Why I'm Not Celebrating the Death of al Zarqawi

from JoeUser Forums

First and foremost, I must say that I am relieved Zarqawi is dead. His death stands to throw the terrorist organization into chaos at least briefly, and may help us to catch terrorists. But morally I cannot celebrate it.

It's not even tied to my opposition to the death penalty. You will get no question from me that our government has the legal, and, indeed, moral authority to execute this slime. The murders and terror he committed are not in dispute, and his punishment was just and swift.

The reason I cannot celebrate Zarqawi's death is, in part, the same reason our military cannot celebrate it. Because Zarqawi, while a key strategic target, was just one part of the horrible, unthinkable mentality that teaches that the murder of innocents to achieve a political or religious objective is justified. While Zarqawi is gone, thousands of other militant terrorists stand at the ready to continue in the cause, a cause in which they will almost certainly invoke the name of their fallen leader at least once.

Zarqawi, in other words, was not the disease; he was a symptom. And the eradication of symptoms, while offering temporary benefits, is a small victory as long as the disease remains.

4,456 views 34 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Learn to hate, Gid, it will make things easier. This isn't a disease or a symptom, it is a lot of really evil people victimizing innocent people. Now we may never have a world with no evil people, but killing one is always something to celebrate. I don't care if three more step up tomorrow, he got at least a little of what was coming to him.

There doesn't have to be a larger picture. Sometimes killing a terrorist is just killing a terrorist. I don't think of this in terms of al qaeda, or terrorism, I think of it in terms of one, small, evil man being killed for doing evil things to innocent people. That is always going to put a smile on my face.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
they are standing in line to take his place on their way to heaven {they think} I say we should help them all reach that goal.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was thinking the same things. I wonder who, if anyone does, steps up and becomes the next honcho.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm with Gid on this one. I think that he's the symptom, despite what BakerStreet has to say, there is always a bigger picture, whether we want to look at it or not.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think of this in terms of al qaeda, or terrorism, I think of it in terms of one, small, evil man being killed for doing evil things to innocent people. That is always going to put a smile on my face.


I understand that, and I can't say I'm disappointed in the news (it is certainly GOOD news any way you slice it). I just start to wonder if cheering every time one of them dies doesn't put us in danger of becoming as bad as they are? (NOTE: I did NOT say "make us as bad as they are" for a reason. I know we are not as bad as they are, or even CLOSE at this point. I just often wonder what makes someone evil, and am concerned that the devaluation of human life, ANY human life might be the first step on that long road).
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You and I will have to disagree. Some human lives are most certainly worth more than others, depending on the impact that they have on the world around them. Some, like zarqawi, who are a constant threat to innocents, are worth more dead.

As for the "bigger picture" I don't see one. I think the interconnected nature of this is overblown. In the end we have individuals who opt to do repugnant things for political reasons. I don't expect punishing criminals to end crime forever, nor do I think killing terrorists will end terrorism. That doesn't mean that the act isn't something to be celebrated, though.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
One less enemy = one less chance someone I love will die at the hands of terrorists = GOOD THING.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I agree with your logic, I disagree with your conclusion.

Taking out Zarqawi may only be a fleeting victory, it is still a victory. All to often we get so fixed on the "big picture" we forget to allow ourselves the pats on the back that spur us on. The whole, "yeah, the was good, but...." does more to kill motivation than almost anything else.

This was a major victory in the war effort. While it won't bring the bacteria to their knees, it does cause problems for them. More importantly though, it reveals major weaknesses in what we have been led to believe is an inpenitrable wall in the bacterias hierarchy. Zarqawi was betrayed by someone deep in his inner circle... Our military was able to exploit that weakness and not only kill Zarqawi, but kill whatever plans were being hatched in that meeting. Who knows what residual benefits we will enjoy from the success of this attack.

Just like a person whose cancer is in remission, we can't afford to rest on our laurels, but today we celebrate.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The grand canyon was not created in a day, but over eons by the slow erosion of the Colorado.  The Death of Zarqawi will not stop the terorism, but it is another step in that direction.  If we are only to celebrate the final victory, we will have a long time before we can celebrate.  I choose to celebrate each step as it occurs.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Gideon:

Because Zarqawi, while a key strategic target, was just one part of the horrible, unthinkable mentality that teaches that the murder of innocents to achieve a political or religious objective is justified.


Whether or not such a mentality is 'justified' is an irrelevance, its the norm of realpolitik. As is the urge to celebrate the death of an enemy. Why is it so hard to understand that it's proper to celebrate the death of one who intended to kill you? This demented raghead killer would happily have sawed your head off and sent the video to your mother.

I don't want to be better than these people. I want to see them killed. If that makes me a bad person it at least also ensures that I am a living bad person as opposed to a dead one. I'd rather be a living dog (with VERY big teeth) than a noble but dead lion.

I'm going to celebrate the passing of this demagogue of death by facing East, doing a jig, and metaphorically pissing on his miserable desert god and every Muslim murderer along with it.

And so should you.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm going to celebrate the passing of this demagogue of death by facing East, doing a jig, and metaphorically pissing on his miserable desert god and every Muslim murderer along with it.


Me too. And pass the pork chops...
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
And pass the pork chops


Yeah and the pork skins!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hell yeah, why not some ribs while we're at it?


...and some cheese stuffed jalepenos wrapped in bacon for "horse ovaries"
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

And pass the pork chops


Yeah and the pork skins!

I'll pass for now and just sprinkle pig blood.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it so hard to understand that it's proper to celebrate the death of one who intended to kill you?

It's not hard at all. It seems to be hardwired into us, along with our perfectly natural instinct for self-preservation. I'm personally happy to hear the news of his death, but I'm also going to do my annoying wishy-washy moderate thing and try to see another side to the picture...

Bakerstreet said, "Learn to hate, Gid, it will make things easier" and other christians who have posted here seem to agree in full. However, Gideon, and perhaps San Chonino, seem to be troubled by this, and I think for good reason. Yes, killing those who want to kill you, and your loved ones (especially your loved ones) can be both a right and a necessary thing to do. As BS has elsewhere eloquently put it, we have the right to turn the other cheek when someone attacks us, but we don't have the right to turn other people's cheeks on their behalf. So, no argument with doing away with the "bacteria" - (yes, I agree this is a good term: analogous to the germs and viruses that assault our bodies and that we destroy with antibiotics and medicines without even a second thought).

It's the hate thing though that is difficult...

Although I've never been able to find independent corroboration, someone once told me that the catholic philosopher Simone Weil had said that the death penalty was necessary for some crimes, but that, to be done in a christian way, it should be done totally impersonally, without exultation, or feelings of anger and revenge and without taking pleasure in the punishment. In a way, this is almost chillingly cold - so that by comparison cheering on the death of your enemies seems a little more human - yet, it is at least an attempt to solve a difficulty...

... and there is a difficulty to be solved. While you can find plenty in the Bible that seems to condone slaughter (the Old Testament in this respect is probably a little less forgiving and pacifist than the Quran!), there is no question that the christian message is one of forgiving not seven times, but seventy times seventy-seven times - in other words until it hurts.

But just what does that mean? The recently reported words of Nick Berg's father that he wishes that he had had a chance to meet al Zarqawi and 'reconcile', are probably naive to the point of dangerous - a serious failure to realise that there are people in this world too evil and too far gone to be reasoned with. That is the sort of 'generosity' that can endanger other people's lives.

So, clearly we need to engage our heads as well as our hearts in trying to make sense of these 'hard sayings'. In the end, I'm inclined towards the Simone Weil view. Do what has to be done, but with as little spiritual damage to ourselves as possible. However justified, however provoked, when we "learn to hate" it makes things more difficult, rather than easier. Whether or not you believe this is ultimately the litmus test of whether or not you really believe in a spiritual and transcendent aspect to reality.

None of this, of course, applies to other spiritual paths which may well profess a Nietzschean disdain for christianity's "hard sayings". I've no real quarrel with that. But if the word christian in America is to have any meaning other than a handy political code word for 'conservative', those hard sayings do need to be wrestled with.

~~ [Militantly wishy-washy interlude over. Normal service can now be resumed] ~~
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Although I've never been able to find independent corroboration, someone once told me that the catholic philosopher Simone Weil had said that the death penalty was necessary for some crimes, but that, to be done in a christian way, it should be done totally impersonally, without exultation, or feelings of anger and revenge and without taking pleasure in the punishment. In a way, this is almost chillingly cold - so that by comparison cheering on the death of your enemies seems a little more human - yet, it is at least an attempt to solve a difficulty..."


Don't get me wrong, I don't like ignorant hate. I don't like a mob mentality, but I think the kind of clinical attitude you describe is far, far more evil than hate. If we rely upon our minds AND emotions, there are checks and balances. Our brains can tell us that this person should die, but our hearts can temper that.

On the other hand when it is all brain, there's no hope of compassion. Compassion is imperfect, and emotions can betray you, but to me the inherent flaws are outweighed by the benefits. Nazis were cold and calculating. Any Nazi that looked into the eyes of a child with their true emotions couldn't keep themselves from hesistatating.

It's when ideology or calculated philosophy outweighs our emotions that compassion dies. I can honestly say that no part of me would wince if I had to preside over the execution of Zarqawi. I find that rage to be far, far more honest than someone who used the legal equivalent of a slide rule to see if the punishment fits.

So, I guess what I am saying is that real justice can't be blind. It can be fair, and it can be unbiased by ignorant hate, but in the end for it to truly be justice the heart has to have as much to do with it as the head. That's why I think our Justice system will always be flawed. As far as I am concerned, if I can't bring myself to hate someone, I have no business promoting their killing. Anything short of hate is just convenience or machiavellian self-service.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's killing me, and I can't remember it exactly, and google isn't helping. I remember a quote from somewhere that went like "Without the heart, there can be no discourse between the head and the hands."

I don't think I have that right, but I can't find it. Well, the heart to me is the part that holds the final veto. No one is going to be moved by their intellect to kill or spare anyone based upon their own feelings. When it is your head that does the deed, you are basing the act more on programming than your personal ideals.

If I am in the defendant's seat someday, I'll gladly accept the chance of unreasonable bias if I can be sure that all twelve people are weighing in their hearts the act of killing me. I believe there is a lot less chance of being crushed under the wheels of blind justice.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the kind of clinical attitude you describe is far, far more evil than hate.

Those who know about Simone Weil are often extraordinarily enthusiastic about some of her ideas, while finding other elements of her philosophy difficult to cope with. She died in exile in England during WW2, and, although she was in very fragile health, she refused to eat any more than what she imagined her compatriots in German-occupied France were able to eat. For this reason, I believe her cause of death was actually registered at the time as suicide.

It's killing me, and I can't remember it exactly ... ... a quote from somewhere that went like "Without the heart, there can be no discourse between the head and the hands." ... I don't think I have that right, but I can't find it.

Doesn't matter. Under this perfectly acceptable version it can go into the Dictionary of Quotations under: Bakerstreet, 2006, cited in: Joeuser.com, based on an unknown original source.

Some insightful replies, which I will think about...
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no place for morality and moral disputes over such issues. AL Zarqawi was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis in pursuit of his goal of pitting the Sunnis against the Shiaas, and he was not an Iraqi or even an Arab Nationalist. His death will make it easier for the Resistance to work together in the long run, but in the short run there is no doubt that the USA has scored a major goal.Please read my anaysis on the same topic.In dealing with the machtpolitik of the USA or the blood politics of the Insurgents it is better to suspend moral questions.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no place for morality and moral disputes over such issues.


In dealing with the machtpolitik of the USA or the blood politics of the Insurgents it is better to suspend moral questions.


At last! Thank you!! Something that this wishy-washy "on the hand... on the other hand" type can wholeheartedly disagree with!!!

Of course it's about morality. You actually admit it yourself. Phrases like 'machtpolitik' and 'blood politics' are absolutely dripping in an implied moral viewpoint...

... your outraged cynicism is moralism written in 18 FOOT HIGH LETTERS...

Morality, and its lack or inversion, is exactly what the whole thing is all about.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
See, I think you misunderstand if you think I don't see the necessity of killing Zarqawi. I do. This was a stain on the human race that needed to be killed before he killed more.

But my philosophy on killing is that which I teach my children: there are only two reasons to kill ANYTHING: for food and for self defense. This falls into the category of the latter. But just as I wouldn't celebrate the slaughter of a chicken, I won't celebrate the slaughter of zarqawi. We did what we had to do, and any joy we might feel over his death should be balanced with somber reflection over the fact that his death WAS necessary to save the lives of many.

I'll save my joy for someone who finds redemption, not for someone who finds destruction.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you'd be unhappy to eat a chicken dinner because a chicken had to die?


No, not unhappy at all. It's part of the whole life process.

Some things, some people, Gid, deserve to be hated. The chicken-Zarqawi comparison isn't valid because the chicken wasn't trying to kill YOU.


While I know you don't hold Christian beliefs, at the heart of Christian belief is the concept that we should love those whom we would normally be inclined to hate. Does zarqawi deserve to be hated? Certainly, and for a nonChristian, it is wholly appropriate to hate him. It doesn't fit in with my ethic.

The chicken comparison was made because I see the two as being similar on one level. Just as with slaughtering a chicken, we should be unhesitant and unrepentant about slaughtering vermin like Zarqawi. We should go about the process under the understanding that it's something that we have to do (part of process), nothing more, nothing less. We should kill these creatures with no more hesitation, and no more excitement than we would don a pair of trousers. But for me, at least, while I will breathe a sigh of relief everytime a bomb strikes the heart of one of these beasts, I would hardly call my mood "celebratory".
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we lost something when we stopped celebrating the death of a chicken for our supper. I differ greatly with your attitude, Gid, because it makes the necessities of life 'wrong', if not in action at least in vibe. It's a dour attitude to mourn the very processes that give us life.

That kind of self-loathing, to me, is what is undercutting us, and why we can't win against people like Zarqawi. When they kill us, they dance in the streets. When we kill them, we have to feel bad about it. Surely you can see the pavlovian dynamic that sets up. Eventually, we dread victory because it makes us feel bad.

They won't feel bad, and the children they raise to cheer our deaths will actively seek our deaths, while our children will grow up just as we have, avoiding victory as much as possible. It may be morally admirable, Gideon, but it most certainly isn't evolutionarily viable.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
while our children will grow up just as we have, avoiding victory as much as possible. It may be morally admirable, Gideon, but it most certainly isn't evolutionarily viable.


The attitude of avoiding victory as much as possible is a poor one to teach our children, I agree. Just as I would want to completely eradicate my home of roaches or of mice, we should want to completely eradicate the world of beasts like this (I won't call them animals; I think too highly of animals).

I don't see my point of view as particularly admirable, or even desirable. It is simply my point of view, and it is based on my personal philosophy regarding life. We certainly need people who will celebrate the death of these individuals, because it is the anticipation of such celebration that drives them to complete their task. In other words, I am not saying that celebration of the death of Zarqawi is wrong; simply that it is wrong for ME, based on who I feel God has called me to be.

But it is the very culture of death in which these Islamofascists live that foments vermin like Zarqawi. Because their children and their children's children will be taught to hate us and that dying in the course of killing us is the highest goal, we will live as long as their sick, twisted mentality lives. I want my philosophy to be as completely removed from the culture of death that has poisoned the minds of these twisted souls. And I don't think that celebrating the death of anyone, however heinous they may be, will help me in achieving that end.

I'm not saying that I am right or I am wrong on this one. I am just saying it is who I AM. Make sense?