cannot disagree with your comments The Moon is a harsh mistress-the European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. This Peter Van Uhm only has to look at the number European cities including his own now rocked by deadly Islamic terror attacks on a regular basis. If he and they don’t know it, we are at War in Europe.

    • “We still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, and that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”
      the late Peter Sutherland, UN-paid migration promoter.

      “We are at war” – London 7/7 bomber; also Lee Rigby’s killer
      “Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Realm of War]” – A. Choudary

  3. The old Dutchman perhaps mistakes Islamic Terror as a traditional enemy?

    While the dignity of a warrior shows respect for a uniformed honorable opponent, throughout the ages terrorists are dismissed with disdain and perhaps even fed to the dogs that took them down.

    I do hope they prayed for the Lord to judge this sinner, and would not presume to foretell that judgement out of respect for he who judges, not out of respect of al-Baghdadi.

    We need not “honor” the pestilence of terror out of misplaced warrior’s respect.

    The countless victims of al-Baghdadi have been vindicated with his demise.

Comments are closed.