Al Zarqawi, and the Most Basic Philosophical Question

[speed]

Reports of Al Zarqawi--which were all quite exultant, including little Nero's quote he was happy the man was dead--also included buried deep into the articles most skimmed or didnt bother to pay any attention to, the report that a woman and child were also killed: "Maj Gen Caldwell said six people died in the raid, including a woman and a young person. Only two have so far been identified." No one bothered to mention or make an issue out of the fact that innocents were also killed (not one of plump balding schmucks in my office who whooped and hollered once they heard the news).

Thus I ask, is it justified to kill this terrorist, when killing him, meant killing a innocent child, and a innocent woman? I know since World War I, war has taken on a most savage ends-justify-the-means direction, but is this rationalization of the blood of innocents enough?

And finally, are we so desensitized by the death of innocent bystanders since WWII, Vietnam, the ISraeli-Palstinian ongoing conflict, and today's Iraqi war, that we just dont give a fuck anymore?

If so, this speaks to a moral relativism, that holds even innocent life has no value. Does anyone find this troublesome? And how troublesome is this from the religious perspective as followed by the terrorist; or even, of the nationalist perspective of our smirking Nero? Does such a valuation of human life, erode the religion or the state advocating or killing innocents in the means of some higher future principle?

 

[BloodSword]

Speed, excellent topic and questions. I will do my best to respond: I strongly believe that we as a "human" race have become de-sensitized to killing. Not only in the case of Zarqwaui, but as you know, turning on the local evening news IMO, confirms this; people dying over drugs, romantic triangles, home invasions, robberies etc.......... I see people look briefly at these news stories and say "how terrible" and continue to eat their dinner or whatever they are doing. I am tired of hearing the term "collateral damage." As I said before, it is language taking a softer stance in terms of description, as if to minimize the real situation, that being innocent blood being shed. I would love to put the boot to the throat of these language manipulators. Zarquarwi being killed is a feather in the cap of Bush and the U.S., there is one waiting to fill the hole. I know the Military is calling these innocent people "collateral damage" I say, Bullshit, and it is extremely troublesome. The lack of value for human life is a HUGE part of this whole world's erosion. These are dark and dangerous times, my friend.

 

[speed]

Thanks Ironbeard.

Your comments toggled my memory as well. I forgot to add, that the military knew Al Zarqawi was in this house with a family and others, and still bombed them, with full-knowledge that they would be killed too.

 

[G-Master]

No one bothered to mention or make an issue out of the fact that innocents were also killed (not one of plump balding schmucks in my office who whooped and hollered once they heard the news).

That's not entirely uncommon. I think it's quite clear that the multitude of Americans actually possess a disinterest in the many layers of details woven within the headlines. Interest is chiefly directed towards incidents they deem significant: soldiers capturing or killing a prominent, influential terrorist operator, the lack of support within and beyond our borders, or the death toll of the U.S. troops.

Thus I ask, is it justified to kill this terrorist, when killing him, meant killing a innocent child, and a innocent woman? I know since World War I, war has taken on a most savage ends-justify-the-means direction, but is this rationalization of the blood of innocents enough?

Savage tactics have been a factor since the inception of warfare itself. Is it justifiable? The answer depends upon the person you're asking, and their own individual perception of morality and justice. The blood of innocents is a heavy cost to pay, and should weigh heavily on any person's conscience should they analyze it as the travesty it actually is.

I'm happy to hear that Al Zarqawi met his fate. Though the cost of killing innocents simultaneously is hardly worth it--there will be plenty more Al Zarqawis to come in his stead. Therefore, the celebration is in vain.

If so, this speaks to a moral relativism, that holds even innocent life has no value. Does anyone find this troublesome? And how troublesome is this from the religious perspective as followed by the terrorist; or even, of the nationalist perspective of our smirking Nero? Does such a valuation of human life, erode the religion or the state advocating or killing innocents in the means of some higher future principle?

Moral relativism has become ubiquitous in recent years. It certainly poses, in all of its intricate structures, a threat to the themes of justice and honor that are nearing their demise due to today's questionable standards. The effects are irrevocable.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is outrageous that innocent people were killed without even so much as sincere regret being expressed about that by the US government. But then it is war and civilian deaths are considered unavoidable.

When you think about it there are all sorts of ways in which innocents are dying because of of government policy, be it in the west or anywhere else. So many people die in car crashes that it is like the death toll of the civilians in WWII. This would be avoided by stronger enforcements of speed limits and controls on who can be allowed to drive. (This would affect car sales and public spending - thus the economy). People are dying because of escalating crime, which again could be controlled, and deliberately isn't. Then there are the masses of aborted babies to consider. And there are the toxins in our food, air and water that cause cancer and other diseases. The government is controlled by corporations; wars themselves are really financially driven projects. Corporations like to "externalise" as much as they can. Which means that anything they can dump on the public and refuse to take responsibility for they will. So we have to pay through our taxes and at the cost of our lives to help them maximise their profits. Those innocents killed in that raid have to be put into the context of all this.

 

[Demilich]

My 2 cents: In WW2, it is said that a U.S. military leader (not sure which one) planned to ruin the Japanese war effort by "inducing permanent absenteeism in the workplace." The numbers, if I recall correctly, reflect something like 300,000 Japanese civilian casualties caused by American forces with little intent other than to punish/cripple the enemy.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I had always thought that if they were aiding him in any way, that they too are considered terrorists. If it really was his safehouse, and they allowed him to go there, then whoever decided that is responsible for the loss of lives because they could have refused him entry, or even left their house while he was there.

I am still sceptical about the identity of this man and if it really was who they say it was. Or even if he is actually dead. If he is as bad as they say he is, then he deserves it. But what if there are things we are not being told about this situation that could change our perspectives on this situation. They say he wanted Iraq to have civil war, but I will always have my doubts when hearing anything from the government and their actions.

 

[SoundMaster]

My 2 cents: In WW2, it is said that a U.S. military leader (not sure which one) planned to ruin the Japanese war effort by "inducing permanent absenteeism in the workplace." The numbers, if I recall correctly, reflect something like 300,000 Japanese civilian casualties caused by American forces with little intent other than to punish/cripple the enemy.

This is 100% accurate. Long before the use of the Abombs, the US was droppings tons of incendiaries on the wooden Japanese cities. And, of course, the Germans bombed London which lead to the allies demolishing German cities of Dresden, etc, etc. The wholesale murder of civilians was on a rampage during WWII. Again, this was before the American use of the Abombs which incinerated 150k women, children and elderly.

 

[Lord SteveO]

War is brutal...why should this situation be any different.

A terrorist is dead and inocents had to die. Yet why the outcry about inocent deaths in Iraq as a result of US actions, but yet there is no outcry at the 1000's dying in Sudan or Zimbabwe as a result or lack of action by the US and others.

It seems that a hell of a lot of the news these days make a big deal over Iraqi civilian deaths but yet is unwilling to cover the deaths of inocents in far of countries ruled by tyranical and crazed dictators.

We can't claim to be shocked or disgusted by the deaths of civilians in Iraq if none of us are willing to stand up for those dying in other countries as a result of causes other than war.

 

[Europa Ascendent]

1. I don't think this question is quite so basic as you think. It's a question that lies at the roots of ethical theory, but that's a pretty 'advanced' (in the sense of being far removed from the initial point of entry) field of philosophical inquiry.

2. Individual human life has no inherent value, so the death of 'innocents' must be evaluated in a larger context. What is the function?

Here, it's clearly a 'sucks for them situation,' but not anything to lose sleep over. Next time, maybe women and children will think twice before spending their evenings with a man who has a JDAM with his name on it.

 

[Keltoi]

Al-Zarqawi is responsible for hundreds and probably thousands of deaths around the world, with no regret over the death of women and children. In fact, Zarqawi intentionally targets women and children for death by car bombs and more advanced explosive devices. Does this mean it is justified to kill innocents to end his reign of terror? I can't answer that question. I do know that a cold blooded killer of women and children is dead. War is very complicated in this age, and the insurgents in Iraq commonly use innocent Iraqis as human shields to hide in the populace. All I can say is that if you live by the sword you die by the sword, and if you hide with women and children when the sword finds you...yeah, there is no simple answer.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Al-Zarqawi is responsible for hundreds and probably thousands of deaths around the world, with no regret over the death of women and children. In fact, Zarqawi intentionally targets women and children for death by car bombs and more advanced explosive devices. Does this mean it is justified to kill innocents to end his reign of terror? I can't answer that question. I do know that a cold blooded killer of women and children is dead. War is very complicated in this age, and the insurgents in Iraq commonly use innocent Iraqis as human shields to hide in the populace. All I can say is that if you live by the sword you die by the sword, and if you hide with women and children when the sword finds you...yeah, there is no simple answer.

first of all, who told/tells you this stuff, and secondly why do you think you believe it. Did you actually see him doing this stuff? You know someone personally that saw him doing this stuff? If you answer is the mainstream media, then unfortunatly, your are being manipulated by propaganda. The same kind of propaganda that has lead people to believe Osama was somehow responsible for 9/11 although his FBI warrent says nothing about the 9/11/01 attacks.

 

[DemonJames]

first of all, who told/tells you this stuff, and secondly why do you think you believe it. Did you actually see him doing this stuff? You know someone personally that saw him doing this stuff? If you answer is the mainstream media, then unfortunatly, your are being manipulated by propaganda. The same kind of propaganda that has lead people to believe Osama was somehow responsible for 9/11 although his FBI warrent says nothing about the 9/11/01 attacks.

You mean the same mainstream media that reported the information that the OP mentioned? We could easily turn around and ask: Did you see the bodies of the supposed victims? Do you believe it?

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

first of all, who told/tells you this stuff, and secondly why do you think you believe it. Did you actually see him doing this stuff? You know someone personally that saw him doing this stuff? If you answer is the mainstream media, then unfortunatly, your are being manipulated by propaganda. The same kind of propaganda that has lead people to believe Osama was somehow responsible for 9/11 although his FBI warrent says nothing about the 9/11/01 attacks.

Osama was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and I feel that is pretty obvious. Not all mainstream media is propaganda, but yes this situation is probably one they (the media) want to shift it around due to it being a terroist. They want to show this as a good thing and not a bad thing (probably the American government's doing). The media has the thinking of we're not lying, we're just shortening the story a little bit.

 

[Keltoi]

First of all, it wasn't only the United States who deemed Al-Zarqawi a global terrorist. The country of Jordan has(had) a death sentence on Zarqawi for the terrorist acts he committed in his home country. This belief that everything the U.S. government says is propoganda and lies is way too easy and requires no intellectual honesty at all. There are terrorists out there, and they ARE killing people by the tens of thousands, many in brutal and barbaric fashion. Denying this simple fact is either an exercise in liberal dogma, or a head stuck in the sand.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

First of all, it wasn't only the United States who deemed Al-Zarqawi a global terrorist. The country of Jordan has(had) a death sentence on Zarqawi for the terrorist acts he committed in his home country. This belief that everything the U.S. government says is propoganda and lies is way too easy and requires no intellectual honesty at all. There are terrorists out there, and they ARE killing people by the tens of thousands, many in brutal and barbaric fashion. Denying this simple fact is either an exercise in liberal dogma, or a head stuck in the sand.

A agree with this completely.

 

[speed]

1. I don't think this question is quite so basic as you think. It's a question that lies at the roots of ethical theory, but that's a pretty 'advanced' (in the sense of being far removed from the initial point of entry) field of philosophical inquiry.

2. Individual human life has no inherent value, so the death of 'innocents' must be evaluated in a larger context. What is the function?

Here, it's clearly a 'sucks for them situation,' but not anything to lose sleep over. Next time, maybe women and children will think twice before spending their evenings with a man who has a JDAM with his name on it.

Basic as in fundamental. Im not going to argue semantics here, but you apparently understand what I was inferring, just not the idea that this interpretation is one of the definitions of the word. Perhaps English is not your native tongue?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Al Zarqawi was in all probability a terrorist. It would be a miracle if there were no Muslim terrorists under the circumstances. The Muslim religion is bound to have violent militants in it. It has a completely different ethos in that way from the passivity of Christianity.

What the US and Zionism has done/is doing against Muslims is a provocation to many if not most of them. However there is a lot of subterfuge going on, such as the apparant deliberate facilitation of terrorist attacks by Muslims (organised by their above enemies). There are strong grounds for suspicion that Al Qada itself is set up by the intelligence services of America (and mossad) and that they are used to deliberately cause the climate of fear of terrorism so that serious infringements can be made curtailing civil liberty and to justify aggression towards Muslim countries. Everyone should know that Bin Laden worked with the CIA in the past (although that is only cause for suspicion and not proof that he still works for them.) That is a fact that has been widely publicised and never denied in the media.

 

[Silver Incubus]

First of all, it wasn't only the United States who deemed Al-Zarqawi a global terrorist. The country of Jordan has(had) a death sentence on Zarqawi for the terrorist acts he committed in his home country. This belief that everything the U.S. government says is propoganda and lies is way too easy and requires no intellectual honesty at all. There are terrorists out there, and they ARE killing people by the tens of thousands, many in brutal and barbaric fashion. Denying this simple fact is either an exercise in liberal dogma, or a head stuck in the sand.

But the real question isn't if there are terrorists. The question is who controls the terrorists, and why do they attack at certain times?
First of all, you misunderstand, and then generalize and cast me into a role, which neither has any truth, nor is acurate to what I have presented.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#w199i
here is a good resource for news papper acticles about this.
When there is enough evidence and motive(and I mean written motive), then there is history of these people, the connections between the Bush Family, and the Bin Laden family.
I can certianly believe that Zarqawi, was a terrorist head figure, only to be replaced by someone else.

The thing about the news is that once you see how words, images and body language is used to manipulate you, like a magic trick unvealed, it become useless as a form of manipulation.

I mean how can you really be sure there were even terroists in that plane to begin with, there is no proof of that. Those 'Bin Laden Tapes" could have been made anytime, anywhere, by whoever, and some of which are clearly not the same person seen in actual photos of bin laden.

How do the terrorist gain from the restictions of freedom imposed on us by a group of government who wish not to protect you?
If we can't keep secrets from the govenment, then why can they keep secrets from us.

 

[Keltoi]

Let me get this straight. The "neo cons"..ewww..scary post-modern name, and "Mossad"...Jews of course, banded together to create Al-Qaeda and global terrorism to attack Islam and expand their global agenda? Of course, why didn't I see that..lol. Then, the Bush family and the Bin Laden clan...yes, the Bin Laden "family" is actually a clan of around a thousand people, have some sort of criminal alliance to kill 3,000 Americans and cause many more deaths around the world for...what? Oil? Sorry to inform you of this but the Bin Laden fortune came from construction contracts, not oil. So all this bloodshed and criminal plots occurred to get more buildings contracts for the Bin Laden "family" and the Bush's get more business in Saudi Arabia? Again, of course, we should have all seen that one coming...