So...in case you haven't noticed, we've killed Al-Zarqawi.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.