Zarqawi: the anti-martyr
Isn't it great that we have killed the most evil bad guy in the war on terror? It proves we must be succeeding, right?
I can't believe how happy so many people are about the death of someone they don't know. Listening to the news, the talk shows, reading the papers and the news magazines, it's all the same. Even people I thought were pacifists, or anti-war or just plain rational are all elated by this news. I'm not a pacifist, and if this guy is as bad as everyone believes, then it's a good thing that he's no longer causing trouble, but wouldn't you think that even a couple of the media guys would say something about it being a shame that we couldn't have brought him in alive and tried him in a court to bring him to justice?
So everyone is afraid of appearing to be soft on terror. We've been pushed so far into the war mentality that no one questions this attitude. We all have to be strong. America is great.
Why would the media be so keen to celebrate the death of one man?
1) The (liberal) media is always reporting how bad things are. They don't want us to win. Well, here's something good. They put a positive spin on this and contrast how evil the man is (make him a Hitler wannabe), and then show we are making progress in the war on terror. The media is no longer just a doomsayer.
2) If we show how evil this guy is, then we can reclaim our position as the good guys. This will negate the Haditha thing along with all the other crappy things we've done all the way back to starting a war against an innocent country and killing probably about 1/2 million people now.
3) We've got to say something positive about this because everyone else is. To say anything negative or even hesitant would show a lack of patriotism.
4) We can make this into a pep rally since this is something that we can all agree on. Destroying evil makes us good, right? Go team! Go team! Go team!
Is there really any news here? If he really did all these bad things, then what good is it to compile a list together and talk about it except to exalt him and make him into a figurehead for their resistance? Now there's some speculation that he may not have died in the bombing and we may have gone in and beat him to death afterwards. That sounds like a better story, right? Maybe we'll find out that he was tortured and degraded before someone finally killed him and that will make everyone even happier that he got what he deserved.
Why is revenge the core of so many actions and feelings? It's like the world trade center attack made us all bitter and scared. Maybe it's just uncovered our true character to ourselves and the rest of the world. It seems the only compassion we have as a country is the obligatory tithing plate donation that matches the accepted definition of charity for the day. As long as the investment is only money, we can be altruistic.
As I'm writing this, I'm watching one of my favorite war movies: Peckinpah's Cross of Iron. It describes our current situation, but then it probably describes all wars including metaphorical ones like ours. By destroying your enemies, you become them. The final quote after all the credits role is particularly relevant:
Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men.
For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.
- Bertold Brecht
posted by Yojimbo at 6/12/2006 12:49:00 AM
5 Comments:
You said..."if this guy is as bad as everyone believes, then it's a good thing that he's no longer causing trouble, but wouldn't you think that even a couple of the media guys would say something about it being a shame that we couldn't have brought him in alive and tried him in a court to bring him to justice?"
The problem with your statement here is that he didn't rob a 7-11 or liquor store and is not a common criminal to be arrested.
He is an enemy combatant fighting against our military which makes him a legitimate target for elimination.
-period.
We don't run out on the battle field like gomer pyle screaming "citizens arrest...citizens arrest".
sorry, but you are not living in the real world.
-red
9:27 PM, December 20, 2006
If we are ever invaded by some imperialistic power and occupied by their military, I doubt you would be brave enough to fight back against their attempts to replace our government with something they saw as "more rational", but if you did fight back as an "insurgent", then I hope you understand when their army comes in after trying to kill you and tortures you to death.
I am living in the real world. You are living in some kind of video game where you want to destroy every bad guy out there. In the real world, we used to have something called diplomacy. If there was a war going on, maybe what you said here would be true.
It makes me sick that people like you taint all of us with the warmongering brush. If you believe so strongly in this war, then why did you not volunteer. Don't you wanna kill you sum muzlims?
4:32 AM, December 21, 2006
You mentioned its "a shame that we couldn't have brought him in alive and tried him in a court to bring him to justice?". Isn't this what we did to Saddam .. isn't the end result the same? maybe we just spared Zarqawi the humiliation before death.
12:07 PM, January 22, 2007
In my previous post I should have have mentioned how I totally agree on how sickening it was to hear people rejoicing in the death of a human being. But if the end goal of US society was to take that person's life anyway … maybe it doesn’t matter if they are killed by military equipment or by the decison of a US court. I would argue that death in war appears more dignified to the victim than a trial with an easily predicted sentence folowed by a death delivered by the hands of the US justice system.
12:29 PM, January 22, 2007
Yes, there are many examples lately of people rejoicing over dead bad guys, eh? Saddam, Pinochet and when Castro went into the hospital I thought they were going to declare a new World Holiday. It is pretty disgusting.
But, supposedly, Saddam was not tried, convicted or sentenced by any US entity. That was a new sovereign Iraqi government, and it was botched with the help of the US Military. Hopefully the US Justice system has a little better infrastructure, but back to your point:
If we justify killing with, "It's less humiliating than bringing them in for an unfair trial", I'm going to get really scared. Can I get more scared? I keep asking tht question. Why?
It may not be fair to characterize your statement as describing an unfair trial, but if the result is known before the trial begins, can it be legitimate? If it's not, then don't we just have two problems (at least) to solve?
12:47 PM, January 22, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home