As the Nuremberg Tribunal understood it, "To initiate a war of aggression is the supreme international crime."
Of course the Geneva Convention addresses aggression against non-combatants, "The parties to the conflict shall at all time distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations ONLY AGAINST MILITARY OBJECTIVES" Article 48, (1977 addition to Part IV Geneva Conventions).
So..., what about the incident where US forces bombed Saddam Hussein's favorite restaurant...
In fact, "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."
And to think that these are the same "masterminds" (read MONSTERMINDS?) that "negligently" left huge stockpiles of highly lethal weapons lying around, such that the Iraqi militants just walked right up and carried off whatever they wanted...
After a direct hit with two 500 pound bombs, it's difficult to believe it would even be possible to identify Zarqawi...
Now I wonder why Bush and Co. might need some good press at right around this point in time... What...??????????????

And even in this successful strike, the BBC news report I read indicated the deaths of five other people, including at least one woman and one child.

By what moral calculus are their deaths justified in order to kill a man whose death will not stop the conflict in Iraq?

It is interesting that not less than a week after a large cell in Toronto was busted they located him with an exact location and time. I think that in light of the atrocities that he commited he had become an embarressment to even his own people. Or at least if they are willing to admit it.

What about the thousands of innocent civilians ("non-combatants") murdered on 9-11-2001?

What about the innocents murdered on 9/11; really, is this an excuse to kill other innocent people?
We're in Iraq not because there was a valid reason (proven ties to terrorist orgs.) but because the gov. wanted to artificially drive up oil prices, ect.

What about all the US servicemen killed with the guns sold to Iraq by the US; exactly why did our Great Leaders leave the front gate open at that big munitions depot; they we're busy out celebrating the successful invasion?

Another Little Birdie whispered in my ear that Our Great Leaders were too busy opening the Bank of Iraq vaults, so the militants could steal billions, to have time to bother securing that munitions depot...

The answer to your (rhetorical)question is no.

Only time will tell if sarkawis death was help in the fight to make irak a safe place.
At least there has to be some difference no matter how small it is.

IMHO killing Zarqawi means little in the big picture because, for the most part, we are fighting patriots in Iraq, not terrorists. Patriots who are resisting not just US imperialism but US aggression that is cruel and inhumane to the weakest and most vulnerable part of the Iraqi population. One way or another our war crimes will come back to haunt us. Not only that, but occupations never work... never have, never will. Its a black hole for money to the defense department and associated independent contractors (PACs), whose interest its in to keep this thing going as long and as intensely as possible without raising too much of a stink at home. Doesn't matter how many soldiers die or come back disabled... they won't be taken care of anyway so what's the big deal. We just have to keep "supporting them". Its a big scam that is doomed to fail and, in the process of failure, bankrupt this government and alientate most of the rest of the world. All this without accomplishing anything worthwhile. What have we actually accomplished in Iraq? Well, we don't know all that much except we have built a whole bunch of big military bases. That's something I guess. A jumping off point to invade other countries? We wouldn't have to ask permission for fly-overs like we did in the first gulf war. No more embarrassing denials. Wasn't it Turkey who said we couldn't fly over their airspace on the way to bonbing Iraq in 1991? Ahh, the good old days.

I guess I've been cursed in some way, because I can't help myself from having empathy for innocent people who are merely "collateral damage."
It's such a compelling argument: whatever it takes to stop US soldiers from dying...
In the end, we're "saved" because only somekind of lower animal is even able to kill wantonly...

The lowest kind of animal are us human beings.