Gob-Smackingly Vile: Terrorist Plant Credible Iraqi Source Says Zarqawi Beaten Before He Died

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

On the one hand, we have one of these media-savvy Iraqis coming forward with somewhat ludicrous allegations of troops beating a guy to death who might have provided great intelligence were he kept alive.

On the other hand, if it were true, it would be sweeeet.

Did I say sweet? I mean so gob-smackingly vile it fills me with "heart-ache."

On second thought, let's go back to "sweet."

The Therapist ups the ante in the ludicrous allegations department, with an appalling, disgusting report that Zarqawi was actually killed on the autopsy table.

As questions arise concerning the last few moments of Al Qeida leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, another anonymous source is claiming that American forces may have performed a preemptive autopsy on the slain terrorist, and removed his vital organs while he was still alive.

"Sure, the overall accusation seems absurd," said one executive inside CBS News. "But we have to vet everything, so that we can validate ourselves as the least trusted network in America."

This is your America, Mr. Bush. Oh, and fire Don Rumsfield, and allow gays to marry.

I've been thinking about the Baltimore Sun's charge of "inappropriate glee" at Zarqawi's death from the media. For one thing, of course, it's absurd. Apart from some American outlets that aren't afraid to say they're on America's side, the media has been working overtime to deflate the victory, not exult in it.

I don't watch the MSM anymore, but I'm remembering the ashen, shaken, funereal faces of Peter Jennings and Judy Woodruff and the rest reporting the sad news of the fall of Baghdad. Can't imagine they've suddenly all gone on happy pills.

But even if it's true-- would the Baltimore Sun castigate "inappropriate glee" in eliminating a form of cancer? Cervical cancer can now be effectively immunized against its major cause, HPV. Do we really need "balance" on the question of whether it's good to eliminate cancer from the world? Is there really a credible pro-cancer political movement?

There will be more people alive due to the eventual eradication of this particular scourge. That's a good thing, right? More people alive = good, right?

Same with Zarqawi. There will be more human beings not blown up, beheaded, maimed, and terrified due to the 500-lb. innoculation devices dropped upon this cancer. More people alive = good, right?

Or wrong?

The fact that he thought he had some divine mandate to murder hardly changes the utilitarian math. More people alive is good, whatever he may have believed. The media did not, if I remember correctly, attempt to provide "balance" and "context" upon the capture of the BTK killer. That guy had some bad wiring too, and he also took delight in murder and mayhem. But we don't "contextualize" the fact that his arrest results in more uninterrupted human life just because he had his own point of view and agenda in killing people.

So, with Zarqawi alive-- more people dead. With Zarqawi dead-- more people alive.

Sheesh, you don't even have to get into pesky, trogolodytic moral judgments about it. It's just a strict, amoral utilitarian caclulation, no "Christofascist" belief system required. Spock wouldn't have trouble making this call. Neither would HAL, for Pete's sake. Why does our supposedly logical media have difficulty with the uncontroversial proposition that fewer murders is a good thing?

posted by Ace at 01:42 PM

| Access Comments