The world reactions are streaming in. Even Kofi Annan was relieved at Zarqawi’s death.
Many in the blogosphere are piling onto Nick Berg’s father for saying this:
“I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed and I feel badly for that.
“I feel doubly badly, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do not ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. It’s an endless cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence we will always have violence.”
You know, the sentiment behind the line “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies” is often referenced to this quote by John Donne:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main…. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in Mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
The above quote is used in the most extreme cases; some people insist that even Hitler’s death diminished mankind.
I think not.
It is a foolish statement. An evil man’s death diminishes nothing. His life is what diminished the human race: A life filled with evil and vile actions. Zarqawi diminished us all, not least of whom his victims.
I think the death of a man like Zarqawi improves the human condition. At the very least, it is a statement that we think people deserve better than to be beheaded and blown up by subhumans like Zarqawi and his ilk.
I know Jews aren’t supposed to rejoice in anyone’s death, not even a beast like Zarqawi. But I am glad he’s dead, and glad that seven of his lieutenants got taken out with him. His death diminishes nothing.
I prefer this quote instead:
Stan Bigley, brother of British hostage Ken Bigley, whom it is believed al-Zarqawi in September 2004
Bigley said he was glad al-Zarqawi “was off the face of the Earth, not just for Ken but for all the people he has killed,” according to the Press Association.“Ken was just one of a multitude of innocent people killed by that man. He was a monster. Personally, I would rather have seen him captured and made to stand in the dock and face justice for what he’s done.
“But I won’t lose any sleep over him being dead. I’m not worried that he’s gone.”
Same here.
I’m with you Meryl. Nick Berg’s father has gone soft in the head. Man was born with a psychotic streak and there is no cure for it but to remove the worst ones from society. If you can’t catch them and lock them up …. 500 pound bombs from 20,000 feet is an excellent alternative.
My only regret is that I don’t belong to a religion that believes in a hell, because I’d savor the thought of him burning there forever.
He may have left a family, but his death means many more families will not be bereft of members. From a cost benefit analysis, of nothing else, we’re much better of without him.
I am personally glad that poopy head is dead, though it conflicts with my basic Jewish values which state that all lives have some value [however small or inapparent].
However:
Nick Berg has earned the right to say whatever he wants on this topic.
I feel sorry for those so obsessed with everyone echoing their own sentiments that they would insult this man simply because he’s not chanting their mantra.
Mantra my butt! Berg is inhumane in his silly comments. Pacifism is an evil doctrine that allows bullys and monsters to prosper. Such a doctrine as Berg’s is anti-humanity. Plain and simple.
Saying it loudly and forcefully does not make it true. His comments are neither silly or inhumane. They differ from yours, pure and simple. That doesn’t make him silly, any more than your comments make you fatuous.
Of course, your comments don’t make you not fatuous, either…
“Poopy head,” you have got to be kidding, what adult would use that term for a psychotic killer? I am in amazement that some people cannot recognize evil for what it is and will rationalize and try to explain everything in terms of their appeasement viewpoint. Zarqawi would have gladly killed Berg and the rest of his family if he had the means. The only thing preventing that are some brave men and women who risk dying just to help the rest of us live our secure and comfortable lives.
“They differ from yours, pure and simple. That doesn’t make him silly, any more than your comments make you fatuous”…what are you asserting here? That no statements have any truth value, and that all statements are just matters of subjective personal opinion? Because that’s what it sounds like.
I think the doctor thought I wouldn’t allow him to say “shithead” in my comments. But I would.
Kindly keep it civil here, folks.
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!
Doc,
I think everyone here would agree that Nick Berg has earned the right to say whatever he wants on this topic. Unfortunately, Nick Berg is dead.
But how, pray tell, has Michael Berg “earned” the right to claim that George Bush is “more of a terrorist” than his son’s murderer? Well, by virtue of being an American citizen, he was born with the right to say that, I guess. But he hasn’t “earned” anything other than the contempt of all but the extreme left fringe of Americans.
By the way, Zarqawi’s family has expressed joy that he died fighting the infidels and has thereby won himself a place in paradise. That wasn’t exactly Mike Berg’s response upon hearing of his own son’s “martyrdom.”
I have no issue with people disagreeing with the opinions voiced by Mike Berg. I don’t particularly agree with them myself.
What I am objecting to is his being subjected to personal attacks for having opinions that someone disagrees with. He’s been called soft-headed, deserving of contempt, inhumane, and a subscriber to an “anti-humanity” philosophy.
I have always held that one of the things which differentiates adults from children is the ability to disagree without demonizing the person we disagree with. I admit that blogs are places for opinion; and my opinion is that personal insults regarding Mr. Berg as a response to an unpopular or disagreeable opinion is more an indictment of the person doing the insulting; I personally get more entertainment and educational value out of a rational explanation of why he’s so wrong than a discussion of his unpleasant personal characteristics.
And I could have called Zarquari “shithead”—I chose not to dignify him with and adult-quality insult.
Forgive me for being crude, but I hope that old Al Zarqawi finds a nice virgin with a raging case of syphillis. I’ll shed no tears over his death. It was overdue.
“But how, pray tell, has Michael Berg “earned†the right to claim that George Bush is “more of a terrorist†than his son’s murderer?”
Excellent point Lynn. Answer? ‘cuz his son died. Cindy Sheehan uses her son to further her political agenda just as Paul Wellstones’ son used his funeral to further his agenda and… the Jersey four uses their husbands’ deaths to further their agendas.
Woe unto anyone who criticizes them too harshly as Ann Coulter has learned (Thanks for enlightening me on that one Ann…).
“…I hope that old Al Zarqawi finds a nice virgin with a raging case of syphillis.”
LOL!!! good one Jack. I’ll assume that the virgin was sharing needles or something. :)
Kinda reminds me of ‘Extra Virgin’ Olive oil. How is it possible to be extra Virgin?
Ah, Lynn, this is one of those rare moments when everyone should be in agrement and harmony should reign.
Al-Zarqawi’s family is happy that he’s been killed and so am I. We may have different reasons, but we’re both glad it happened. Sowhat’s the problem? Furthermore, there are many others who yearn to die and as long as they don’t take innocents with them, I hope the US forces, the IDF, and anybody else who’s handy speeds them on their way.
“I personally get more entertainment and educational value out of a rational explanation of why he’s so wrong than a discussion of his unpleasant personal characteristics.”
Although the above quote pertains to Michael Berg, it indicates the typical intellectual attempt at explaining evil and the useful idiots that support it.
Just as Nick Berg’s father Michael, would like to hold “discussions” with his son’s killers to try to understand their motivation in butchering his son [I watched the
horrible video and became ill!, I do not recommend anyone else see it], the “doctor” seems to think that a debate with killers and their enablers would have “entertainment and educational value.”
Wise up folks, this is not a debating game, these killers will not stop until we [Jews first, then the other infidels] are either dead or converted to Islam, or, we stop them.
I work for a major defense contractor and am happy that I can contribute to the technology [USA and IDF]that helps find these killers, and also, provides the necessary justice.
“Nick Berg’s father, described as a Green Party pacifist, does not think this is that great of a victory because it is just more killing. This wimp is not even worthy of living in the land of Oz. Even the munchkins celebrated when the first wicked witch had a house dropped on her.â€
Via Tim Blair
Dear Herschel,
First of all, don’t put quotes around Doctor. I earned it fair and square.
Secondly, I did not refer to a debate with killers and enablers; I was referring to reading and participating in a blog having entertainment and educational value.
The major problem with blogs is that, as we see from the above, people will take things out of context, or misquote, or selectively misquote, in order to make some kind of point.
For the record, I do not find killers entertaining. I do not endorse dialogue with psychopaths. I do endorse rational disagreement without referring to people whose opinions you disagree with as “soft in the head” or “not worthy of living in the land of Oz.” Joel Titelbaum doesn’t believe the State of Israel should exist; I despise his opinion, even though he may be otherwise a fine person. Joel Titelbaum has his followers blow up the Knesset in order to end the State of Israel, he’s a psychopath who is undoubtably closer to his mother than is usually considered socially acceptable.
I suspect there will be readers who still can’t tell the difference between those two situations; no amount of discussion can enlighten everyone…
To The Doctor,
I did not mean to demean you, but in the blog world anyone can call themselves what they wish, I respect the effort it took to achieve your profession.
You seem to agree with my point that it is worthless to debate with killers, yet at the same time value as worthwhile, per your following quote “Nick [Michael] Berg has earned the right to say whatever he wants on this topic.”
Michael Berg can say whatever he wants to as an American citizen, however, I as an
American citizen also have the right to say he is a fool and useful idiot.
As far as name calling, how about your statement “he’s a psychopath who is undoubtably closer to his mother than is usually considered socially acceptable.” That seems very extreme to me.
I do not know what your political affiliation is, but I see the left wing constantly shouting down anything they perceive to be against their mantra, but get really pissed when someone on the right does the same to them.
Remember, McCarthyism will and does work on both sides.
Actually, based on the radio stations I sample, the screamers who label those who disagree “pinheads” or “useful idiots” all seem to hail from the right…
My point about titelbaum [and it’s a real situation, although some 20 years in the past] is that someone having an opinion I loathe is not necessarily a bad person; someone who acts on those opinions is clearly a bad person.
There’s never a problem having a reasoned, non “McGlaughlin Group” discussion or debate with someone you disagree with, like a colleague of mine who truly believes the South Will Rise Again. There’s no point in engaging in debate with a guy who Blows Up A Building to Make the South Rise Again.
The problem I have with many blogs is that many participants would rather shout insults at people they disagree with than take the time and trouble to debate. And I mean debate in the sense of “This is why I’m right and you’re wrong” not in the sense of “your opinion makes you a soft-headed lefty and you probably voted for Jimmy Carter.”
Again, I don’t think the difference is that hard to see.