The life and death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a bloody one. His death several hours ago from a bombing attack by the Americans has been met with jubilation and triumphalism in the West.
These premature celebrations will be short-lived, for no-one expects the virtual civil war raging in Iraq is going to peter out just because of this much-needed victory by the forces of freedom, democracy, decency and any other adjectives you can think of to describe the bloody invasion, occupation and continuing killing of innocent Iraqis by the West.
“This vile man will not be able to murder anyone again”, the emperor said at the White House. Liar, his British plenipotentiary, was more downbeat, accepting as he should that al-Zarqawi’s death was nowt but a symbolic victory for the forces for peace, humanity, freedom and democracy.
The mainstream, “independent” media has, predictably, been in tow, spending airtime and dead trees to hail the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq as probably the turning point in the virtual civil war in Iraq. The subtext here is that the killing that we have seen in Iraq was the doing of this man alone, and that his removal from the scene means that all will go swimmingly henceforth. Hail the “allies” for bringing “peace” to a bloody situation of their own making! We shall see.
As you ponder that, also ponder my recent, most favourite quote from Marx: “The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilisation lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked.”
I will end this item with a simple question. What would happen to someone who innocently asks what would happen to someone who asks what would happen if they ask, “What would happen if someone called for a similar fate for that son-of-a-Bush and his B-Liar, who have killed far more people than al-Zarqawi?” Why on earth would one have the need to ask such a question? Well, they are still with us, aren’t they?