Mourning al-Zarqawi
Posted by Richard on June 9, 2006
I can’t even begin to understand the wretched and debased moral sense of the late Nicholas Berg’s father, Michael (who has been an anti-war activist for 40 years, and is currently the Green Party candidate for Congress in Delaware). According to ABC News:
Michael Berg, whose son Nick the CIA believes was beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2004, told ABC News’ Aaron Katersky on Thursday that he abhors that the U.S. military has killed al-Zarqawi.
"I will not take joy in the death of a fellow human, even the human being who killed my son," said Berg, who blamed President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — and not al-Zarqawi — for the death of his son because of what Berg said is their role in authorizing the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
…Berg, who said he begged the United States government not to kill al-Zarqawi so that Berg could reconcile with him, worries that only more death will come out of his killing.
In the AP story at Fox News, Berg described what he believes should have been done with al-Zarqawi — and why:
Berg said "restorative justice," — such as being forced to work in a hospital where maimed children are treated — could have made Zarqawi "a decent human being."
Simply breathtaking…
Mr. Berg, if any of those maimed children, or their nurses or doctors, were "Jewish pigs" — or any kind of infidel, including Shiite — al-Zarqawi would gleefully saw off their heads with the same combination of enthusiasm and lack of skill that he exhibited in the barbaric murders of Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong. Your insane fantasy of "restorative justice" making him into a "decent human being" would simply enable him to keep killing — and recruiting and directing others to kill. In other words, Mr. Berg, more death comes out of letting people like al-Zarqawi live.
A lot of people view folks like Berg as idealists — misguided and unrealistic, but well-intentioned and somehow noble or admirable. That’s a load of crap. Check out the campaign website and articles linked above, or this interview in which he compares Bush unfavorably to Saddam Hussein — compare how Berg speaks of al-Zarqawi and the terrorists ("what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance") with how he speaks of Bush and Rumsfeld. Does Berg sound like he’s prepared to "reconcile" with Bush and Rumsfeld and forgive them their "sins"? Do you think Berg believes a little community service will make W. into a "decent human being"?
Michael Berg is forgiving, tolerant, and non-judgmental toward some of the most brutal and barbaric people on the planet, but he loathes those of us who argue that the values of the U.S. and Western Civilization are superior to the values of Islamofascism. I think it’s disgusting and contemptible.
There are plenty more like him on the moonbat left. On-line, you’ll find them at places like DailyKos and Democratic Underground (sorry, I can’t be bothered to provide links). They greeted the death of al-Zarqawi with the same mix of disappointment, anger, paranoid skepticism, and resentment that they displayed when Saddam was captured.
Berg and his allies exhibit a venomous hatred for Bush, Blair, capitalism — everything Western, really — but they display a studied "neutrality" toward those who want to destroy us. Sorry, that’s not pacifism or neutrality — that’s being on the other side.
D. Ox said
Very good treatment of the Berg phenom. Feel free to trackback anytime you want at The Dumb Ox.
All the best,
D. Ox
Anonymous said
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.'”” – — George Orwell