Thursday, June 08, 2006

Zarqawi meets his Virgins

I've never felt truly comfortable celebrating a death, but today I'll make an exception. May Musab al-Zarqawi rest in pieces. The bottom of my shoe is too good for him.

He wasn't a "worthy" enemy. He was an efficient, insane coward. I'll trust that he believed in his perverse vision, but so do serial killers, rapists and child molesters. He was without honor, without a country, without conscience ... and now, without most of his parts connected.

I abhor that American soldiers would commit any atrocity, and I wish fervently that justice is done in Haditha. But let's not lose sight of the kind of enemy we face. We should strive beyond human endurance to avoid being like them, but we mustn't let their inhumanity engulf our sensitivity. Zarqawi and his ilk yearn to kill every American man, woman and child and are unbound by any rules of engagement. Our prosecution of this war simply cannot be decent at every turn.

The explosive death of Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist, is good news. It eviscerated him, but it's unlikely to eviscerate the radical Islamist movement, even if we scrape Osama and his lieutenants from the face of the Earth, too.

But, gosh, today feels better without Musab to kick around.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Zarqawi probably was just as inhuman as you say, at least that's what all the journalists articles said about him. However; let us remember that the U.S. supported him and supported binLaden and Saddam too against those other hated terrorists (alQaida), until those people stood against their supporters, then they were to be hunted down and eliminated. The war was started to get at those pesky weapons of mass destruction that were amazingly never found. Then the focus of the war was changed to fighting terrorism, which can never be won or ended until all the terrorism all over the world is ended, and all those terrorists are rounded up and imprisoned in G'tmo where they can be terrorized and tortured by the American soldiers there. (What makes them any different or better than Saddam?)

And "WE" eliminated and exterminated the Indian from this continent in exactly the same fashion: without honor, without conscience, and unbound by any rules of engagement. Read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" sometime.

Ron Franscell said...

While you're being fatally tolerant, Zarqawi's successors are planning your dazzling death, my naive friend. But at least you'll go to your grave (if your parts are ever found and identified) happily knowing you stuck to your liberal myths to the end.

What makes American soldiers better than Saddam? If you don't know, you are one sorry American. You ought to resign.

I have read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee." I've been to Wounded Knee ... and Big Hole Little Big Horn and Sand Creek, too. Your characterization of the Indian wars is oversimplified and based more on the Hollywood mythology than real history. Atrocities were committed on both sides of those conflicts (as with most wars), for little or no reason other than bloodlust. It wasn't the first war ever fought over territory, nor the last, the government won and the insurgents lost. Nobody behaved perfectly, including the insurgents, who were not innocents without blood on their hands.

And finally it amazes me that anyone in contemporary American society would accuse the news media of ignorance or bias, yet believe the USA supported Osama and Saddam Hussein in a fight against al-Qaida. Osama IS al-Qaida. We supported Osama's side in the Afghan-Russian war, and we supported Saddam against Iran. That they both turned out to be monsters who turned on us is bad for us. You're simply living in an alternate universe on this one.

(I might add: We DID find WMD in Iraq. Anything that kills 350,000 people in a matter of weeks is a WMD to me ... and that's Saddam Hussein. But also it's worth noting that a canister containing a small amount of sarin gas was found in a roadside bomb in 2004, so if you want to go technical, weapons of mass destruction HAVE been found in Iraq, although not in "mass.")

As a newspaperman, I'm constantly amazed at the extreme (and ridiculous) claptrap half-baked extremists seem to be spouting. "The Media is pro-Bush and conservative (when it says Zarqawi is evil)" or "The Media is anti-Bush and liberal (when it reports on Haditha and not a Marine barn-raising in Basra.)"

We're neither. The bias is in your mind, my friend, and your assessment of our leanings is based more on your satisfaction with the story's facts than with the facts themselves.

Chancelucky said...

What were the Indian atrocities at Wounded Knee? I looked up a couple accounts and it wasn't clear to me that the Ghost Dancers killed or hurt anyone and most accounts suggest that the American troops fired on the Indians in the massacre. I didn't see any mention of Indians killing unarmed soldiers that day, though the soldiers likely killed 23 soldiers who were in the process of disarming the Indians.

Ron Franscell said...

Perhaps I was unclear. There weren't Indian atrocities committed at Sand Creek, Wounded Knee or Big Hole. Those are famous examples of atrocities committed upon Indians.

Nonetheless, Indian raiders were guilty of atrocities against whites. The 1622 Jamestown Massacre is one; 347 settlers were killed. Ironically, Wounded Knee had 300 dead, yet is more famous. And 160 at Sand Creek.

In August and September 1862, some 800 white settlers were killed by Santee Sioux who were rising up.

An interesting glimpse of both sides' transgressions appears at this site: http://www.answers.com/topic/indian-massacres

Chancelucky said...

Ron,
thanks for the clarification. I agree with your general point, but would also suggest there are some huge differences between the circumstances at Wounded Knee and those at Jamestown. The number of dead may be similar, but the Jamestown massacre occured in what was still arguably a war between the Powathan and the "invaders" of the Jamestown colonies. iirc Jamestown itself was spared when a Powathan boy warned one of the settlers.
Wounded Knee was a situation in which the tribes gathered there were under the care and protection of the U.S. Army.
That doesn't mean that it was all right for the Powathan to have killed women and children or other "innocents", but I don't know that there was any treaty in place that ended the hostilities between the Powathan and the English settlers up to the time of the massacre.