Apparently, a number of people now think more highly of Bush and his war because Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed. What an absurd conclusion: one guy's dead, so now everything's all better? Well: if it was that simple, why didn't they save all the trouble and effort of the war and just try to kill him in the first place?
Seriously: while I certainly don't countenance assassination, I truly do not understand the moral calculus that condones the terrors of war, with its inevitable killings of innocent civilians who play no role in whatever offense drives the war, but which prohibits the targeted killing of a leader who actually bears some responsibility for that offense. That makes no sense. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.
3 comments:
It really is a shame. A similar surge of Bush-likeability seemed to come when we captured Saddam. Which, as you know, solved everything. We kept him in a cage, took some pictures of him in his underpants, and shipped him home. God bless us, every one.
This is just one lucky break after years of continuous failure. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy to see Al-Quaeda falter. I'd be even happier to see it eradicated. But it's not happening, and will not happen, by any of the methods Bush is employing. We've killed more civilians than Al-Quaeda has ever had members.
I can only hope whoever gets elected next time around has the common sense to pull the hell out.
I only hope whoever's elected next time actually is installed in office...
Anyway, as an antidote to the all-too-typical bloodthirstiness, there's this.
Good for Michael Berg. You don't often see such a constructive and positive attitude from someone who has suffered like that.
Post a Comment